Cape Town - It’s all eyes on the Western Cape High Court for possible answers to the signal jamming and deployment of the “white shirts” during last month’s State of the Nation Address in Parliament as one of two related court hearings starts on Friday.
On Wednesday in Parliament Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa declined to answer questions about the debacle at the opening of Parliament until the court cases were finalised.
At first, State Security Minister David Mahlobo took the same stance, then changed his mind and answered questions, reiterating what he had said last month: there was no executive decision to disrupt the signal and that what happened was because of a human error.
Friday will be the start of legal arguments in the case brought by the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef), Primedia, Media24, the Right2Know Campaign and Open Democracy Centre (Odac).
On March 16, the DA’s lawyers will present legal arguments for an order to prevent the replay of security forces being called in to violently evict MPs from Parliament and the government.
In court documents filed for Friday’s case, State Security Agency’s acting director general Sipho Peter Blose says “maximum security measures (were deployed) based on the risk and security assessment which was made based on the intelligence which was gathered”.
The signal jammers were part of the additional measures, which included a no-fly zone over Parliament that day.
“The signal disruptors were also directed at unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, which have the capacity to enter the airspace at low altitude and which cannot be covered by the air force. These drones can be used to pose a security threat…
“The signal disruptors are also used to neutralise explosive devices, which can be activated by the use of a radio signal…”
Blose says the plan was to use the jammers “up and until the stage when the deputy president and president had entered the chamber”, but the signal jammer in the Chamber was not switched off because of an “operational error”.
The security agency was “legally authorised to possess and use signal disruptors” and “empowered to employ measures and conduct activities to impede and neutralise hostile operations and counter any threat or potential threat to national security”, says Blose’s affidavit.
The 2013 General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act allows the security agency to act on credible intelligence in various areas, such as hostile acts of foreign intervention, terrorism or serious violence aimed at overthrowing the State, but bans the security agency from interfering in lawful political activity.
Blose cites the 2002 Intelligence Services Act - that law has been amended by the 2013 General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act - as justification for using the jammers. He also argues that the Independent Communications Authority of SA has allowed the security agency to use jammers.
In response to the applicants’ court papers saying what happened last month was the first time signal jamming had occurred, Blose states this matter will be raised in legal arguments in court.
At a briefing after the SONA, it emerged that the presiding officers had been informed of “a device” to be used, but did not inquire further.
“The interference with the signal had nothing to do with us (presiding officers) or the parliamentary proceedings. We did not call for or otherwise initiate the signal scrambling,” Speaker Baleka Mbete says in her court affidavit, adding that was a matter for the state security minister.
Political Bureau