South Africa is a country facing crisis and we need to act speedily to avert two things:

• Dictatorial rule by the African National Congress
• A bloody violent uprising.

I may seem to be a force of doom, gloom and despondency; however this is the pending reality which will explode itself into life if South Africans do not take charge of their country. I am not going to do an in-depth analysis in this article, but I am going to point out a few worrying things about the direction in which South Africa seems to be heading.

I do acknowledge much has been done since 1994 after the first democratic elections were held, however what has been done is not enough. Old school writings will tell me “Rome was not built in one day”: whilst this is true, there was a clear dedication and concerted effort towards building Rome, with a clear plan and sense of direction about what needed to be achieved. These qualities seem to be lacking in the case of South Africa.

South Africa is liberated

Indeed South Africans seem to be liberated from minority rule, but there has been no significant economic liberation for our people. The private sector remains in the hands of the minority; however BEE is not necessarily the answer. BEE will only enrich a few and leave the masses of our people still socially excluded. However, the problem with the economy lying in the hands of the minority is that when reforms in the market economy are being suggested, so as to open up participation to the broader population of our country, the controllers of the economy will resist and this will further deepen the crisis of unemployment. South Africa needs a radical shift in the economy, one that will allow for more labour absorbing sectors; it is sitting on a ticking time bomb to have around 30% of the country’s population unemployed. It’s only a matter of time before they rise up, violently, if nothing changes.

Political participation is open to all

The constitution of our land gives every citizen the right to affiliate with a party of their choice or even start a political party if they feel they have the support to do so. There are so many political parties in South Africa; one would start wondering that they want to match up the number of churches that are growing in our society. The plurality indicates the diversity in South Africa. While this is good, South Africa has failed in the last 16 years to produce a contender for power to rival the ANC. Instead the ANC repeatedly comes back with a huge majority. This is through a democratic process of course, but the continuance of one-party dominance has never really yielded too many results in any part of the world. Opposition parties are failing to provide a viable alternative and this is short changing the country in the long run, as the ANC continues its patronage, looting and corruption of state resources and there is nothing that can be done.

The ANC will remove any threats to it and entrench dictatorial leadership. The Scorpions are gone and as a result the probes into the arms deals are shut down. Their replacement, the Hawks, seem to be an insult to the birds with the same name. Schabir Shaik was pardoned because he is a friend of the ANC president – simple. The issue of being “sick” is nonsense. Mzilikazi Wa Afrika was ambushed and jailed because of his journalist tendencies that irk many in the ruling party. Ministers sleep, drink, eat and drive all in the costs of millions of rands. I mean even Malema used about R3.4 million of the taxpayers to get bodyguards, for what Juju? I wonder. The ANC has increased the number of wards across the country, no fundamental reasons have been given, but we all know that there will be more jobs for comrades.

The proposed Protection of Information Bill smells of silencing all of us and will prevent access to any information. Well Lindiwe Sisulu already says that details of flight travels of the president are classified, though they have been given out in the past. Amazingly the media must now be given strict measures because they are exposing too much, maningi, corruption being done in the ruling party. Oh what a coincidence that the son and nephew of the president are now feasting millionaires. It is not too bad though that even the ANC Youth League that doesn’t get voted into power, is today controlling a state entity the NYDA worth R360 million and over. Well comrades must eat.

The more the ANC stays in power do you think they will ever imagine a day that they lose power? Never, you would be mad to think the contrary, because apparently the ANC must lead until Jesus comes. But then again Ace Magashule once likened Zuma to Jesus – if only it were true because at least after Zuma we would know that the ANC will lose power. The ANC already buys votes with food parcels, they might increase grant to 21 years in the next 5 years because they want a state-dependent citizen, actually NO, rather an ANC-dependent citizen. Eish… there is more but let me rest.

Education is open to all

Yes it is a remarkable thing that around one million kids now enter the schooling system in grade one every year. While this is good, the crisis is that the quality of education is taking a serious dive into uselessness. Even in Africa, though we are the largest economy, we range amongst the worse countries when it comes to numeracy and literacy levels. 16 years is enough to shape the education system – ask Zimbabwe they will tell you, never mind the fact that they have gone bad as a country, they still beat us in education standards. Shucks. Some kids still study under trees; others still walk in (and not on water) to get to school. Others have more than 8km to travel by foot. Scholar transport, feeding scheme initiatives are on and off. Oh never mind the fact that three provinces can’t account for R44 billion spent by the education department. However if it was spent, one should be able to account for it because accounting is merely proving where the money went. South Africa is in a crisis if so much money can just be lost, up in smoke, to no good. Education of our country is only favouring the continued development of those kids coming from already developed families. Education should be a tool to eradicate poverty, but in South Africa it is a tool to perpetuate poverty, through underdevelopment of children – mainly those from rural backgrounds.

