Bongo beats pointless drum over Pauw book

It was my pleasure to interview DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach at the weekend about her book, Rule of Law, at the LeesFees book festival in my adopted home town of Prince Albert. The exploding topic on social media, though, was a different book.

That different book was Jacques Pauw’s The President’s Keepers, which was in the news because the State Security Agency had just declared it would seek an injunction to have it removed from the shelves.

But as it happens, the two books have a sequential feel about them, or at least they have distinct overlaps. In any case, it was interesting to ask Breytenbach, herself an experienced prosecutor, about her views on the capacity of the state to prevent the book from being in the public eye. Her view is that no case can be brought against Pauw with any real prospect of success.

According to newly appointed State Security Minister Bongani Bongo, there are “lots of inaccuracies” and “certain information in the book is classified”.

“Certain information in the book is info[rmation] that private citizens, when they have it, they need to protect it because it’s information of the state,” he said.

I am not making this up. This is actually what he said.

Breytenbach, who has worked with Bongo in Parliament, said she was pretty sure her German shepherd was smarter. The twitterati commented this statement was unfair because German shepherds were very smart.

But in legal terms, the state would have a big problem. The book makes a series of claims about President Jacob Zuma’s tax problems.

The president has specifically rejected these claims and says his tax affairs are in order. However, to prove the book invaded the president’s privacy, the state would have to prove the book’s claims were actually true, Breytenbach pointed out. That would rather defeat the object of the exercise.

The same kind of legal tautology plays out in respect of the claims that Pauw’s book makes about intelligence issues.

To demonstrate that Pauw had contravened legislation that prevents the publication of state secrets, the prosecution would be in the invidious position of having to publicly prove that these secrets, in fact, are true secrets. If they are not secrets of a protected kind, Pauw can’t have contravened any legal stipulation. But to demonstrate that Pauw has contravened the law they would have to publicly affirm as fact what is allegation.

In a separate interview, Pauw said he couldn’t believe the State Security Agency could possibly have been given such poor advice (Breytenbach retorted that she could very easily believe it) because the “cease and desist” order delivered to the publisher last week gave it five days to comply. A cease and desist order is generally an indication that urgent action will be taken if the order is not complied with. But in the case of a publication, a week in the modern era is an eon.

As if to confirm this dramatic change in the speed of communication, a digital version of the book was quickly distributed on social media, sparking a debate about whether people should not buy the book rather than deprive the author of his due.

A compromise was offered in which people who had the digital file would contribute directly to Pauw. To his great credit, Pauw said later the publication of the book was not about money, and if readers could afford it, they should buy it, but if they could not, they were welcome to read the digital edition.

But this is all rather beside the point. The frivolous case that, would you believe it, is still running against Breytenbach and the threatened legal action against Pauw are a distraction from a larger picture.

The institutions of state have been decimated. It’s as simple as that. There are some nutters who claim this isn’t so, but you have to be a certifiably blind tadpole in a murky pond to honestly believe that.

The question now is whether they can be fixed and how long it would take — and here, once again, Breytenbach is interesting.

Not more than six months, she says.

All it requires is replacing the incompetents and the craven with hardworking people of honesty and integrity.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it?

THE TWITTERATI COMMENTED THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS UNFAIR BECAUSE GERMAN SHEPHERDS WERE GENERALLY VERY SMART