We can choose to stay silent but where has that ever got anyone?! Our goal must remain: “to seek, find and use the facts to free our people from repressions and oppressions! Hajia Sani

By Nizar Manek

South Africa’s ruling party State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele on 16 November claimed “foreign spies” have been paying civil society groups to oppose the African National Congress’ (ANC) new Protection of State Information Bill.

“You won’t find foreign spies openly marching in the streets of Cape Town, complaining that we are removing their easy access to our sensitive information, but they will fund their local proxies to defend their illegality”, Cwele said in a parliamentary debate, as the Democratic Alliance (DA) opposition stepped up its efforts at filibuster.

That was the opening gambit – soon to coincide with Black Tuesday‘s 229 ANC majority vote in favour of the controversial bill, which its civil society detractors have labelled the ‘secrecy bill’. The bill, which provides a criminal prohibition on the press from publishing classified documents a judge might otherwise deem in the public interest together with prison sentences for whistleblowers, now moves to the National Council of Provinces – the second chamber of parliament – for concurrence. President Jacob Zuma, who would thereafter sign the bill into law, also seems to be ‘cleaning out’ security officers suspected of opposing his second term, according to a report published by Africa Confidential: ‘Some say Zuma is getting ready to deploy the security services against his opponents’.

Neither process after the National Assembly vote is expected to result in any changes to the bill, which casts a dark shadow over the boundaries of the free flow of information. Expected to become law early next year, it could be used to obstruct evidence being presented to an approaching Commission of Inquiry into a late 1990s arms deal corruption case in which Zuma is implicated. Any ‘organ of state’ could classify any document, with the state having wide discretion to punish offences by imprisonment ‘for a period not less than 15 years but not exceeding 25 years’.

Zuma stood by Cwele after calls for his resignation after the conviction of his wife for drug trafficking this May, and appointed Mark Hully, a specialist in criminal law, his personal legal advisor this month, amid DA calls that the Law Society investigate Hully for unprofessional conduct. Zuma’s allies in the police’s Crime Intelligence Services allegedly leaked to Hully tape-recorded conversations of anti-corruption officials discussing a long-running arms case that accuses Zuma and others of kickbacks. The case was dropped shortly before he became president.

Though Cwele’s convulsions were soon tempered by murmurs that the ANC would come to a “meeting point” with the press, he offered a curious assessment of the public interest argument: “We have looked at international best practice and there is no country which practices such reckless practice”. ANC MP Llewellyn Landers’ reason why there should be no public interest clause is no less perplexing: “it would do irrevocable harm to the state and the people of South Africa if a court should find that a whistleblower was found to have given information not out of public interest but out of maliciousness”.

That is the outcome of a process that saw the ANC postpone its planned 20 September vote on the bill: government corruption shielded by secrecy, and concentration of information and power in the hands of a leadership that seeks to perpetuate itself. It also includes the insertion of a provision that seeks to empower the bill to override the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), against a recent surge in advancement of access to information on the Continent. PAIA has been a channel of information journalists were still learning to use to its full potential, but it will now be obstructed as circumstances for press freedom revert back to the apartheid regime.

Access to records could be refused on the basis of their status as a classified document. This ‘fundamentally [restricts] the constitutional right of access to information in South Africa’, according to the South African History Archive. The Bill also provides an indefinite extension for the time the government may respond to requests for access to ‘classified’ information: ‘PAIA requires requests for access to information from the state to be responded to within 30 days. In contrast, the Secrecy Bill merely requires that requests for access to classified records are responded to within a ‘reasonable’ time (except where the release of the record clearly satisfies the public interest override), leaving the period open to subjective interpretation by government officials’.

With the postponement of the vote, ANC chief whip Mathole Mtoshekga said the bill would be finalised at the end of the year – ostensibly to allow wider consultation in the drafting stages. The ANC subsequently established its own private committee to gather submissions, in what has been argued as an abuse of parliamentary procedures. It also dissolved the ad hoc parliamentary committee on the bill, and established an ‘information bill unit’ – an attempt to restrict participation in the submissions process. The ANC did not want “only to listen to the views of well-financed lobby groups”.