There is a rainbow nation

Well Madiba made us believe that we have a rainbow nation; I think he should have advised us that this is what we seek to achieve. We are far from achieving a rainbow nation. You still have universities that offer certain courses only in Afrikaans and yet many black students want to go to universities of quality standards. There is no rainbow nation if there are a select few that think it can put up its own land of the Boere in South Africa. What rainbow nation if black people still continue to view themselves inferior to white people. Yes we walk on the same malls, drive the same cars and eat in the same restaurants as people of South Africa, but we continue to undermine each other. A rainbow nation is a state whereby all South Africans would respect each other as equals without passing unfounded diminishing things about each other based on race, sexuality and religion. In a rainbow nation, gay people would live free and not be afraid to declare their sexuality. In a rainbow nation, white people in their majority should be willing to give up a part of their wealth to assist in dealing with the many challenges facing South Africa.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup

While the event was well organised and good in many shapes and forms, such as showcasing South Africa to the world and dealing with the Afropessimism that is rife across the globe, we still need to sit down and ask; was it worth it? We are talking here in terms of money and value added to our people. It doesn’t help to have a stadium that is one of the best in the world and yet you can’t maintain it. Our street vendors that sell in stadiums couldn’t conduct business because all selling rights were reserved for some foreign multinationals that add no value to us. FIFA made a killing, in the excess of $1 billion and their executives are eating nice fat bonuses, what are South Africans eating? Well back to pap and vleis bhuti.

Hotels were short changed as they were given back, with no compensation, some of the rooms they had reserved for FIFA. Host cities like Durban are crying that they have not been paid by FIFA. What is taking so long? Many are without jobs and white elephant stadiums will remain. If the World Cup was the motivation, why did the King Shaka Airport have to be built in Durban? Well it is a flop. They should have just renovated the old airport. The new airport is accessible at a high cost for many airport users and there isn’t much of a difference from the old one – it only serves interests of the elite.

The headings in this article are the positives, but these positives have serious shortfalls and negatives underlying them. There are just more bad things than the good ones in South Africa. This doesn’t mean that we must lose hope, but faith on its own is not enough. We need to see action, we need to see change. We need a political will on the part of government to change things. Citizens are continuously feeling raped by government as they pay tax just for the fat cats to feast on it and make no meaningful changes with it. There is a cry coming from a little corner, even Gareth Cliff added to it when he said, “We’ll take you [ruling party] down, either at the polls – or if it comes down to the wire – by revolution.” My analysis is that if the ruling party is not changed in the next 20 years, a revolution is inevitable.

President Jacob Zuma displays an obscure understanding of what the media’s role is in a democratic state. The president is clearly saying that the media is currently functioning out of line with the constitution and yet he has failed so many times in a court of law to sue cartoonist Zapiro and other journalists for articles published about him.

To me this is saying that the President also doubts the integrity of the courts of this land – the supreme custodians of the constitution. Surely if the media were transgressing the constitution they would be brought to book by law enforcement agencies. The problem is that there is a view which believes that the media cooks up stories which is neither entirely true nor false: yes the media puts spice on information but they subscribe to the notion that where there is smoke there is fire.

If government officials were to walk the talk and do things right, there wouldn’t be much to worry about on their part; however, their irritation with the media is a clear indication that they want to misbehave some more and go unpunished for it. The complete arrogance of being a leader of a dominant ruling party emerged in Zuma’s words when he said, “The media must behave like everybody else… this media that says it is a watchdog for democracy was not democratically elected.” – quoted in The Times.

A closer look into these words simply says that anyone who has never been democratically elected cannot criticise members of the ANC. This is the greatest threat to our democracy I have heard from a sitting president.  Jacob Zuma seems not to grapple well the role of a ruling political party which is to provide service to the citizens and be guided by the needs of the populace and not the other way around. Is Jacob Zuma saying that civil society cannot be critical of the ANC members? Is he saying that business cannot be critical of the ANC members? The president must apologise for putting people associated with the ANC beyond reproach.

