Journalists call for anti-terror bill to be scrapped

There is mounting opposition to an anti-terrorism bill put forward by the South African government, with several organisations claiming it is unconstitutional and a threat to press freedom.

Raymond Louw, editor and publisher of the Southern Africa Report, told IRIN on Thursday that if enacted, the bill would "have a chilling effect on all journalists and editors and make it very difficult for journalists to carry out their functions professionally and adequately".

This week, the South African chapter of the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA-SA) added its voice to calls by the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), for the immediate withdrawal of the draft Anti-terrorism Bill.

MISA-SA labelled the bill a "danger to democratic media" and said it was concerned that the intended law would "detrimentally affect working South African journalists".

"[Firstly], it's unconstitutional; secondly, the definition of terrorism is extraordinarily broad. Anything you do in terms of demonstrations can be construed as an act of terrorism, and reporting on such an act could be construed as an act of terrorism according to the bill, because a reporter could be construed as aiding and abetting 'a terrorist organisation'," Louw added.

He said one of the major objections to the bill concerned "the so-called investigative hearings, which are far-reaching in the powers they give the authorities to bring people before a hearing - journalists as well as ordinary citizens - [and compel them] to tell what they know about any 'terrorist organisation'. [Giving them the choice to either] comply or go to jail for two or more years".

Louw compared the bill to the apartheid security services' favoured weapon when dealing with journalists, the "Section 205" legislation.

"It was used extensively by the apartheid regime against journalists [to compel them to reveal sources or go to jail], but this [anti-terrorism bill] is worse. It is much more far-reaching, [and] there are fewer protections for journalists than under Section 205," he said.

Louw explained that while Section 205 had not been repealed, "the way around it is to [show] just excuse for not going before a magistrate or a panel", unlike the proposed bill.

MISA-SA said the bill "will erode the confidential relationship between journalists and their sources, upon which the credibility of the media and security of journalists is maintained, by imposing a duty to supply information of 'terrorist' acts or 'terrorist' organisations, therefore eroding the media's ability to fairly, safely and impartially provide coverage of political conflict in the public interest, in accordance with its constitutional responsibility".

This would turn the media into the equivalent of "apartheid-era snoops and 'impimpi' [police informants] and make it impossible for them to do their job".

Louw, who is also an executive committee member of the FXI, a member of SANEF and a member of the general council of MISA, said the organisations had all made representations to parliament regarding the bill.

They were now calling for its withdrawal.

While MISA-SA acknowledged South Africa's need to create or amend laws to give effect to the United Nations' Anti-Bombing Convention, and recent resolutions of the African Union and Non-Aligned Movement relating to combating domestic and international terrorism and maintaining public order, the organisation said the combating of terrorism could be more suitably effected by scrapping the bill and altering aspects of existing South African legislation.