446
« on: November 12, 2004, 08:31:00 AM »
What u peeps think of this new bill and how do u think its gonna impact on South Africa?Its feels like they sugar-coating it, to me, but I am not too sure bout this bill.Anything conjured up by GW just isnt all that rosey.What r ur views to the bill below?
It has been called "draconian", "outrageous" and even "palpably offensive to the Constitution" and yet on Friday, the anti-terrorism bill may become law.
If all goes according to plan and it is agreed to in the house, a stroke of President Thabo Mbeki´s pen is all that will stand between the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill and the statute books.
The government is keen to get the controversial legislation enacted. In 2001, after the attacks on New York´s Twin Towers, concern was expressed by then safety and security minister Steve Tshwete who said the United Nations was pressurising South Africa to join the "universal response" against terrorism.
Three years on, that sense of urgency does not seem to have diminished.
Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula appealed to the National Council of Provinces in Empangeni last week to allow the bill to finally be enacted. He said it sought to make the lives of South Africans better and was at pains to explain that it was not made "to punish law-abiding citizens but those who want to undermine our democracy".Nqakula´s promises however have done little to appease organisations including Cosatu which see the legislation as unnecessary and worrisome.
While many of the more restrictive clauses in the Bill - including one cla**ifying strike activity as terrorism - have been dropped, the legislation still includes provisions that some say could be successfully argued against in the Constitutional Court.
These largely centre around the obligation on citizens to report "as soon as reasonably possible" the presence of people suspected of committing a terrorist act. People found guilty of not reporting such people are themselves liable for an offence under the bill.
Annette Höbschle of the Institute for Security Studies says a further concern is that bill "can always be amended" to include tougher measures and more powers for security forces.This is dangerous because if you look at America, they keep on adding to the legislation. Things can always be changed," she said.
The bill basically creates a host of new offences which are punishable by law and lays down strict sentences for convicted terrorists.
Called convention offences, in line with the 12 United Nations and African Union conventions which resulted in the legislation, these include the financing of terrorism, hijacking planes or ships, taking hostages, causing harm to "internationally protected persons" and committing hoaxes involving biochemical agents.
The legislation also allows for freezing orders and stop and search cordons in connection with terrorist investigations.
a**istant Commissioner Flip Jacobs, of the police legal services department, who has been centrally involved in the creation of the legislation, said fears that it would result in detention without trial and spying on family and neighbours were unfounded.
"It makes provision so that terrorism offences will be dealt with in the same manner as other serious offences. Also, no investigation proceedings can be instituted without the written authority of the national director of public prosecutions," he said.
He said that when inquiries were held, a person could be summoned to answer questions before police. "The provisions here are exactly the same as in the organised crime act. You are summoned to appear before the director of public prosecutions and you are questioned. Your answers, however, cannot be used against you as evidence," he said.
He said the bill allowed for the finances of suspected terrorists to be frozen as well as for a**et forfeiture in respect of terrorism financing.
"The president must also publish in the Government Gazette the names of persons and entities subject to resolutions of the Security Council."
Jacobs said there were two reporting obligations in the bill, one relating to financial institutions and the other to all residents in the country.
"In respect of financial institutions, any suspected terrorism financing should be reported to the Financial Intelligence Centre.
"The other duty is that if any person has knowledge of any other person being involved in a terrorism offence or about to commit one, they have to report it to officials.
"But recent amendments give such persons protection in terms of their identity," he said.
Jacobs said the "normal person in the street" would not in any way be affected directly by the new legislation.
"You only have an obligation to report matters if you have reason to suspect something. There is nothing requiring people to start spying on others.
"The obligation on you is the same as the legal obligation in the domestic violence act where everyone has a duty to report suspected domestic violence," he said.
Jacobs warned however, that the banks and other financial institutions would have stringent responsibilities to report suspicious deposits or other transactions. "They have to be working on the principle of knowing their customers and must take extra care when dealing with finances in relation to the proceeds of crime. They will have a duty to be wary of transactions that relate to terrorist offences."
By and large, he said, strikes, marches and general protests would not be within the ambits of the act.
Terrorist activity would be defined as "actions which are intended to do harm, endanger life, cause risk to the country".
"We have also removed the clause allowing political exception in terms of extradition. "You cannot object (if you are subject to extradition) on the grounds that the act was committed with political intention because in many instances, political intention is an objective of terrorism," he said.
Senior researcher Anneli Botha said she did not believe that in pa**ing the legislation South Africa was falling into the trap of adapting international conventions to domestic conditions and thereby flouting its constitution, something that has happened in several other countries.
"There are many cases of new legislation not being in line with human rights where countries are so eager to adopt the legislation that they do so without recognising the particular conditions in that country.
But South Africa hasn´t fallen into that trap. By comparison with anti-terrorism legislation in Kenya and Tanzania, for instance, ours is very liberal," she said.
She added that the fear was that security authorities would believe themselves to be in a "comfort zone" once the legislation is pa**ed.
"People may think everything is hunky-dory now that we have the legislation but this is dangerous. We need to be proactive, not reactive," she said.
Transcribed from the Daily News.I think its a bit of a shocker, but sometimes u fold under immense force and pressure in order to join the party.
Show Posts