It is an open secret that the ANC realises that its inevitable decline in power and control of the country has arrived, now the only option it has is to close access to information. It is not by coincidence that the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal are being proposed simultaneously. The ANC is on a deliberate crusade to limit media freedom and take us into another Swaziland that has capacity to even ban newspapers for publishing true stories. The introduction of a totalitarian state comes in many shapes and sizes and I fear that South Africa is fast heading this way

The president ought to be reminded that the only people who are elected in this country are those in Parliament who form cabinet as well. The state, judiciary, business, media and civil society are not elected but they all form an integral part of our democratic society. The ruling party must get it through its arrogant and partly ignorant ego that it is not the custodian of democracy but merely a functionary within democracy: the populace as a collective is the custodian of democracy and the ruling party is slowly shaping towards hijacking that democracy from the people.

So Mr President please do apologise for speaking so off point about the media, they will never be accountable to your office, the media must continue to expose the rot of what has become of our government. Imagine if the media was in the government’s bed, people would never know about how badly their taxes are being embezzled- the ruling party must just fall from its pedestal, it is harming our hard won freedoms and civil liberties. And this liberation is not a property of the ANC either; it belongs to all South Africans.

AfriForum Youth today announced that it will launch an independent investigation into the municipal tenders awarded to the company of Julius Malema, SGL Engineering Projects.  This follows after the Public Protector (PP) yesterday stated that nothing could be found amiss with the tenders, despite the fact that the PP itself admitted that the documentation of six of the municipalities investigated by them, had not been up to date.

AfriForum Youth’s national chairman, Ernst Roets, said added that Malema plays a senior role in the ruling party and that the awarding of municipal tenders to a company of which he is a director, is unethical, irrespective of what the PP or any law may say in this regard.

AfriForum Youth will study the PP-report and launch an independent investigation into the tender processes.  “If this investigation were to find that no irregularities occurred, we will accept this,” Roets said.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions hails the Minister of Human Settlements for his battle to unearth corruption in housing projects.

This move by Comrade Tokyo Sexwale is exactly the sort of bold initiative that COSATU and all honest South Africans have been calling for.

The national audit task team investigation have examined 10246 housing projects, identified “the top 10 dodgy contracts in each province” and then narrowed them down to 20 contracts, each worth R100million.

The Department has revealed that thousands of houses have been condemned for poor workmanship, some of which would have to be destroyed and others fixed at a cost of millions of rands of public money.

1910 government officials who had unlawfully benefited from housing subsidies have been arrested and 1297 of these prosecuted. One conveyancing attorney in KwaZulu-Natal alone had been charged with 142 counts of fraud and theft.

The investigations is now going to focus on housing syndicates which are an increasing concern, subsidy frauds and on dodgy contractors, primarily operating in Gauteng, North West and KwaZulu-Natal.

COSATU is particularly pleased that R44 million so far recovered from provincial municipal officials will go back into the Human Settlements grants for service delivery.

The federation applauds the minister’s determination to fight corruption, which he correctly says “is so endemic in our country. We are convinced that this will give hope and people will know that something is being done to expose corruption. We are increasing resources into investigating all those who abuse the system”.

COSATU warns all those who think that they can get away with robbing the poor and sabotaging the delivery of houses and services for their own self-enrichment that they are being watched and will not escape the law and the anger of the masses.

AfriForum responded to the Public Protector’s findings re General Siphiwe Nyanda’s involvement in companies that profited millions from Transnet contracts by stating that these findings do not exempt Nyanda from moral accountability for unethical conduct.  The fact that the Public Protector could find no proof that Nyanda had influenced the award processes irregularly, does not change the fact that in itself it is unethical for a public official and his relatives to be involved in companies that benefit from tenders.

According to Alana Bailey, Deputy CEO of AfriForum, the Public Protector’s finding that Nyanda had abused his position and had supported the former CEO of Transnet Freight Rail, Siyabonga Gama, improperly when the latter had been subject to a disciplinary hearing, is sufficient cause for argument that Nyanda is not fit for public office.  This action of Nyanda is a contravention of Section 2.3(d) of the Executive Code of Ethics.

