Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe has hinted at the possibility of the Protection of State Information Bill being amended to include a public interest defence.
He also promised that the ANC would not use its superior numbers to “ram” the bill through.
On Tuesday, he suggested there could be a “meeting point” over a public interest defence.
During a meeting with Parliament’s Press Gallery Association, Motlanthe said that during talks last month between the government and the SA National Editors’ Forum, “it had been explained to us that the way they (editors) look at it is that a judge… must be the one who tests such a defence, that it’s not automatic”.
He added: “I find that to be very helpful – if that’s the understanding, it then creates a meeting point.”
Media and access to information lobby groups have been demanding the inclusion of a clause that would allow for a defence based on the public’s right to know information that has been classified.
So far, the ANC has been adamantly opposed to the idea.
Motlanthe said the bill had undergone a “surgical overhaul” by the ad hoc committee that processed it. The public interest defence remained the only issue of contention.
He said the government wanted a “much more clear process” regarding the declassification of information provided for in the bill, which is before the National Assembly and is the subject of further public consultation.
Where there were public hearings, a bill was “never cast in stone”, Motlanthe said. “It must enjoy the support and understanding by the general public.”
He said the ANC would not use its parliamentary majority “to ram through willy-nilly any piece of legislation that does not comply with the constitution”.
He hinted there may be a basis for inserting a public interest defence clause if it could be done in a way that did not undermine the bill’s primary purpose – the classification and declassification of state information.
It was not the intention of the government to muzzle the media, and the constitution protected media freedom, he said.
State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele has rejected the notion of a public interest defence, on the basis that the information would already be in the public domain and the damage thus done. Opponents of the bill are gearing for a Constitutional Court battle.
Given that the bill still had to pass through the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, it was possible such a challenge might be averted, Motlanthe indicated.
“Who knows, we may actually be in a position where the bill is not challengeable in any way.”
The bill has been fiercely criticised for providing for harsh jail terms of between five and 25 years for disclosing classified information, depending on the level of its classification and whether spying is a factor, without offering whistleblowers the defence of having acted in the public interest when making such information known.
On the disciplinary charges against ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, Motlanthe said the ANC’s approach to discipline was that it abandoned only the most incorrigible of its members.
“It has the confidence that it can always correct individuals,” he said.
“The philosophy of the ANC is that anyone can be corrected, by undermining their weak points and supporting their strong points.”
But he warned that the ANC was “also known to wash its hands” of people and expel them.
The ANC national disciplinary committee is expected to reach its verdict on Malema and members of his executive on Wednesday and it is expected to be announced tomorrow.
Motlanthe also gave his first public response to the decision by President Jacob Zuma last month to make public the report of the Donen Commission of Inquiry into the Oilgate scandal. As Motlanthe is mentioned in the report – though not in relation to any crime – this move was interpreted by some as a way of neutering any political threat he might present.
“My own feeling is that it should be released, because it contains nothing different to the UN report (on abuses of the oil-for-food programme involving kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime).”
Michael Donen, the advocate who chaired the inquiry, had been unable to subpoena witnesses and gather the information needed after a high court action by the director of one of the companies implicated.
“It has been a basis of speculation: it’s best just to release it,” Motlanthe said. - Political Bureau