ODAC Submission to the shadow report process to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child

Posted in Blog

ODAC submission to the shadow report to the African Committee of Experts on the Right and Welfare of the Child

Centre for the Book 23 January 2014

 

The right to access to information

 

The Secrecy Bill was introduced in 2010, formally titled the Protection of State Information Bill. This legislation has now been passed by Parliament at the end of 2013, and awaits the signature of the President.  This legislation was met by severe criticism from a number of quarters. The legislation sought to allow the State Security Agency to classify a very wide range of information on vague grounds, and introduced severe penalties for breaches of the law. In one of the most criticized aspects of the law, no provision was made for persons in possession of classified information which exposed unlawful activity to blow the whistle, or make such information public.

 

The legislation was significantly changed, after an unprecedented civil society mobilization against the most egregious features of the draft law. The law as it has been passed is still described by the Right2Know campaign as failing to pass constitutional muster, as well as containing ill advised policy decisions. The number of agencies who can classify has been reduced, the scope of information that can be classified has been narrowed, and protection for a limited group of whistleblowers introduced.

 

The most significant impact of the legislation is on the right to freedom of expression and the right to access to information. These rights, contained in the South African constitution, may only be limited by a law of general application to the extent that this is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. These rights apply to all persons under the South African constitution, including children.

 

It may well be asked what the impact of classification legislation will be on children. There are three areas of concern:

 

1.     The right of access to classified information by Chapter Nine institutions

 

Chapter Nine institutions are provided for in the Constitution for the protection of rights. They include the South African Human Rights Commission and the Public Protector. These institutions require access to government records in order to assess the implementation of human rights, including the rights of the child, and in order to investigate maladministration in the public sector, including in relation to children.

 

Chapter 9 institutions such as the public protector, auditor-general and the Human Rights Commission would have to hand over to the police any classified documents that came into their possession, or face prosecution for failing to do so. This potentially limits the role played by these institutions.

2.     Research

 

Several universities have released statements on the grounds that the Secrecy Bill threatens academic freedom, in that the Bill will make teaching and research on aspects of the security cluster difficult and even risky. Higher Education South Africa (HESA), the national association of University Vice-Chancellors, also made written and oral submissions to the NCOP on the Bill.

 

The area of most concern in relation to children is classification of police information, and the information held by prison’s services. Information in relation to children in conflict with the law and the subject of both police or correctional services action may be classified on what are overbroad and unclear grounds. While this is of immediate concern to those dealing with children, the question of access to the information by researchers has been raised as a concern.

 

3.      Police

 

The Secrecy bill allows classification of police activity at station level by relatively junior police people. The question of information in relation to children in conflict with the law remains of concern. If such information is released by those who come into possession of it, even where unlawfulness is disclosed, both the discloser and the subsequent possessor of the information are criminalised.

 

The right to privacy

 

The right to informational privacy is one which is now regulated by South African law in the Protection of Personal Information Act. This was signed into law towards the end of 2013 by the President, but is yet to come into effect.

 

The Act regulates the privacy of all individuals, in that it regulates the processing of all personal data.  Known as data protection, this is “the legal protection of a person with regard to the processing of data concerning himself by another person or institution.”[1] This processing can threaten privacy in two different ways:[2] the compilation of the data threatens the individual's privacy, and false data leads to an infringement of identity.

 

The Act gives effect to eight core information protection principles, namely processing limitation, purpose specification, further processing limitation, information quality, openness, security safeguards, individual participation and accountability. 

 

The Act creates an ombud to oversee the law, which will be an independent information protection commission. Also, and critically for the Promotion of Access to Information Act, the Committee agreed that the commission would take responsibility for implementing that Act.

 

The Regulator will consist of a chairperson, and four other ordinary members, two of whom must be full time. The appointments are made in the same way as Chapter 9 institutions in that they are nominated through a committee in the National Assembly of Parliament, approved by the Assembly, and must then be appointed by the President, and they can only be removed by  a resolution by the National Assembly.

 

The two full time members deal with the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the  Protection of Personal Information Bill respectively, under the guidance of the Chairperson.

 

The powers of the Regulator are extensive, including education, monitoring and enforcing compliance, consulting, handling complaints, conducting research and reporting to Parliament, and facilitating cross boarder co operation, especially important in relation to cross boarder data flows.