Bailey emphasised that the dearth of accountability of public officials in South Africa can be ascribed to the fact that technical points are used all too often to acquit   officials, while the actions of such people obviously are unethical.  “Even though Government therefore might not hold Nyanda legally accountable, he should be held accountable on moral grounds,” Bailey added.

According to Bailey, it is essential that the awarding of tenders to companies in which public officials and their relatives are involved, should be prohibited.  “As long as such tenders are justified, it will be impossible to combat corruption effectively,” Bailey said.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions and its affiliates in the North West are disturbed by the headlines in the Mafikeng Mail of 6th August 2010 which read “Vavi angers PTT (Provincial Task Team)”. This is disturbing given the fact that the North West province is one of the provinces which are overwhelmed by corruption in all spheres.

We have witnessed a discriminative implementation of the report done by the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs of which we have since requested a copy and we are not getting it. Senior managers in government departments have been implicated in corruption allegations but the PTT has done nothing to bring the perpetrators to book.

In the same edition in page 5, MEC Mahlakeng cannot wait for the formation of the anti-corruption team to be formed and this is because he is also overwhelmed with the challenges of corruption in his department and he is not getting any support from the PTT.

Vavi and COSATU owes no one and apology and the statement is not irresponsible. It asks the PTT to stand up to the challenge and root out corruption indiscriminately and not selectively as it is currently done in the North West province.

We also want to put it in record that Vavi accounts to the two million members of COSATU and what he said is as per the mandate of these two million members who entrusted him with this mandate in the national congress last year. Therefore he is going to speak the way the workers want him to speak not the way the PTT want him to speak

We also want to challenge the Mail as a responsible media to help us to root out this cancer of corruption rather than to take sides.

The civil rights initiative AfriForum has undertaken to fight in court for media freedom, even if it were to mean that this fight has to be taken to the level of the Constitutional Court.  According to AfriForum, the ANC’s proposed Media Appeals Tribunal and the passing of the Protection of Information Bill, will be in direct contravention of Article 16 of the South African Constitution, which guarantees media freedom.   AfriForum has also undertaken to discuss cooperation for the protection of media freedom with other civil institutions.

Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, warned that the ANC’s efforts to curtail media freedom, have left South Africa at a dangerous crossroad.  Kriel states that a free media plays a crucial role in holding public representatives accountable.  The restriction of this constitutional right will drop South Africa in a downhill spiral, ending in self-destruction.

According to Kriel, the tragedy which is currently happening in Zimbabwe, also started with the restriction of media freedom.  “Therefore civil society has to join forces to make it clear that South Africa not just is yet another Zimbabwe, but in fact is a country where the civil society jealously guards basic freedoms, such as the freedom of the media,” Kriel said.

Kriel expressed the hope that the ANC will urgently reconsider its onslaught against the media, but also emphasised that AfriForum is prepared to appoint the country’s top legal experts to fight for media freedom in the country, if the ANC were to continue plans to restrict the media.

The debate continues to rage over the Protection of Information Bill which has been introduced in Parliament to establish a new system for the classification of government information.  Its proponents claim that the Bill is necessary to protect government information from ‘enemies’.  Its opponents charge that it is a threat to the accountability, responsiveness and openness that are at the heart of our multiparty constitutional democracy.

All states have a bona fide duty to protect genuinely sensitive government information.  It might accordingly be instructive to compare the approach in the Protection of Information Bill  with the provisions of the Executive Order on Classified National Security Information that President Obama promulgated in December last year.

The first distinction lies in the definition of matters that should be considered for classification.   In the South African Bill the definition is very wide.  It includes “all matters relating to the advancement of the public good” and “the pursuit of justice, democracy, economic growth, free trade, a stable monetary system and sound international relations”.  It also includes commercial information held by the Government as well as information relating to state owned entities. This means that virtually any government information, including information on parastatals and government tenders, would fall within the scope of classification and so be withheld from the public.

By contrast, the US Executive Order is very precise.  Information can be considered for classification only if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm national security.  National security is precisely defined to include matters such as military plans and weapons systems; foreign relations; intelligence activities; weapons of mass destruction; and scientific, technological or economic matters that might affect national security.  It is important to note that the anticipated damage to national security must be identifiable and describable.  Moreover, “if there is any significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.”

