Parliamentarians were put on the defensive at public hearings on the Anti-Terrorism Bill this week, as the proposed law was slammed by legal associations, media interest groups, churches, human rights and civil society organisations.
MPs were told there was no need for special anti-terrorism legislation because the prosecutions of members of the Boeremag and People against Gangsterism and Drugs had shown existing laws were adequate.
“[The Bill] is so vague and so embarrassing that the Constitutional Court would just chuck it out,” Advocate George Bizos said on behalf of the Legal Resources Centre.
Warnings that the proposed legislation was reminiscent of apartheid security laws peppered the hearings and Islamic groups expressed fears that the law would target Muslims.
The groups argued there was a widespread perception that South Africa was pursuing the legislation under pressure from the United States.
Earlier ANC MP Pallo Jordan took issue when Raymond Louw, for the South African chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, said the Bill gave too much power to the safety and security minister and this was unacceptable given South Africa’s experiences under apartheid. Jordan argued that there were many ways of expressing dissent that were “shy of acts of violence and damage to property”.
Much of the public outcry stems from provisions for detention without trial for 14 days, contained in the first draft that coincided with a spate of bombing in Cape Town a few years ago. The provision was later dropped and the state law adviser’s office told the Mail & Guardian it had erred by making the definition of a terrorist act too wide.
One way or another an anti-terrorism law is certain. Mluleki George, chairperson of the safety and security committee said no one had come forward with an argument that convinced the committee otherwise.