South Africa is currently among only two out of ten African countries with access to information legislation to yield ‘any useful information’, according to an Associated Press investigation into whether countries with such laws follow them. With the PAIA having been in force for nine years, there have been prominent exposures of fraud in public service; the Travelgate and Oilgate scandals, for instance. The Mail&Guardian gives an outline of some of the stories that would not have seen the light of day under a post-secrecy bill regime. A public interest clause could, by contrast, provide an outline for carefully defined grounds for disclosure of certain categories of information.

The clash could reach the Constitutional Court, the country’s highest court, with the South African National Editors’ Forum already having threatened a constitutional challenge if the public interest clause were left out of the bill, and South Africa’s largest trade union movement having vowed the same. The African Christian Democratic Party has said it will petition President Zuma to refer the bill for constitutional review, and the Democratic Alliance that it will take legal advice on whether to petition the president.

It only adds to South Africa’s woes that the bill, which may indeed have little chance of surviving a constitutional challenge from the highest court, that the ANC chief whip, Mathole Mtoshekga is careless enough to attack the very existence of the Constitutional Court. Striking down the bill once passed would be a “gross violation” of the separation of powers doctrine, Mtoshekga said on South African television: “If people are defeated in a political arena, they want to substitute the will of the people with the will of the judges. Then we must redefine our democracy and how we want to manage our country”.

All of this sadly comes from the ANC, the party of Nelson Mandela that deems itself a force of liberation in the post-apartheid era. The bill should shake the ANC’s traditional support base. As T.S. Eliot wrote in the opening stanza of Choruses from the Rock:

‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?’

Article courtesy of http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/news-analysis/sa-secrecy-bill-cwele%E2%80%99s-convulsions-and-constitutional-challenge-50176598.html, retrieved on 5 December, 2011.

By Desné Masie

Analysis
South African MPs recently voted overwhelmingly in favour of the ‘Secrecy Bill’ on ‘Black Tuesday’ (November 22), despite objections from civil society, the media and foreign investors. The Bill is said to signal a “dark day for democracy” and a return to apartheid-style secrecy. There is a major concern the Bill might be abused by politicians wishing to hide their corruption and self-enrichment.

The Bill, the proposed Protection of State Information Act, aims to replace the current, unconstitutional and draconian South African legislation dealing with state security and national intelligence, which dates from the apartheid era. Offences against the proposed Act can trigger sanctions of up to 25 years in jail for a journalist, whistleblower, or any other individual in wilful possession of classified information that could harm the republic if disclosed.

It is however important to understand that there have been two versions of the Bill, and, while the first version was not without its problems, the latest is thought to be democratically unacceptable, even though 120 amendments improving it have since been incorporated. According to a joint editorial by South Africa’s leading newspapers, the Bill was presented and then withdrawn in 2008 by Ronnie Kasrils, then minister of intelligence, but came to the table again in 2010, with alarm bells, under President Jacob Zuma’s more pliant cabinet.

While some of its critics are opposed to the Bill in its entirety, the main objections have been to the changes introduced to the 2010 version, especially the unconstitutional removal of the public interest clause, the reintroduction of which, the ANC has so far resisted.

The Wits School of Law and Nelson Mandela Centre for Memory want some important provisions from the 2008 version of the Bill to be reinstated as they would offer a balance between the protection of national intelligence and transparency.

Organisations such as the Right2Know Campaign – that has been leading the charge from civil society – however, demand that the Bill be drastically rewritten or thrown out entirely. Mark Weinberg, national co-ordinator of the Right2Know Campaign, says: “We have had problems with every version to date, although the Bill in the last 6 to 8 months has seen improvement as a result of campaigning, it is still draconian and undemocratic. The 2008 version was better than 2010 but both are extremely problematic. And while the 2010 version has improved some aspects, it is not perfect, and the 7-point freedom test we have developed to improve it has only been partially addressed.”

