INFO BILL SHOULDALSO PROTECTWHISTLE-BLOWERS

THERE is no denying that a Protection of State Information Bill needs to exist. However, the bill must not only protect the state, it must offer credible mechanisms of accountability.

Accountability, on behalf of the public, happens through Parliament holding the executive accountable, while the Constitutional Court is available to scrutinise enacted legislation.

One of the greatest ingredients of our democracy is the Fourth Estate. The media is the arena of convergence for diverse views that we hold on contentious issues.

This bill should protect whistleblowers. Journalists, on receiving classified information, would be implicated in the supply chain of information to the public and, by extension, should be protected by this bill if they disseminate information that is classified.

What MPS struggle with is the thought that such a clause would be open to abuse. They assume there are people who are willing to go to prison.

If the final determination from MPS is that they do not trust the public and citizens working in the government to be responsible in utilising the public interest clause, how do they believe the public is in a position to trust those who have powers to classify information?

MPS against the public interest clause must not paint a false picture that it would be disempowering to the security agencies. Instead, it would act as a measure to boost the vigilance of state officials, as they would shy away from wrongly classifying information that should be accessible.

The absence of a public interest defence clause makes it impossible for anyone who would publish classified information to stand in a court of law and argue that their actions were motivated by the fact that public interest far outweighed the patience to embark on a process of getting the information declassified.

Inability to publish classified information in the best interests of the public could end up causing a miscarriage or a delay of justice.

Durban

LUKHONA MNGUNI