/ 1 May 2013

Report outlines ‘number of discrepancies’ in secrecy Bill voting

Report Outlines 'number Of Discrepancies' In Secrecy Bill Voting

National Assembly (NA) speaker Max Sisulu received a report on voting last week on the Protection of State Information – or secrecy –  Bill, Parliament said on Wednesday.

Following the voting on Thursday April 25, a number of discrepancies were reported, including names of MPs who were absent from the house appearing in the voting results as well as names of former members.

According to Parliament a technical assessment was completed and it was established that the database of the NA’s voting system had not been updated after parties had changed their seating arrangements in the chamber and vacancies had been filled. Consequently the seat numbers did not always correspond to the correct names.

Parliament said that the problems with the database did not impact on the numbers of voting members. According to a preliminary reconciliation, the number of MPs who were in attendance on the day tallied with the number of members who voted or abstained. 

The voting apparatus assigned to the chief whip of the ANC Mathole Motshekga was found to be fully operational. At his request, his vote was adjusted to a ‘yes’ vote in the record of proceedings.

The ANC alleged last week that Motshekga was wrongfully recorded as voting against the Protection of State Information Bill due to "a technical problem with Parliament's voting machines."

Parliament stated that minutes would be changed to reflect the correct voting totals. The statement said that measures have been put in place to ensure that the database on the system is updated more regularly. 

Civil society and opposition groups cling to the hope that the controversial Bill will go to the Constitutional Court.

They hope that President Jacob Zuma will make use of Section 79 of the Constitution, which allows the president to send a Bill, including this one, back to the National Assembly for further deliberations, and then to the Constitutional Court for an opinion on the Bill's constitutionality.

This would allow the president to ensure the Bill is fully constitutional before he signs it into law. But the Bill is probably heading for a Constitutional Court review regardless of the president's decision. This due to several concerns raised by opposition parties and civil society groups, despite two years worth of wrestling over the Bill's various provisions at Parliament.