Business Day
*Media gag ‘a fool’s errand’— Jordan* *Chantelle Benjamin, Business Day, Johannesburg, 23 November 2010*AFRICAN National Congress (ANC) veteran Pallo Jordan has sharply criticised the party’s plans for a media tribunal and the Protection of Information Bill, saying attempts to muzzle the modern media were a "fool’s errand".
He warned that the party was backing itself into a "lose-lose situation", with the ANC at risk of losing its credibility as a campaigner for media freedom, and the bill possibly failing a mooted constitutional challenge.
Mr Jordan’s remarks are likely to give the ruling party cause for thought, given his seniority in its ranks and his status as one of its leading intellectuals.
He was speaking at a panel discussion at the weekend hosted by the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (Nadel).
In a forthright statement, Mr Jordan, who was originally down to speak on the panel in favour of the bill and tribunal, said those who had come to hear him taking that position might be confused by his remarks. Mr Jordan, who has criticised the print media for its alleged lack of accountability, asked how "the ANC had managed to paint itself into a corner".
"How did it (the ANC) paint itself into a corner where it can be portrayed as being opposed to media freedom? All the legislation we now have, including the Protection of Access to Information Act, was developed by the ANC.
"Given all these measures, how does one square that with an attempt to control, or pressure, media into a corner? I say it’s a fool’s errand, it cannot be done, given the commercial, technical environment that presently exists in media.
"Think about WikiLeaks and documents on the Nato coalition’s activities in Afghanistan or Iraq.
"Given the policies we (the ANC) have in place and the laws we have in place, if the movement pursues this path it can only result in a lose-lose situation.
"Those who want to rubbish us will have every right to do so," he told the gathering.
At the ANC’s national general council (NGC) in Durban in September, it was agreed that a team of academics and lawyers would make submissions to Parliament on its behalf about creating a statutory media appeals tribunal.
The NGC’s commission on media diversity and communications chaired by Mr Jordan oversaw the removal of some of the more repressive measures put forward by the provinces, such as annual registration of journalists. But it agreed that the existing self-regulatory system of the press ombudsman and Press Council was ineffective and needed to be strengthened to balance the rights of the media and those of citizens.
Mr Jordan, who was broadcasting minister after the 1994 elections, challenged Nadel members to engage the government to help it "to achieve its objectives but without contravening the constitution".
He criticised constitutional lawyers, saying they should have stepped into the breach when the media tribunal and information bill were first put on the table, not to be critical but to ensure the legislation was a co-operative work.
State law adviser Enver Daniels, also on the panel, defended the Protection of Information Bill, saying the intention was to make information more accessible by classifying less information — this bill has only three levels of classification instead of the four that the previous act has.
He said it was also intended to replace the Protection of Information Act, which retained features of the apartheid era. Mr Daniels said the public had recourse to the Protection of Access to Information Act to gain access to information.
Mohamed Junaid Husain, of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, said the proposed bill was more restrictive than legislation in the US, UK or France.
He said the bill makes provision for documents to be classified for 20 years and then possibly classified again for another 20 years.
"That is the longest jurisdiction I have ever heard of."Three generations of South Africans may not know what is in those documents."
He did not dispute the government’s right to classify documents, but said the bill should contain a public interest clause to balance the power given to officials.
There ought to be an adjudication body to decide on whether a document should be declassified.
"At the end of the day, the decision may lie with the official who classified the document in the first place, which is unacceptable. The bill makes an (official) a judge in his own cause," Mr Husain said.
*From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=127504* ** ** -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
<<image/gif>>