In the proposed South African system, the National Intelligence Agency – which may be presumed to have a bias toward maximum secrecy – would have overall responsibility for the implementation of the classification of government information.  The key agency in the US classification system is, perhaps more appropriately, the National Archives.  The Executive Order establishes within the National Archives an Information Security Oversight Office, headed by a Director, to oversee implementation of the information classification system.

There are also differences with regard to appeals processes.  South Africans may apply to the relevant department head to have information declassified provided that they can describe the subject matter of the information with sufficient clarity to enable the department head “to locate it with ease”.  If the department head rejects the request, the applicants may appeal to the Minister involved.    In the US system appeals are considered by an Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel comprising representatives from the principal security departments and agencies. Authorised holders of classified information who believe that information is improperly classified are expected to challenge the classification status of the information, first with their own agency and, if they are not successful, with the Panel.

Provision is also made for requests for a mandatory declassification review provided – as with the South African system – that the document or material can be described with sufficient specificity to enable the relevant agency to locate it.   However, requests for declassification do not apply to information that is the subject of litigation or that is contained in files that are exempted from search and review.

Finally, the South African system prescribes severe penalties – including prison terms ranging from 3 to 25 years – for any unauthorized person who obtains, disseminates or is in possession of classified information.   The penalties in the US Order, by contrast, are directed solely at government employees who are responsible for handling classified information.   The sanctions may include a reprimand, suspension without pay, removal or the termination of classification authority.

To sum up:  the proposed South African classification system could affect virtually any state information whereas the US Order is precisely limited to clearly defined security information;  the South African system would be administered by the National Intelligence Agency whereas the US system is under the aegis of the National Archives; the US system makes provision for appeals to a multiagency panel while South Africans would have to appeal against classification decisions to the Minister of the Department that took them in the first place. Finally, anyone breaching the South African act could be subject to severe criminal penalties, whereas the US system would apply administrative sanctions only to government employees.

Both the US Executive Order and the South African Protection of Information Bill profess adherence to the free flow of information between the government and the people.  Both specifically prohibit classification for improper purposes.  However, the two approaches would clearly have very different outcomes in terms of public access to government information.
The United States, with global military and diplomatic commitments that far surpass those of South Africa, has adopted an approach to the classification of government information that is far less draconian than the system that South Africa wishes to implement in terms of the Protection of Information Bill.  The question inevitably arises as to the underlying purpose of the Bill:  is it a bona fide attempt to establish a constitutionally compliant classification system – or is it really intended to stop the flow of embarrassing government information to the people via whistleblowers and investigative journalists?

—————————–

Die vurige debat duur voort oor die Wetsontwerp op die Beskerming van Inligting wat `n nuwe stelsel sal vestig vir die klassifisering van staatsinligting.  Die voorstanders van die Wetsontwerp beweer dat dit nodig is om staatsinligting te beskerm teen ‘vyande’.  Die teenstanders van die Wetsontwerp is van mening dat dit `n bedreiging is vir die grondliggende beginsels van ons grondwetlike demokrasie, naamlik verantwoordingspligtigheid, `n responsiewe ingesteldheid en openheid.

Alle state het `n bona fide plig om werklike sensitiewe staatsinligting te beskerm.  Ter illustrasie hiervan sal die benadering in die Wetsontwerp op die Beskerming van Inligting gevolglik vergelyk word met die bepalings in die Uitvoerende Bevel oor Geklassifiseerde Nasionale Sekuriteitsinligting, wat in Desember verlede jaar deur President Obama proklameer is.

Die eerste onderskeid word getref met die definisie van kwessies wat vir klassifisering oorweeg moet word.  In die Suid-Afrikaanse Wetsontwerp is die definisie baie breed.  Dit sluit in “alle kwessies wat verband hou met die bevordering van dit wat in die beste belang van die publiek is” en “die nastreef van geregtigheid, demokrasie, ekonomiese groei, vrye handel, `n stabiele monetêre stelsel en gesonder internasionale verhoudinge.”  Dit sluit ook die regering se kommersiële inligting in, sowel as inligting wat verband hou met entiteite in staatsbesit.  Dit beteken dat feitlik enige staatsinligting, insluitend inligting oor semistaatsinstellings en staatstenders, binne die bestek van klassifisering sal val en dit van die publiek weerhou kan word.