While the challenge this Bill has been met with is democratically robust, the Act has been met with a typical South African tendency to exaggerate to the extreme. And more problematically, most ‘well-informed’ people I spoke to in Johannesburg this week have not even read the relatively short Bill, but nonetheless feel entitled to comment on it. Weinberg disagrees: “Who are these people who have not read the Bill? And, anyway, it is unreasonable to expect all South Africans to have read every piece of legislation… It is outrageous slander to say civil society has not read the bill, when there are members of parliament who have not read the bill. There have been at least 4 occasions when we have been debating with them on radio when it has been obvious MPs have clearly not read the bill.”

One of the overarching problems is that the Bill was contemplated in terms of its 2008 provisions to be complementary to the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) 2000, but the 2010 version changes this. The PAIA which – in addressing apartheid secrecy – allows a member of the public to make an application for information, which cannot be unreasonably frustrated by the authority in whose possession it is. Unfortunately the current 2010 version of the Bill is not only no longer in harmony with the PAIA, but it also overrides it. In this context, there are four main issues that have been identified by the NMCM and Wits School of Law that could if addressed could make the legislation more palatable and reintroduce the healthy 2008 provisions of the Bill that have been changed:

Allowing for the automatic declassification of apartheid era documents with some special exceptions.

Ensuring that a request for classified information is dealt with in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act to bring it line with the constitution.

The offences provisions should focus on the harm caused by disclosure of classified information and not the disclosure per se; and

The public interest override must be reformulated to reduce the high illegality and content thresholds it imposes for declassification to be deemed in the public interest, and that a record where the public interest clearly outweighs national security should not be classified.

The latter is one of the most troubling and unconstitutional provisions, and to which the Congress of South African Trade Unions has also objected.

Considering all the fuss, it is fair to ask if the Bill can be justified at all?

It was recognised as early as the 1990s that South Africa’s secrecy laws needed to be overhauled, when talks for the negotiated settlement began, and one of the main tasks of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to disinfect with sunshine the vast collection of toxic apartheid state records. Secrecy was, as Verne Harris of the Nelson Mandela Centre for Memory says, the “modus operandi”, of the apartheid state.

And there are still some noxious skeletons lurking in apartheid’s closet that might be affected by declassification, and upset the delicate foundations of the negotiated settlement even further. But some of these are also understandably in the public interest to disclose.

These documents are out there because it was almost impossible for the TRC to include all classified documents within its ambit, and so, only those state structures “subject to national archival legislation” were investigated, according to Harris, who has been heavily involved with both the TRC and commentary on the Bill. The implications of this means that even though a mass-destruction of information commenced prior to 1990 by the apartheid government, there is without doubt a huge stash of documents in the hands of individual operatives, state structures dealing with military or national intelligence, and private archives – and the correct treatment of their reclassification and declassification will be tricky to evaluate.

The nature of any information deemed to be classifiable falls within a wide scale of registers, and the debate is insufficient when framed within what Harris calls “unsustainable binary opposites” of secrecy and transparency.

So here it warrants pointing out, first, that while media freedom is essential to the proper functioning of a democratic society, and such freedoms could certainly be compromised by the problematic clauses within the 2010 redraft of this Bill: media freedom is a related aside to the objects of this Act. This is primarily a document of relevance to the treatment of national intelligence on issues such as defence or the economy, which is a reasonable object of the law. So while there are undoubtedly issues with the 2010 version of the Bill that are unconstitutional, and must be amended, where national security is concerned, however, the Bill is, in my opinion, otherwise, both necessary and politically justifiable. Weinberg says: “Nobody is disagreeing that there are a limited number of secrets that the state needs to keep, but this bill is too broad in scope, draconian in its penalties, and untransparent [sic] in its mechanisms.”

