Press statement

24 March 2003

Forum of Non-Governmental Organisations opposes the Anti-Terrorism Bill

The FXI has convened a Forum of Non-Governmental Organisations which has resolved to oppose the Anti-Terrorism Bill, tabled in Parliament for debate on 10 March. The Bill was then referred to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security on the 14 March for public hearings and deliberations. Public invitations for submissions on the Bill have been issued and the deadline for submissions is the 30 April.

Among the reasons cited for the introduction of this Bill is that it will bring South African law into line with many other countries that have passed similar legislation since the terrorist attacks in America on September 11 2001.

It is important to note that since year 2000, government has been attempting to introduce legislation that would cater specifically for the crime of terrorism in South Africa. The first attempts to do so failed as the draft Bill met with stiff opposition from many quarters particularly due to the draconian powers given to law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism. The draft Bill also violated a wide-range of fundamental rights and freedoms by introducing measures for detention without trial, reversal of onus of proof upon an accused person and stringent bail conditions.

Last September the Department of Safety and Security introduced a Draft Anti-Terrorism Bill for comment and debate. There was little publicity around this Bill, which the government took the rather innocuous step of posting on its website. Since then, and well until the tabling of the Bill in Parliament on 10 March 2003, there has been little effort to publicise its presence.

The Freedom of expression Institute in concert with a range of other human rights organisations opposes the introduction of this legislation in South Africa. Firstly, the Bill itself is fundamentally flawed and the logic behind its motivation curious. Furthermore, the process followed in drafting this legislation is highly questionable as no discussion document was published neither was there proper consultation done by the South African Law Commission with the various stakeholders.

Secondly, because terrorism is an offence that attracts some of the severest penalties known in law, it would have been thought that the Bill would at least attempt to provide a simple, clear and unambiguous definition of the term 'terrorism'. Unfortunately this has not been done and on the contrary the Bill presents a vague and incomprehensible definition of what it means by 'terrorist act', which it defines as "… an unlawful act … that is likely to intimidate the public or a segment of the public".

Such a wide and vague definition could be used to proscribe a whole range of civil and political activities such as demands for land, demonstrations, pickets or a civil disobedience campaign. It should be noted that this is the third attempt on the part of legal drafters to arrive at a definition of terrorist act; the flawed nature of their latest attempt points to the fact that reaching a satisfactory definition is all but impossible. It should further be noted that it is extremely dangerous to criminalise actions that cannot even be properly defined.

The Bill proposes extremely harsh bail conditions and moves out of the ambit of normal criminal justice inquiry by empowering police offices to secure orders to question individuals through what it calls 'investigative hearings'. Added to this is the fact that the Minister of Safety and Security will have powers to 'black list' organisations, which he suspects, of committing terrorist acts either insider or outside the Republic sometimes without compelling evidence to inform his/her decision.

Put simply, this Bill poses the same degree of threat to human rights and fundamental freedoms in South Africa as did its draft predecessor in 2000. It threatens the existing framework of basic rights and civil liberties, which has been hailed as one of the most substantive in the world. As noted in a media statement issued by the Forum in February, the situation in the country does not warrant the enactment of this law and the need for the Bill has not been sufficiently demonstrated. This is more so especially given that there are enough laws to deal with the kind of criminal activities that the Bill seeks to punish. The fact also that the Minister of Safety and Security stated that law enforcement agencies had managed to 'break the back' of the right-wing threats, and apprehend successfully those responsible for the bombings in November 2002 is proof that there are enough laws to deal with terrorism in the country.

Essentially, this Bill is not in the interests of South Africa as it is being forced on weaker states by powerful nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom in their prosecution of the so called 'war against terror'. The grand design of the US and the UK to extend their influence and hegemony throughout the world has become patently clear with their current illegal war against Iraq.

The Forum calls for the withdrawal of this Bill and for the state instead, to put more resources towards the detection and prosecution of crimes and activities covered by the Bill, but using the approximately twenty-two existing pieces of legislation. Over-legislation cannot and will not provide the solution to tackling crime and its courses. Only a properly implemented crime prevention mechanism, as encapsulated in the National Crime Prevention Strategy will do.

[Ends]

For further information please contact Simon Kimani Ndung'u (083 733 2675), or Jane Duncan (082 786 3600).

Issued by the Freedom of Expression Institute on behalf of the NGO Forum Against the Anti-Terrorism Bill, which includes: -

Media Review Network

Africa Muslims Agency

Media Workers' Association of South Africa

Southern Africa Journalists' Association

Human Rights Media Institute

Anti-Privatisation Forum