 

The legislation takes a strong line on the processing of personal information of children. In general the legislation prohibits the processing of the personal data of children, which are defined as persons under 18.  The prohibition on processing personal information of children does not apply if the processing is— (a) carried out with the prior consent of a competent person;

(b) necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of a right or obligation in

law;

(c) necessary to comply with an obligation of international public law;

(d) for historical, statistical or research purposes to the extent that—

(i) the purpose serves a public interest and the processing is necessary for

the purpose concerned; or

(ii) it appears to be impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort to

ask for consent,

and sufficient guarantees are provided for to ensure that the processing does

not adversely affect the individual privacy of the child to a disproportionate

extent; or

(e) of personal information which has deliberately been made public by the child

with the consent of a competent person.

 

The Regulator may authorise a responsible party to process the personal information of children if the processing is in the public interest and appropriate safeguards have been put in place to protect the personal information of the child.

 

One of the consequences of this may be on the access to social media by children. Providers of social media generally require children to be over a minimum age before they can use social media, which requirement relies on the child self disclosing their age. However, children under 18 do use social media, and providers need to comply with the heightened requirements around the processing of personal data. If a complaint to the regulator were lodged in relation to a breach of information privacy by a service provider, then the Act allows for penalties to follow.

 

However the creation of a regulatory authority may improve the accessibility of state information for the implementation of children’s rights.

 

Cape Town

 



[1] Neethling, Potgieter, Visser (ed) (n 74) at 291

[2] Neethling, Potgieter, Visser (ed) (n 74) at 295

Head of Advocacy speaks on Secrecy Bill

Posted in Blog

The Open Democracy Advice Centre calls on the Parliamentary Committee dealing with the Secrecy Bill on Wednesday to do more than fix the typos.

“We know that the committee have been given the mandate to deal with the constitutionality of the Bill, on the basis of the President’s referral. Usually, only sections of a Bill are referred back to Parliament, and the relevant Committee normally only deals with those sections. But until the President says otherwise, he referred the Bill back as unconstitutional. It is certainly not normal practice, but when has anything to do with this bill been normal practice? From the Minister haranguing members of Parliament, to constant deadlines which can’t be met, this process has not exactly been a model for the passage of a Bill”, said Alison Tilley for the Open Democracy Advice Centre.

Parliament will meet over the next two days to consider the Secrecy Bill. They have been referred to two sections of the Bill in the President’s referral , but the letter from the President referred to unconstitutionality generally.

“We think parliament should pull their socks up, and pass a constitutional Bill. That’s what they are paid to do.”

Technology could empower Africans to hold their governments to account – Loren Treisman

Posted in Blog

Excerpt from an article printed by the Guardian: for the full article click here.

Next year, South African citizens will take part in their fifth democratic election. While the African National Congress will undoubtedly triumph, it can no longer rest on its laurels.

In a country with a long history of civil action, people are getting tired of waiting for the improved living conditions they’ve long been promised. The massacre of 34 miners protesting over pay and working conditions last year shows how bad things can get when frustrations escalate. The Democratic Alliance, the ANC’s strongest opposition, is gaining strength.

Sub-Saharan Africa is now home to more than 650 million mobile phone subscribers and 50 million Facebook users, enabling critical information to reach citizens at scale and at a relatively low cost.

Technology hubs are springing up across the continent. These facilities provide people with access to high-speed internet, events, mentorship and training. Through galvanising the tech community, they’re beginning to have a catalytic effect on the number and quality of tech projects being devised in-country.

But can these new technologies be harnessed to ensure that citizens have access to information and services that enable them to hold their governments to account?

The Open Democracy Advice Centre is taking this process a step further by creating a site that enables citizens to make Freedom of Information requests. The site will also act as a data repository, enabling citizens, journalists and activists to scrutinise public service delivery and utilise this information to hold their governments to account.

Right to Know in the Maldives

Posted in Blog

In continuance of our Executive Director Mukelani Dimba’s extraordinary work in forwarding access to information regionally and internationally, Mukelani represented ODAC at the Maldive’s Right To Information symposium to contribute to discussions taking place on forwarding RTI in that region.

Image courtesy of the Commonwealth Secretariat/Victoria Holdsworth (cc)

ODAC is delighted to note the commitments made, as a result of the symposium, to expand the application of the new RTI Bill. We also hope that the Bill will be passed as intended before the end of the year to advance the right of Maldivian’s to know.