Prominent South African lawyer George Bizos on Monday took a new “Anti-Terrorism” Bill to task on behalf of the Legal Resources Centre (LRC), with him questioning the definition of terrorism.
At public hearings on the Anti-Terrorism Bill being held by the justice and safety security portfolio committees of the National Assembly, Bizos — speaking on a document presented to the committees — said a concise definition of terrorism was needed to ensure that individuals were not subjected to the provisions of the Bill in an arbitrary manner.
“The proposed definition of a terrorist act could realistically apply to legitimate protest,” the document read.
In terms of the Bill a terrorist act is an unlawful act committed in or outside the republic while a terrorist organisation is an organisation declared as such by the Minister of Safety and Security and which is likely to intimidate the public or a segment of the public. It is also likely to carry out a convention offence.
A convention offence is defined in the Bill schedule as including interfering with or seizure or exercising control of an aircraft or damaging an aircraft, or murdering or kidnapping an internationally protected person.
The LRC argued that it was immaterial whether the intention of the government was to refrain from invoking the Bill to deal with legitimate civil unrest. “Vagueness and ambiguity in legislation is an invitation for abuse.”
“The only bar to any police officer or public prosecutor instituting proceedings under the Act would be that the consent of the National Director of Public Prosecutions would be required.”
Suggesting that a section of the Bill giving the Safety and Security Minister powers to make regulations concerning any matter that may or must be prescribed in terms of this legislation and any other matter “which is necessary or expedient” to prescribe for the proper implementation of this legislation, the LRC suggested that any regulations prepared should be tabled in Parliament prior to them being published for comment in the government gazette.
Noting the struggle for the attainment of constitutional protections, the LRC noted that when limitations took place on human rights they must only be “reasonable and justifiable”.
“Where such limitations take place they must take place with absolute clarity and with clear reason,” the LRC argued.
“In a world environment thundering on about the dangers of terrorism, this draft Bill with its very confused definitions has not succeeded in achieving that clarity.” – I-Net Bridge