Ultimately, it is likely, especially in the light of the objections, that President Jacob Zuma would have to refer the Bill to the Constitutional Court before the Bill becomes the law, and certainly if the Bill became the law with the dodgy provisions. Whether the ANC likes it or not, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe has already acknowledged that the public interest clause would have to be tested by a judge. Also, a sufficient number of MPs opposed the Bill, and so therefore there should be enough support to for it to be taken to the Constitutional Court, which the DA’s Helen Zille and Lindiwe Mazibuko have vowed to do if needed, and it is there that the offending provisions will be thwarted, upholding the challenge from civil society. However uneven the quality of the debate, the vigour with which most South Africans have participated in it means all is not as dark as it seems.

Desné Masie is a journalist and academic. She is a former senior editor for the Financial Mail in South Africa, and is currently studying towards a PhD in finance at the University of Edinburgh Business School.

Article courtesy of http://allafrica.com/stories/201112010579.html, retrieved on 5 December, 2011

By Nataly Kelly

“Access to information is a basic human right,” said former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, according to the World Bank Institute, at a conference on the subject last year in Accra, Ghana. Information is also power, and more and more organizations are recognizing that it will play an essential role in Africa’s future. Having access to information enables people to do things like take care of their health, understand their rights, start businesses, and participate in political processes.

When it comes to information access, most of the discussions are about the delivery systems such as mobile phones, which in many parts of Africa are the computing devices of choice. Obviously, getting information into people’s hands is critical. But what good is it if they cannot understand that information once they receive it? Africa is home to more than 2,000 different languages spread across six major language families – Nigeria alone has more than 500 tongues spoken within its borders. Some of them – such as Amharic, Berber, Hausa, Igbo, Oromo, Swahili, and Yoruba – are used by tens of millions of people.

Because of its incredible linguistic diversity, Africa presents numerous challenges when it comes to translation. However, multilingualism is extremely common among Africans, which means that there are large numbers of individuals who could potentially, and with the right professional training, provide translation services. Also, as our research shows, the markets for translation and interpreting in Africa have been growing steadily in recent years, fueled by factors such as global trade and international migration. This has led to a proliferation of language service providers spread across the continent. However, even these positive developments cannot begin to address the need for translated information.

It’s been said that until Africa prospers, the world as a whole cannot prosper. Translation plays an important part in giving people the information that will allow them to prosper in many aspects of life. For this reason, Common Sense Advisory is conducting a new study on translation in Africa on behalf of Translators without Borders. Today we launched a survey for translators of African languages in order to collect more information about the issues they face and to learn more about their views on access to information. We’re inviting all individuals who translate into and out of African languages – whether on a volunteer or professional basis – to participate. Please encourage all translators for African languages in your network or contact database to take the survey. To read a joint press release about the project from Common Sense Advisory and Translators without Borders, click here.

Article courtesy of http://www.commonsenseadvisory.com/Default.aspx?Contenttype=ArticleDetAD&tabID=63&Aid=2164&moduleId=390, retrieved on 5 December, 2011.

press release

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today said it opposes the Protection of Information Bill which was passed yesterday in Parliament and called the Upper Chamber to review the legislation which claims to “protect” state information. The draft law provides for a maximum jail term of 25 years against journalists who are convicted of publishing or possessing state documents that the Government deems classified.

“This bill is a regrettable setback for South Africa and the continent,” said Gabriel Baglo, Director of the IFJ Africa Office. “The adoption of the bill would negatively impact on the fate of access to information and good governance in Africa”.

The ruling party ANC hailed the bill as a necessary measure to protect South Africa’s national security information from foreign spies. However media organisations and civil society groups consider this as a “Secrecy Bill” that is detrimental to ethical journalism and democracy. South Africa was the first African country to adopt and implement a freedom of information act in 2000. Last September the Pan African conference on Access to information took place in Cape Town and adopted a declaration to be endorsed by African Union UNESCO and the United Nations.

The bill must be passed in the upper house, the National Council of Provinces before it becomes enforceable.

