Durban - Should the government succeed in enacting the new bill on terrorism, advocacy groups fear that many would in future find themselves behind bars for opposing laws and government policies.
The draft Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill, which has come under criticism for attempting to infringe on fundamental rights, was available for comment, and the public has until October 18, to have its say.
According to the SAPS, the draft bill seeks to update the existing Act in accordance with developing international law, to give effect to certain Constitutional Court judgments, to address challenges related to investigations and prosecutions, as well as to amend certain definitions.
However, Rob Hutchinson, managing director at the participation website Dear South Africa, believes that the bill is in conflict with several clauses in the constitution, mainly around freedom of expression and freedom of association.
“It has very loose definitions around who a terrorist is or what terrorist activity is. So, if you are outspoken about something that the State has introduced, or its legislation or a comment that the president has made, contradicting them, then they could see you as a terrorist trying to undermine democracy,” he said.
“I can say this with confidence, because me and our organisation were labelled as terrorists for simply delivering 310 000 comments related to the Health Act,” he added.
Hutchinson said that had the amendment to the Act already been in place, the government would have most likely thrown him and his organisation in jail.
“It’s not only us who are at risk, but every single person who has signed a petition, it puts them at risk,” he said.
Hutchinson made an urgent call for all to have their say before the deadline, highlighting that the government was obliged to acknowledge and consider every comment.
“Under Constitutional law, public participation in law-making is encouraged. All individuals, all organisations should be having their say on this.
“We already have an effective Act. An amendment is an unnecessary move which could be used to silence the political opposition or the public. The best way for the government to curb opposition is with a Bill like this,” he said.
Ernst van Zyl, AfriForum’s campaign officer for strategy and content, said many of the Bill’s provisions, which intended to grant greater powers to the police, infringe unfairly on many fundamental rights.
The civil rights organisation met with the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police on Friday to table their opposition to the amendment which it believed enabled police overreach.
“AfriForum presented examples which demonstrate that the real problem is not insufficient legislation, but effective implementation of the existing legislation. History is fraught with examples of legislation being abused to arrest and jail critics of governments under the guise of countering terrorism.
“The government lockdowns of the Covid-19 pandemic proved that granting more power and control to the police and the government would be unwise. The existing legal framework is sufficient. The problem is implementation and execution by state organs in the face of widespread lack of sufficient resources, corruption, mismanagement and cadre deployment,” he said.
SUNDAY TRIBUNE