As SA scrambles to avoid greylisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), nongovernmental organisations and various political parties have voiced concern about aspects of proposed legislation to combat terrorism, saying they are too broad and could criminalise government critics.
Parliament’s select committee on security and justice is holding public hearings on the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill.
Objectives include expanding the definition of terrorism, criminalising publication of terrorism-related content and introducing stiffer penalties for transgressors.
Together with the General Laws (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorism Financing) Amendment Bill, the government says the measures are a crucial step for SA to avoid greylisting by the FATF, an international body that establishes standards for the combating of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Greylisting, which essentially means the country is seen as a high-risk jurisdiction in which to transact, will have dire consequences for the economy and in particular the financial sector.
In a joint submission on Wednesday, a group of nongovernmental organisations and parties said the bill is flawed in its present state as it could prohibit legitimate government criticism and protest.
The groups included Dear SA, which seeks to promote and encourage transparent governance; Cape Independence Party, best known for its widely criticised push for separating the Western Cape from the rest of SA; and the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance, a grouping of civic community and environment-orientated organisations.
They called on the government to rework the bill, saying that in its present form it could be a threat to democracy. But that could delay its finalisation and scupper SA’s drive to avoid greylisting.
The organisations also said that the proposed amendment states that terrorism is “any act ... which is calculated to overthrow the government”.
“And such terms as ‘overthrow’ are left open to interpretation without any context of self-determination. This could result in the most basic democratic process of a political party in favour of self-determination electorally defeating/‘overthrowing’ the national ruling party being interpreted as an act of terrorism,” the organisations said.
Committee deliberations are set to continue in coming days.
Earlier this year, police minister Bheki Cele introduced proposed legislative amendments to bring SA’s existing counterterrorism law in line with international best practice.
According to FOR SA, a nonprofit, legal advocacy organisation dedicated to upholding the right to religious freedom, vague phrases in the bill are open to abuse.
“For example, it is problematic that no specified criteria for either a ‘serious public emergency’ or a ‘general insurrection’ are listed. Neither are these instances defined.
“This possibility for abuse is concerning, given that civil society organisations have recently been labelled by government as ‘instigating terrorism’ and/or ‘sabotage’. An unintended consequence of the bill could therefore be to criminalise the voices of those opposing government actions and/or curb civil society’s dialogue and actions in what is a participatory democracy.”
While noting some issues of concern about the bill, the civilian secretariat for police which serves as a technical adviser to the police minister, said there is no intention to criminalise those opposing government processes.
“The department concurs that freedom of religion, expression and association are rights that are protected in terms of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, but are not without limitation in terms of section 36 of the constitution.
“Any limitation of these rights must be justified and comply with all the requirements in section 36,” it said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.