The IFJ calls on the South African Government to reconsider the bill in line with the international standards in order to serve as a role model in the Continent as it has been over the last decade.

Article courtesy of http://allafrica.com/stories/201111250492.html, retrieved on 2 December, 2011

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Tracy Grant

By Article 19

The Senegalese government must do more to promote the free flow of information, transparency, and civic engagement in decision-making over water infrastructure. Water is too scarce a resource for discussions surrounding its distribution to be conducted in secrecy without consulting affected stakeholders, particularly the disadvantaged. ARTICLE 19 urges the Senegalese government to actively participate in tomorrow’s debate on the impact on disadvantaged consumers of privatising the water infrastructure, organised by CICODEV Africa. The debate coincides with a visit to Senegal of the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, who will also be promoting dialogue on these issues.

The Senegalese government is currently revising the terms by which it contracts the provision of water services in the country. The outcome of this discussion is likely to significantly affect the financial and geographical accessibility of water in the country, and therefore is a debate of immense public importance. However, the discussions to date have taken place behind closed doors, without consultation with affected stakeholders or civil society organisations. This violates international standards on the rights to freedom of expression and information.

ARTICLE 19 believes that the availability and accessibility of information is integral to empowering people to demand their rights to public services. Transparency and the free flow of information, including the right of all to seek, receive and impart information and ideas related to development, are fundamental to reducing corruption, promoting accountability and ensuring sustainable development. Tomorrow’s stakeholders’ debate organised by CICODEV provides an opportunity for engagement on these terms, and is therefore a positive step in the right direction.

The Impact of Proposed Changes to Water Distribution in Senegal

During the last fifteen years, the Senegalese government has delegated the provision of water services to a private company, Sénégalaise des Eaux (SDE), owned in part by the private company Bouygues. In October 2011, this contract was to come to an end, but was provisionally extended to December 2012 as discussions on a replacement contract continued. Under the current c ontract, the responsibility of SDE is limited to the provision of water services; it does not own the water infrastructure and is not responsible for the development of it. The government currently retains these latter responsibilities, and has received substantial support from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other partners in developing that infrastructure in line with public interest objectives.

On May 12th 2011 the Senegalese government, without consulting with civil society or affected stakeholders, signed a protocol with SDE to conduct a feasibility study into a replacement contract under substantially different terms. The replacement contract would have a much longer duration, lasting thirty instead of five years. The proposals would also substantially shift responsibilities from the public sector to the private, making the selected private company a full concessionaire entrusted with the additional obligation of developing the water infrastructure. The government’s statement implied that under this contract, the government and public institutions would have no responsibility for maintaining, developing or financing the water infrastructure.

Civil society organisations have complained to ARTICLE 19 that the government has been highly secretive in deciding the terms of the new concession, including the selection of the favoured private contractor. To date there has been no consultation with affected stakeholders, and no assessment of the impact that the proposed structural and fiscal changes will have on deprived individuals’ access to water and the ability of Senegal to meet its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on urban water.

According to an initial assessment by our partner organisation CICODEV (the Pan-African Institute for research, training and action for Consumer Citizenship and Development), the consequences of moving toward a concession contract with augmented private sector responsibilities are likely to be significant, particularly for deprived individuals using up to than 20 cubic meters of water every two months.

Firstly, there are justifiable concerns that for the new concessionaire to sustain or increase its current profit margin under the new contract, utility bills will have to be increased considerably to recoup the additional costs of maintaining and improving infrastructure. Increasing utility prices will disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged individuals who have fewer resources to meet those bills.

Secondly, it is predicted that economic incentives for infrastructural development will be distorted toward maximising short-term profits, with new developments targeting high-consumption industries rather than less lucrative markets in deprived communities. The government and SDE are currently studying the feasibility of incorporating a public interest mandate into the concession, however, these discussions have not been subject to public scrutiny. Stakeholders have expressed concern that the new contract threatens to compromise the advancements made by the government’s internationally sponsored public-interest development programs over the past fifteen years. Indeed, Senegal is currently one of the only sub-Saharan African nations set to meet its MDG for urban water by 2015, a status that may be jeopardised by this new contract.

