Why is the Protection of Information Bill being rushed through Parliament?
The Afrikaans writer, N P Van Wyk Louw, aptly describes the importance of freedom of expression to a democracy when he equates it with the lifeblood of the body politic. He writes that without the free flow of information and ideas, citizens would not be able to participate in public life. Similarly, our Courts have on numerous occasions emphasised that the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to receive and impart information, lies at the core of our democracy.
This is so because the exercise of the right facilitates the search for truth, which in turn enables accountability and responsiveness of both the government and civil society. When freedom of expression and the right to access to information are undermined, the foundational values of an open, transparent and accountable democracy are thus compromised.
Labeled as the most draconian attack on freedom of expression and the right to have access to information since the dawn of our new democracy, it is not surprising that there has been such overwhelming opposition to the Protection of Information Bill (the Bill). What is surprising however, is the apparent haste with which the Bill is being rushed through Parliament. Despite this apparent new-found urgency, there are encouraging indications that some of the objections have been seriously considered by the Ad Hoc Committee charged with considering the Bill. The lurking question is, however, whether the Government will make sufficient concessions to render the Bill constitutionally compliant.
When the Bill was originally introduced in 2008, it attracted equally widespread opposition. It too was deemed to be unconstitutional in that it offended the right to freedom of expression and accordingly undermined the foundational values of openness, accountability and transparency.
Despite the strong and uniform objections, and despite the findings of the ministerial review commission established by the Minister that the Bill did not pass constitutional muster, no account was taken of any of the recommendations. Instead, the version of the Bill that was introduced this year was even more restrictive , resulting in even greater mass-based, widespread criticism from civil society, religious leaders, foreign embassies, foreign opposition parties, trade unions, academics, business and even former government Ministers.