In teenstelling hiermee is die VSA se Uitvoerende Wetgewing baie spesifiek.  Inligting kan slegs vir klassifisering oorweeg word indien die redelike verwagting is dat die ongemagtigde bekendmaking daarvan skade kan aanrig aan nasionale sekuriteit.  ‘Nasionale sekuriteit’ word gedefinieer om kwessies in te sluit soos militêre planne en wapenstelsels; buitelandse verhoudinge; intelligensie aktiwiteite; wapens van grootskaalse vernietiging; en wetenskaplike, tegnologiese of ekonomiese kwessies wat nasionale sekuriteit kan affekteer.  Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat verwagte skade aan nasionale sekuriteit identifiseerbaar en beskryfbaar moet wees.  Belangriker nog, “as daar enige merkwaardige twyfel is oor die noodsaaklikheid om inligting te klassifiseer, sal dit nie klassifiseer word nie.”

In die voorgestelde Suid-Afrikaanse stelsel, het die Nasionale Intelligensieagentskap – wat per definisie ingestel is om maksimum geheimhouding te handhaaf – die primêre verantwoordelikheid rakende die implementering van die klassifisering van staatsinligting.  Die sleutelagentskap in die VSA se klassifiseringstelsel is (miskien meer gepas) die Nasionale Argiewe.  Die Uitvoerende Bevel vestig `n ‘Information Security Oversight Office’ in die Nasionale Argiewe, met `n direkteur aan die stuur daarvan, om toesig te hou oor die implementering van die stelsel van inligtingsklassifisering.

Daar is ook verskille met betrekking tot appèlprosesse.  Suid-Afrikaners mag aansoek doen by die relevante departementshoof om sekere inligting te laat deklassifiseer, mits hulle die onderwerp van die inligting met voldoende duidelikheid kan beskryf om sodoende die departementshoof in staat te stel om “dit maklik op te spoor”.  Indien die departementshoof die versoek afkeur, mag die aansoeker appelleer tot die betrokke minister.  In die stelsel van die VSA word appèlle oorweeg deur `n ‘Interagency Security Classification’ Appélpaneel wat bestaan uit verteenwoordigers van die hoof sekuriteitsdepartemente en -agentskappe.  Gemagtigde houers van geklassifiseerde inligting, wat glo dat inligting verkeerdelik geklassifiseer is, het ‘n plig om die geklassifiseerde status van die inligting eerstens bevraagteken by hul eie agentskap en, indien hulle nie daarin slaag nie, by die Paneel.

Voorsiening word ook gemaak vir versoeke vir `n verpligte hersiening van geklassifiseerde inligting, mits – soos in die geval van die Suid-Afrikaanse stelsel – die dokument of materiaal met voldoende spesifikasie byskryf kan word sodat die betrokke agentskap in staat sal wees om dit op te spoor.  Versoeke vir deklassifisering is egter nie van toepassing op inligting wat die onderwerp van litigasie nie, of inligting wat vervat word in lêers wat vrygestel is van soek en hersiening.

Laastens skryf die Suid-Afrikaanse stelsel swaar strawwe voor – insluitend tronkstraf van 3 tot 25 jaar – vir enige ongemagtigde persoon wat geklassifiseerde inligting bekom, versprei of in besit is daarvan.   Die strawwe in die VSA se Uitvoerende Wetgewing is in teenstelling hiermee slegs van toepassing op werknemers van die staat wat verantwoordelik is vir die hantering van geklassifiseerde inligting.  Die sanksies is administratief van aard en mag `n waarskuwing, skorsing sonder betaling, verwydering of afdanking van die owerhede van geklassifiseerde inligting insluit.

Ter samevatting: die voorgestelde Suid-Afrikaanse stelsel van klassifisering kan feitlik enige staatsinligting affekteer, terwyl die VSA Wetgewing spesifiek beperk is tot duidelik gedefinieerde sekuriteitsinligting.  Die Suid-Afrikaanse stelsel sal administreer word deur die Nasionale Intelligensieagentskap, terwyl die stelsel van die VSA val onder die beheer van die Nasionale Argiewe.  Die VSA se stelsel maak voorsiening om te kan appelleer tot `n multi-agentskap-paneel, terwyl Suid-Afrikaners sal moet appelleer teen besluite oor klassifisering by die minister van die departement wat dit in die eerste plek klassifiseer.  Laastens sal enige iemand wat die Suid-Afrikaanse wet oortree, onderworpe wees aan swaar kriminele strawwe, terwyl die stelsel van die VSA administratiewe sanksies slegs sal toepas op werknemers van die staat.