Thirdly, the shift of responsibilities from the public to private sector may exclude Senegal from eligibility for development loans on favourable terms from the World Bank, IMF, and other international partners. Under the concession contract, the government would not be permitted to intervene in infrastructure development, financially or otherwise. The concessionaire would therefore have to attract financing for infrastructural development from private banks on less favourable terms, or recoup its losses by further increasing utility prices. Again, this would disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged consumers.

At the initiative of civil society organisations in Senegal, led by CICODEV, these issues are to be discussed at tomorrow’s stakeholders’ debate on the issue of “disadvantaged consumers and the water concession in Senegal.” ARTICLE 19 will attend the event and urges the Senegalese government to take this opportunity to engage actively with civil society organisations and stakeholders to explain its position on the water concession and rectify the lack of transparency and absence of public consultation in this process to date.

International Standards on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information

ARTICLE 19 notes that international standards on freedom of expression and access to information demand more of the Senegalese government. The lack of transparency concerning the water concession demonstrates the urgency with which the Senegalese government should follow through on its commitment to enact access to information legislation. At the 50th Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on October 29 2011, the Working Group on African Platform on Access to Information urged all African governments to endeavour to pass a law on access to information.

ARTICLE 19 reminds the Senegalese government that numerous international human rights treaties reference the right to water, including articles 11 and 12 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. Significantly, the right to water was recognised as legally binding by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 64/292 (28 July 2010). The UN Human Rights Council affirmed this in its Resolution on Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation (September 2010), adding that delegating the delivery of safe drinking water services to a third party does not exempt the state from its human rights obligations.

The application of freedom of expression and access to information principles to development decisions, particularly the right of access to water, is well established in international law. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ publication “Right to Water” specifically addresses water information, and at Article 12(c)(iv) that accessibility “includes the right to seek, receive and impart information concerning water issues.” Article 48 elaborates upon this, stating that “individuals and groups should be given full and equal access to information concerning water, water services and the environment, held by public authorities or third parties.” Article 53 imposes further obligations to monitor different components of adequate water such as sufficiency, safety and acceptability, affordability and physical accessibility.

In their September 2010 Resolution, the UN Human Rights Council called on states to ensure full transparency in the planning and implementation process for the provision of safe drinking water. They also stressed the importance of active, free and meaningful participation of concerned local communities and relevant stakeholders. It further highlighted the need for grievances, accountability and redress mechanisms as part of this process.

The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention), outlines the requirements for public participation at Article 6, including that a state must set out the proposed project, allow time for consideration, facilitate open discussion, and take due account of the public participation in the final decision. Although Senegal is not a signatory of this treaty, it is illustrative of international standards on this issue.

The rights of access to information, public participation, and access to justice also form Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development:

“Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”

The 2010 London Declaration for Transparency, Free Flow of Information and Development, developed by ARTICLE 19 and group of experts, also sets a clear agenda for transparency in the promotion of development. This Declaration sets forth four overarching principles should guide all decision making regarding development in Senegal:

First, the free flow of information, transparency and civic engagement are fundamental to the achievement of the MDGs, and the global fight against poverty

Second, the free flow of information includes protecting and strengthening the right of all to seek, receive and impart information and ideas related to the MDGs and development, and the existence of a free, diverse and professional media

Third, transparency requires collecting, producing, and disclosing accessible, credible and disaggregated data on MDG indicators and targets, as well as on budgets, aid assistance and revenues from natural and other resources

Fourth, civic engagement requires establishing and protecting an enabling environment for civil society organisations (CSOs) and the media, and active participation by all, in particular people living in poverty and those discriminated against, or marginalised.

Conclusion

It is clear from the international standards that it is not sufficient for the Senegalese government to disclose information only when persistently lobbied by civil society organisations, and to only agree to consultation with affected stakeholders once advanced discussions have concluded and irreversible decisions have been made. Merely informing stakeholders of the outcome of discussions denies them their right to be heard in the decision-making process.

