Twenty years after the Windhoek Declaration on press freedom

When <strong>the</strong> result is darkness
By Raymond Louw
Raymond Louw, former Editor of <strong>the</strong>
Rand Daily Mail (1966-77) and until
recently Editor and Publisher of <strong>the</strong>
weekly current affairs newsletter
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Africa Report, is Deputy
Chairperson of <strong>the</strong> SA Chapter of <strong>the</strong>
Media Institute of Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Africa
and a Fellow of <strong>the</strong> International
Press Institute.
In <strong>the</strong> 19th century, Africa was
dubbed <strong>the</strong> “Dark Continent’’ because
few outsiders had knowledge
of <strong>the</strong> large expanse of sub-Saharan
Africa beyond <strong>the</strong> shoreline. But
even with Africa now comprehensively
mapped, it remains “dark’’ –
including to insiders – because of
governments keeping a tight rein on
information.
Today’s view of <strong>the</strong> continent is
characterised by Freedom House as
rating only five of its 53 countries as
“free” with a high degree of transparency,
while <strong>the</strong> rest are “partly
free” or “not free”.
South Africa, often seen as one of
Africa’s democratic hopes, has become
“partly free”, having lost its
“free” status last year <strong>after</strong> becoming
adept at <strong>the</strong> use of questionable
legal devices, wily political manoeuvres
and even brute force to hide
information.
The country has been pre-occupied
since 2010 by <strong>the</strong> parliamentary
machinations around a Protection
of Information Bill which has shades
of all three elements:
Section 4: Access to Information
• bludgeons of legal restrictions
and regulations that would
enable a great deal of official
information to be classified
secret,
• <strong>the</strong> promise of encounters with
brutality because of very stiff
jail sentences, and
• political machinations being
employed to get <strong>the</strong> law
through parliament against
wide-ranging public opposition.
If translated into law, journalists,
researchers and <strong>the</strong> public generally
will feel <strong>the</strong> effects. The bill fails to
capture <strong>the</strong> constitutional principle
that state information should be accessible,
open and transparent unless
its non-disclosure is reasonable
and justifiable.
In <strong>the</strong> past two <strong>years</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re has
been additional proposed legislation
which envisaged greater governmental
controls, chilling <strong>the</strong> work
of journalists and information being
withheld from <strong>the</strong> South African
public. These have included <strong>the</strong>
Protection from Harassment Bill, <strong>the</strong>
Protection of Personal Information
Bill, <strong>the</strong> Public Service Broadcasting
Bill and a new Bill amending <strong>the</strong>
regulator (<strong>the</strong> Independent Communications
Authority of SA).
Then <strong>the</strong>re are laws already enacted:
<strong>the</strong> Films and Publications Act,
<strong>the</strong> Prevention of Discrimination
and Promotion of Equality Act,
<strong>the</strong> National Key Points Act, <strong>the</strong>
Regulation of <strong>the</strong> Interception of
Information Act (Rica) and <strong>the</strong> 2004
Anti-Terrorism law. These already
permit <strong>the</strong> authorities to restrict
information about <strong>the</strong> police, <strong>the</strong>
National Defence Force, prisons and
mental institutions and <strong>the</strong>y can
compel journalists to reveal sources
of information. All of <strong>the</strong>se inhibit
Media in Africa - 2011 | 173