Beide die VSA se Uitvoerende Wetgewing en die Suid-Afrikaanse Wetsontwerp op die Beskerming van Inligting voer aan dat hulle getrou bly aan die vrye vloei van inligting tussen die regering en die mense.  Albei verbied spesifiek klassifisering vir onbehoorlike doeleindes.  Die twee benaderings sal egter duidelik baie verskillende uitkomstes hê in terme van openbare toegang tot staatsinligting.

Die Verenigde State, met globale militêre en diplomatieke verantwoordelikhede wat baie groter is as dié van Suid-Afrika, het `n benadering aangeneem ten opsigte van die klassifisering van staatsinligting wat glad nie so drakonies is soos die stelsel wat Suid-Afrika wil implementeer in terme van die Wetsontwerp op die Beskerming van Inligting nie.  Die uiteindelike vraag rakende die doel van die Wetsontwerp is dus: is dit `n bona fide poging om `n klassifiseringstelsel te vestig wat in ooreenstemming is met die Grondwet – of is dit in werklikheid bedoel om die vloei van staatsinligting na die publiek deur middel van onthullers en ondersoekende joernaliste te stop?

Zimbabwean farmers represented by AfriForum will apply to the North Gauteng High Court tomorrow (3 August 2010) for a special order to pay costs against the government of Zimbabwe, following the latter’s unilateral scrapping of their urgent application against the farmers from the roll, without offering to compensate the farmers for wasted expenditure.

This step comes after the Zimbabwean government erroneously lodged an urgent application against the farmers because the government was apparently under the impression that the auction of properties in Cape Town, scheduled for 27 July and 10 August, had been organised by AfriForum and the farmers.

Although the farmers were the first ones to seize the properties, the auctions were organised by German banking group KFW Bank Gruppe. Despite the fact that the correct facts had been widely reported in the media, the Zimbabwean government erroneously lodged an urgent application against the Zimbabwean farmers Louis Fick, Richard Etheredge and Michael Campbell. AfriForum is assisting the three farmers in their legal battle against the Zimbabwean government.

All three of the farmers were violently expelled from their farms and the elderly Mr Michael Campbell’s health seriously deteriorated after he was brutally attacked by people occupying his farm two years ago. He sustained serious head injuries in the attack. His house on the farm Mount Carmel was also burnt to the ground.

Mr Louis Fick is still being prosecuted in Zimbabwe because he allegedly did not cooperate in the land reform programme and if he is found “guilty”, he could be imprisoned for two years in Zimbabwe.

AfriForum’s legal representative, Willie Spies, said that it is clear that the Zimbabwean government is randomly trying to further jeopardise the three farmers by means of court applications. Although they were deprived of their income by the Zimbabwean government, they have to incur high legal costs for their court cases against the Zimbabwean government. The Zimbabwean government, in turn, is refusing to the honour orders to pay costs that are older than one year (including an order by the SADC tribunal).

“This fruitless application lodged by Zimbabwe against the farmers and its unilateral scrapping from the roll has brought about further costs for the already disadvantaged farmers. That is why an application will be lodged with the High Court in Pretoria for a special order to pay costs against the Zimbabwean,” Spies said.

The case will be heard in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria tomorrow (3 August 2010). The court proceedings will commence at 10:00.

AfriForum has joined the fight to keep the Mafube municipality’s electricity switched on. According to Cornelius Jansen van Rensburg, AfriForum spokesperson on local government, AfriForum will act on behalf of the Frankfort community. A letter was handed to Eskom yesterday, in which Eskom is requested to give the assurance that it will not suspend the electricity supply to the Mafube municipality.

Jansen van Rensburg said that if Eskom cannot give AfriForum this assurance, a legal process will be embarked on. “We are preparing for a legal process, should Eskom take action that is not in the interests of the paying residents of Frankfort,” he said.

“We understand the position that Eskom finds itself in, but the rights of the community should not be violated. The incompetent local politicians should be held accountable, not the paying residents of the municipality,” Jansen van Rensburg said.

AfriForum laid a complaint against the municipality with the Public Protector earlier this month, requesting an inquiry into the reasons for the crisis.