ARTICLE 19 calls upon the Senegalese government to address deficiencies in its current practices and enact a comprehensive access to information law that ensures the free-flow of information regarding development decisions, maximising transparency and civic participation. This legal framework must be implemented in practice to ensure that affected stakeholders are given a voice in development decisions that significantly affect their lives.

Article courtesy of http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2846/en/senegal:-free-flow-of-information-integral-to-discussions-on-water-privatisation, retrieved on 16 November, 2011.

By Peter Mwaura

The Freedom of Information Bill is back after an absence of nearly four years. But this time, it bears the signature of Samuel Poghisio, the minister of Information and Communications.

The proposed law, which is deemed to be so critical for the establishment of an open and accountable government, has been on the agenda, on and off, since 2000.

Three drafts have so far been thrown into the public domain. The first appeared in 2005 but it did not get very far.

The second, sponsored by Kisumu Rural MP, Prof Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o, was gazetted and brought before Parliament in 2007 but was never debated.

Governments have misgivings about a law that makes their activities and deliberations an open book.

Freedom of information laws are based on the principle that citizens have a right to information held by the government and other public authorities.

It is argued that the government acts in the public interest and the information it collects in the course of its work is held in trust for the public. The government, therefore, should make that information freely available to the public.

Further, it is argued that freedom of information is beneficial. It empowers citizens to hold the authorities to account.

That helps to reduce or eliminate corruption and incompetence. Citizens can also use the information to exercise their rights and fundamental freedoms.

Moreover, it promotes informed public debate on public issues and in the making of decisions.

Still, governments are wary of the freedom of information legislation because there are certain things they would like — sometimes quite legitimately — to keep hidden from the public view.

When the United Kingdom, in keeping with the worldwide trend of enacting freedom of information laws, passed its Freedom of Information Act in 2000, the then prime minister Tony Blair, who introduced the law, later said he regretted doing so because the Act made it difficult for his officials to deliberate “with a reasonable level of confidentiality”.

Even so over 80 countries, most of them in the West, have enacted some form of freedom of information laws. In Africa, only five countries have enacted such laws and few are likely to join them any time soon.

Botswana, that bastion of democracy in southern Africa, for example, has made it known that freedom of information legislation is not a priority.

If Kenya passes the Freedom of Information Bill, it will become the second nation in East Africa, after Uganda, to do so. Other African countries that have such laws are Liberia, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Yet, the freedom of information legislation is not a luxury. It is crucial for the promotion of democracy, good governance and accountability.

The empowerment of citizens to participate in public affairs and keep governments accountable and transparent is predicated on the free flow of information.

While Sweden realised this long before everybody else and boasts a Freedom of the Press Act passed in 1766, the United States has the most robust Freedom of Information Act which came into force in 1967.

The Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC) is now in the process of receiving proposals from stakeholders for Kenya’s Freedom of Information Bill, which was released on August 15 this year.

The good news is that the Bill, though not perfect, is well done and reads like a genuine attempt by the government to open its doors.

Not that the government has any choice. The proposed law is one of the requirements for the implementation of the Constitution. Article 35 of the Constitution provides that every citizen has the right of access to information held by the State.

Article 232 also provides that “the values and principles” of public service shall include the involvement of the people in the process of policy making, accountability for administrative acts, transparency and provision to the public of timely, accurate information.

The Freedom of Information Bill, if passed into law, will bring about a culture of openness that will change the way we view government and the way government does business

Article courtesy of http://allafrica.com/stories/201111140144.html, retrieved on 15 November, 2011

By Murray Hunter

South Africans should be outraged at the ANC’s disingenuous move to bring the Secrecy Bill back to National Assembly for further deliberations as confirmed by the Office of the ANC Chief Whip last week.

