Has Enver Daniels met Jeff Radebe lately?

Paul Hoffman from the Institute for Accountability wonders whether government talks to government when it sets about messing with the free flow of information. It is hard to believe that the Minister of Justice, Jeff Radebe, and the Chief State Law Advisor, Enver Daniels, are part of the same administration working together toward the realization of the founding values of the country.

Ensuring “accountability, openness and responsiveness”, as section 1(d) of the Constitution puts it, is at the core of their mission.

The Minister, addressing the SANEF meeting last weekend, put it well when he said: “As government we will not treat you the same way as the apartheid regime treated Nat Nakasa?we will not enact laws detrimental to your cause, including the current legislation being debated?I will ensure that any law that comes into being must be in conformity with our Constitution.” Quite so.

Now contrast the contribution by Daniels this week to the debate on the contentious Protection of Information Bill in which he, unusually so, personally participated. He dismissed critics of the bill as “emotional and hysterical” before delivering himself of this gem: “While they [the critics] raise valid points, we don’t agree with them.” He disagrees with “valid points” at his peril if, as seems likely, the disputed provisions of the bill are held up for constitutional scrutiny in Court.

Among the valid points raised are those complaining that the bill does nothing to ensure that which the state is bound to ensure, namely, compliance with the principles of accountability, openness and responsiveness. Widely framed definitions, especially that of “the national interest” (which can cover a multitude of sins and has no place in the bill), and the discretion given to officials to be judges in their own classificatory cause ought to be giving cause for pause, not an unseemly rush to finalize the bill by September, meanwhile rubbishing carefully considered submissions made to parliament by highly qualified and very learned critics.

In an open democracy protection of information can not be allowed to trump access to information, the latter being guaranteed to all in the Bill of Rights. Reasonable and justifiable limitations on access to state information in the interests of national security and in accordance with the constitutional governing principles set out in section 198 ought to be kept to a minimum in the quest for transparency.

Daniels ought to know that the entire public administration is constitutionally enjoined to foster transparency by “providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information” [section 195]. He is hardly encouraging the public to participate in policy making (another principle governing him) by attacking the critics of the bill rather than dealing properly with the “valid points” he concedes they make. He does his high office and the Minister a disservice by playing the man instead of the ball/bill.

Paul Hoffman SC

Director, Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa