Top secret: Arms deals to Tampax boxes

Cecil Burgess, chairperson of the parliamentary ad hoc committee on the Protection of Information Bill, was quoted in Business Day as saying that the committee had proceeded cautiously and carefully and obtained legal advice at every step of the way and amendments made where necessary.

ANC MP Luwellyn Landers supported Mr Burgess, who said that for the committee to express doubts about the constitutionality of the Bill at this stage would impose an unnecessary “burden” on the establishment.

I’ve set out their views on top so as to ensure that when this aberration becomes law they get the full credit they deserve for the part that they have played in turning this constitutional democracy into a police state.

The Bill is not well-balanced, does not provide for an increase in protecting South Africa’s national security but rather ensures that those who wish to be protected from prosecution are now safely behind a legal wall.

If regard is had to the latest draft which has now been adopted by the committee I would humbly suggest to those who have drafted it that a case could be made out for classifying a packet of Smarties, a Tampax box and a Liqui Fruit carton as top secret.

I dare the two gentlemen to tell me how that can be stopped in terms of the Bill.

In order to assist them I have just reread Section 21 — with its vague and meaningless terms — along with the definitions, which are even more void for vagueness, and concluded that a defence attorney in trying to test this Bill with its draconian penalties for reporting crime would be best served in downloading the Bill in its entirety and copying it twice.

That makes it twin-ply and from past experience this Bill has shown itself to be thoroughly absorbent.

Of course if it is possible to classify a Tampax box as top secret how much easier will it be to classify :

THE ARMS DEAL DOCUMENTS (about arms — really about theft).
THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS (about police — really about corruption).
TENDERS (about important commercial contracts — really about more corruption).

Perhaps the two gentlemen can tell the media how they are supposed to expose these crimes when the evidence will be swamped with documents that have more “top secret” stamps than paper.

Of course Mr Burgess also said that the committee had undertaken extensive research on the public interest defence clause. The UK had removed it from its legislation and the Canadian model did not include it in the form proposed by opposition parties.

And therefore?

Accordingly perhaps they can explain to South Africans how they can protect themselves against corruption when so far nobody has budged on the arms deal, police headquarters and many other wonderful great mass robberies even with intense media pressure.

This “constitutional” Bill just happens to be the most potent defence to a charge of theft in the history of crime in South Africa.

In order to prove the arms deal, which (unstamped) documents are the prosecutors going to use?

Corrupt thugs posing as politicians and state officials steal the money meant for service delivery and people protest — so they go to jail.

A party brings proof of theft but oops it’s got top secret written on it — the party goes to jail.

Media report it, they go to jail courtesy of chairperson Burgess and his ad hoc committee, which doesn’t see the need for a public interest defence.

Only people who don’t go to jail are the thieves.

In the interests of national security.

How do people avoid corruption, go live in Australia or Britain?

What if they are from Tembisa and can’t afford the move?

Interestingly the party entrusted with guiding the government on this Bill and who will be in charge after it becomes law is the intelligence minister.

This explains why we have a Bill that turns South Africa into a police state to meet threats which nobody is able to outline for us. Yes there are, again, vague and sweeping references to these dangers in the Bill but they are in the abstract because presently they don’t exist in the main.

Yet if regard is had to the fact that the minister’s wife has been convicted of crimes relating to drug trafficking — and it would be unkind to suggest that the minister knew anything about it — we are left to believe that the man to whom the government is turning for advice on why South Africa is better off as a police state than a democracy can’t even control the threat to national security going on in his own home.

In case the two gentlemen are interested, I stripped this Bill down previously.

The “concessions” which have been made don’t make an iota of difference and aren’t worth of a rewrite.

If this passes constitutional muster because it has the wording set out in the Bill of Rights — then totally ignores it while introducing legislation from the Middle Ages — it means that either the Constitutional Court judges can’t read or rubber stamping has arrived at the ConCourt.

The draft will facilitate dishonest ministers and department heads being able to classify their corruption and ineptitude into oblivion in the name of national security.

A reading of the Bill gives the impression that South Africa is under threat from foreign powers or their agents when in reality the only danger our citizens face is how much money will be left to run the country after those, who will be getting the stamps get their hands on them.