On 19 October, following the shelving of the Bill ostensibly for further consultation, the ANC Chief Whip’s office committed itself to a transparent and clearly road-mapped process to “ensure that as many people as possible, regardless of their political allegiance, get an opportunity to have a say on the draft legislation before it is passed into law.” Communities were promised ample notice of upcoming meetings to express their views on the Secrecy Bill.

After several weeks of closed-door meetings between ANC provincial caucuses and the Minister of State Security Siyabonga Cwele and senior aides, the ANC appears to have rendered any public engagement meaningless by moving the Bill back to the National Assembly. No public consultations have been conducted, showing the Chief Whip’s promises to be utterly empty.

While a number of civil society voices, including the Right2Know campaign, cautiously welcomed the ANC’s proposal for further public engagement, and chose to accept in good faith the ANC’s commitment to such a process. Our network has been preparing to be part of the process and to inform and involve communities to engage. However, despite numerous request by R2K the ANC has failed to provide any kind of schedule for promised public meetings.

However, this latest move by the ANC appears to be nothing less than legislative sleight of hand, buying time and space to get members in line and make sure there is no public division or opposition to the Bill from within the provinces. Such a move completely betrays any good faith communities had in the process.

Thus the Secrecy Bill returns to Parliament without any amendments, with many of the most basic demands contained in the R2K 7 Point Freedom Test unmet.

The R2K Campaign is thus left to wonder exactly what game the ANC is playing here. If the ANC was serious about making changes to the Secrecy Bill – through the mooted public consultations – when they shelved it almost a month ago, then why is the Bill now being re-introduced without any changes?

Were Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe’s public comments last week suggesting that the party may consider amendments to the BIll that would include a ‘public interest defence’ simply a public relations diversion? Will the ANC now- despite the Deputy President’s assurances – use its parliamentary majorities to railroad the Bill through both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, or will it allow for further meaningful engagement, or shelve it once again?

It would appear as though the ANC is now conducting itself with the kind of secrecy that the Bill itself threatens to institutionalise. As the R2K Campaign, we call on the ANC to come clean with the people of South Africa. Otherwise, not only will the contents of the Secrecy Bill continue to invite sustained public opposition, but the entire legislative process followed to make it law will be brought into serious question.

Statement issued by Murray Hunter, Right2Know national coordinator, November 14 2011

Article courtesy of http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=266580&sn=Detail&pid=71616, retrieved on 15 November, 2011

Freedom of the press and the media in Africa is essential for the economic future of Africa. That was the message that the president of the African Development Bank, Donald Kaberuka, gave in his address at the opening of the Fourth African Media Leaders Forum (AMLF) on 10 November 2011 in Tunis.

This year’s theme was ‘Empowering citizens through social media and technology adaptation: what future for traditional media?’

Some 350 media owners and operators from 48 African countries attended the event.

Mr Kaberuka emphasized the importance of freedom for the media to report without fear or censorship for wealth creation and successful business. He said without it there was a danger of ‘crony capitalism’,

A free press comes hand in hand with democracy, and Mr Kaberuka said the advances in democracy in Africa, which had been steady but uneven since the early 1990s, had coincided with economic advances.

By contrast, Africa’s ‘lost decade’, marked by one-party states and military rule, had witnessed growth in prosperity.

The African Development Bank itself would contribute to increased transparency, said Mr Kaberuka. He announced that the institution would revise its rules on freedom of information, widening its scope even further.

Tunisia’s prime minister, Mr Beji Caid Essebsi, also gave an opening address, remarking on the country’s recent revolution, which has resulted in more open media. He said: “The Tunisian spring is on track to achieve good governance and democracy.” He added: “Since the advent of democracy the press is free in Tunisia, which now has more than 140 private publications.”

The AMLF is organised by the African Media Initiative (AMI), which brings together private media proprietors on the continent. Its chief executive officer, Amadou Mahtar Ba, said that AMI membership has grown from 55 in 2008 to the current figure of 350.

Article courtesy of http://allafrica.com/stories/201111150355.html, retrieved on 15 November, 2011