Cape Town - Advocacy website Dear SA fears the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill, up for public comment, could criminalise critics of the government’s policies or legislation.
Dear SA chairperson Rob Hutchinson said: “This proposed bill could put an end to petitions and public participation.”
He said the amendment bill, as proposed, sets a broad definition of terrorist activity and there is no single internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism. Hutchinson said the broad definition was problematic as it would enable the state to criminalise any citizen who supports one side of a controversial topic.
He said the bill would also target those who criticise or challenge the government’s policies or legislation, as encouraging or indirectly facilitating terrorism.
He urged citizens to make their contributions heard before the public participation process ends on October 18.
“The proposed bill places all outspoken non-profits, churches and citizens at risk of being classified as terrorist.”
When the bill was introduced to Parliament, Police Minister Bheki Cele said it aimed to update the existing act to give effect to certain Constitutional Court judgments and to address challenges experienced with conducting investigations and prosecutions.
Cele said particular provisions had been inserted to cater for foreign terrorist fighters and to address the sentencing of the financing of terrorism.
“It is proposed to delete the motive requirement from the definition of terrorist activity in the act,” Cele said.
Parliament’s portfolio committee on police, chairperson Tina Joemat-Pettersson (ANC), said the bill was intended to align the principal law with international legal requirements and also ensure that South Africa was able to act decisively against terrorist attacks and support of terrorist activities.
In September the committee held public hearings at which it heard from groups such as AfriForum, Sussex Terrorism and Extremism Research Network (Stern), and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
AfriForum said that while it welcomed the state’s commitment to incorporating international norms into domestic law, it feared that the bill was overreaching and a threat to the rule of law and constitutional guarantees.
They were also critical of the lack of funding and skills to implement the current legislation, which AfriForum believed would not be addressed by introducing more legislation.
The Red Cross said they were concerned by the absence of a clause within the bill to exempt from criminalisation exclusively humanitarian action carried out by humanitarian and impartial organisations.
The Red Cross said it believed the wording of the bill as it stands might unintentionally criminalise the provision of humanitarian assistance.
Stern said it was important to remember that the law was intended to defend democracy. They said there was a need to ensure preservation of freedom of expression, association and legitimate opposition.