Handing Home Affairs keys to our security will leave us less secure

The BMA will be an armed, quasi-military agency operating outside of Sars

IN THE midst of student protests, state capture reports being mothballed and rising government debt, something silent and menacing has been winding its way through Parliament – the Border Management Authority Bill (BMA).

Although it is not new – it has been kicking around since 2009’s State of the nation address – it’s real, it’s revolting and it’s a waste of money on a massive scale.

It’s also an effective guise for government to syphon more money and power out of the hands of National Treasury, and away from prying eyes or any real oversight. So what is this secretive menace?

Why is the cabinet pushing it through, with Parliament rubber-stamping it, despite clear pushback from Treasury, lack of engagement by Defence, multiple reports condemning it as “questionable” and “inefficient”, and the clear similarities with the current “state capture” practices?

If the bill goes through, the Department of Home Affairs will be in charge of the Border Management Authority – a National Public Entity outside of the normal public service.

The BMA will be an armed, quasi-military agency that operates outside of SAPS, SANDF, SA Revenue Service and public scrutiny, accountable only to the Minister of Home Affairs and the Presidency.

The original executive mandate for the BMA cited lack of co-ordination among many agencies currently responsible for border management (land, air and sea) and suggested the creation of an integrated approach.

The DHA position on the bill is that the cabinet told them to create the BMA; there is no law or constitutional provision that prohibits it, so full speed ahead regardless of the fact that it’s a waste of money (even the DHA’s own socio-economic impact assessment says it’s “an inefficient implementation mechanism”, excessively costly, overestimating the benefits and likely to be ineffective).

Once created and presumably tendered to the highest bidder, one of the government’s least effective and efficient departments will be responsible for the safety and security of all goods and people passing in and out of South Africa.

DHA will also then create a parallel customs function at all borders, which amounts to about R3 billion a year collected outside of Sars’ electronic system.

A collection system that is among the most efficient and effective in the world. Without warrants, the BMA’s armed, uniformed agents will have unlimited search and seizure powers to open any container or suitcase that passes under their noses.

This alone raises a few red flags: a quasi-military agency managed by Home Affairs will arm the borders and collect customs revenue despite the fact that best practice suggests that these functions should be segregated.

This is akin to having an armed traffic officer give you a ticket and forcing you to pay for it on the spot.

The only supervision will come from a department that is widely known to have a systemic challenge. with front-line officials engaging in rampant bribery and corruption.

Government is back-tracking on years of progress that Sars has made centralising and documenting funds collection.

If it goes through in this form, the BMA will break up the administration and collection of taxes for the country, which will lead directly to tax avoidance, evasion and corruption. It is reprehensible and irresponsible for lawmakers to push through legislation that is so clearly against national interests – particularly in a time when every penny counts.

Arming a new agency in this way can be an expensive process, lacking in transparency (and does not solve the problem of lack of co-ordination of the original executive mandate).

The cabinet decision is at an advanced stage and there is nothing to suggest that the government has done enough to ensure better co-ordination, or that the proposed solution will have the desired result of reduced irregular migration and more secure borders.

While every sovereign nation has not only the right but the duty to protect its borders, South Africa is making a costly error by promulgating the BMA.

And let’s not forget – even the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says that border corruption is one of the most significant threats to national security.

Why hand over such a critical function to DHA when any number of other agencies – Defence, National Security, SAPS – have the protection and defence mandates and skills, not to mention infrastructure?

It seems rather pointless to spend billions on the creation of a mercenary border guard to enhance security when a few hundred rand slipped to one of their current staff is enough to buy a person passage across the border and a few hundred more will buy identity papers from that same agency on the other side.

Sure, there are many issues with South Africa’s current border management regime and the government is duty bound to address those issues, to protect the sovereignty of the state and maintain security for all who are in South Africa.

However, any changes to the current regime must align with South Africa’s foundation of human rights observance and they should not come at the cost of blowing the country’s budget.

To move forward, DHA must pause the BMA process, take into account Treasury’s concerns, further consult with the defence and security sector and align the development of the BMA to the policy-making process on international migration – once the White Paper on International Migration is complete, a sincere consultative process can take place.

Stating in an open meeting, the DG of DHA said they aren’t waiting on the policy process because “policy takes too long”; contempt for democracy and transparency are beginning before the BMA even starts.

While our attention is elsewhere, Parliament may be giving away any chance at solving the crisis of tertiary education funding, handing the keys to the country’s security over to Home Affairs and leaving us all a little less secure.