OWN CORRESPONDENT AND JEREMY LOVELL, Cape Town | Thursday
THE South African Human Rights Commission (HRC) has slammed government plans to bring in a tough anti-violence law after a spate of bombs in Cape Town, saying they were ”unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional.”
”We are very uneasy about the possibility of a law against terrorism in our country,” said Human Rights Commission head Barney Pityana. ”It seems to us that it isn’t really necessary. We think there is adequate provision in our laws as they stand.”
The draft Anti-Terrorism Bill, currently being studied by the South African Law Commission, re-introduces the kind of draconian powers last seen under the country’s apartheid government.
Guilt by association, detention without trial and curbs on public gatherings are just some of the powers that will be granted to security forces if the draft bill, which is open for public comment until the end of the month, becomes law.
”It may be used today to deal with the urban terror in Cape Town. It may be used at another time to deal with taxi violence in Gauteng.”
There have been 20 explosions in South Africa’s top tourist destination since a Planet Hollywood restaurant there was bombed in August 1998. Three people have been killed in the blasts and more than 100 injured and maimed.
The government has blamed Muslim vigilante group People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad) for the blasts, accusing them of waging war against the state. Pagad denies the accusations.
Even the Law Commission itself noted that many of the provisions in the draft bill may be unnecessary and unconstitutional.
”Compelling evidence needs to be presented to justify detention for interrogation of persons suspected of withholding information relating to terrorist acts,” it said.
The draft bill allows a suspect to be held for 48 hours without being taken before a judge, and for up to 14 days without formal charges.
It makes it an offence to even sympathise with a ”terrorist organisation”, and spreads the mantle of ”terrorist” over a range of activities from endangering ships at sea to intentionally damaging the property of a foreign diplomat. – Reuters