National Security Is a Sensitive Subject. a Country's Survival, Growth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY National security is a sensitive subject. A country’s survival, growth and development depend on a well crafted and consciously implemented national security policy. By nature, national security implementation should always be at a competitive edge relative to internal and external security threats. As a result, the state cannot easily disclose or expose its national security policies and plans without sufficient cause. Zimbabwe’s national security implementation is guided and instructed by the Public Order and Security Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These acts complement one another and are applied flexibly enough to suit the prevailing circumstances The Acts ensure that order, peace and stability prevail, and that the state’s secrets are protected from those who are not entitled to them. State secrets are the preserve of responsible authorities who implement them to control the variables that affect the survival, growth and development of the state. While the call for the right to access to information may sound cogent, it is important to note that it cannot be guaranteed that the information will not be used against the interests of the state and private individuals. In the Zimbabwean context, the phenomenon of the public demanding access to security information is not significant. The public is aware of the sensitivity of state secrets and security information, and it is not common to identify ordinary people craving for security information. Those who demand the information are political malcontents bent on finding a pretext for fomenting anarchy. Public order is maintained by the Zimbabwe Republic Police, and national defence is guaranteed by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, but for effective protection of the nation, security information is the preserve of those entitled to access it and use it, and not just anybody who might use it against the interests of the state. Peace prevails in Zimbabwe, and all the citizens enjoy unfettered participation in the socio-economic activities of the country. Sadly, however, sporadic occurrences of negative and unsubstantiated information against the state are witnessed, and these tend to polarize societal groups and attract the participation of external forces which find it as an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of a peace loving country, especially when it invokes legal instruments to normalize unstable situations. When this happens, detractors call it bad governance and yet no state, including those detractors, can afford the luxury to sit and watch the security of the state and the people deteriorating. Against this background, this paper is poised to give an analysis of Zimbabwe’s national security policies and their implementation in maintaining the peace and tranquillity we so much cherish and enjoy. 1 INTRODUCTION An adequate analysis of national security and access to information requires a fundamental understanding of the two concepts. National security refers to the protection of a nation from attack or any other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets (http://definitions./uslegal.com) The term is understood to encompass economic security, monetary security, energy security, environmental security, military security, political security and security of energy and mineral resources. A national security policy is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government. The right of the public to access information alludes to disclosing state information to the public and it is the brainchild of human rights activists, whose rationale for the quest is that it induces transparency, accountability and non-partisan behaviour in government authorities. Zimbabwe has a relatively conservative view of national security. Such a conception emanates from the realist view point that national security is inevitable and that any information that might jeopardize the security of the state must be withheld from public scrutiny. Realist assumptions are entrenched in the nature of the international anarchic system which they argue does not allow for careless publication of state secrets or permitting easy access to state information. Realists believe that access to state information is not practical. They argue that most nations are reluctant to divulge confidential information to the public especially in an atmosphere in which trust of their adversaries is lacking, and such trust is unlikely to be fostered as long as those adversaries do not disclose their own confidential information. Booth (1991) and Morgan (2007) point out that realists see states as preoccupied with their own physical safety and autonomy, in an international system defined by anarchy. Morgan (1991) further argues that states are in constant competition to increase their power relative to other states, and these international interactions are more important than states’ domestic cultures, leaders or political systems in determining behaviour. Realists like Waltz (2008) posit that the international system requires states to operate competitively lest they be eliminated, like corporations within a free market. It is only when national security is assured that states seek such other goals which include access to information by its citizens. The paper focuses on the current Zimbabwean situation, and frequent references to national security and access to information are necessary to analyze the context in which some of the legislation was enacted. In wrapping up the discussion, an attempt will be made to strike a balance between the security of the state and the rights of the citizens. 2 ZIMBABWE’S EXPERIENCE WITH NATIONAL SECURITY Historical Overview Current regulations and practices on national security and access to information in Zimbabwe constitute a mixture of state security and human security. National security is seen by almost all states in the international system as the most important component of a state which involves the actions and policies taken by a nation against all internal and external threats to its borders, economy, and stability. Much of the literature on national security in Zimbabwe focuses on the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the Official Secrets Act. These acts are applied synergistically, and were developed from the inherited Rhodesian Law and Order Maintenance Act, which was enacted in 1960. Over the years, some amendments were effected to suit the dynamics of the times and situations, and this gave birth to the three acts above. The overarching consideration was, and still is, national security, as no public freedoms can be enjoyed when the state is under threat of instability, or war. Traditionally, the right to access to information, particularly security information, was not an issue, and time will tell whether our people will really commit themselves to the issue, and adjustments to our legal instruments will be continuously made to adapt to the changing times. LEGISLATION CONCERNING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS The Official Secrets Act (2001) (Chapter 11:09) The Official Secrets Act contains norms about access to information and restrictions on national security grounds. The secret documents are those directly related by content to state security, national defence, internal public order or the security of persons. The head of a public body shall not disclose to any applicant information whose disclosure will prejudice the defence and national security of the country, and the safety or interests of the country. A pertinent example is the divulging of information deemed prejudicial to the security of the country to some countries, which was committed by Zimbabwean businessman Philip Chiyangwa and Ambassador Dzvairo. The two breached the Official Secrets Act and were arrested, tried and convicted. Public Order and Security Act (2002) (Chapter.11:17) In 1980, the newly elected Zimbabwean government inherited from the colonial regime, the Law and Order Maintenance Act (LOMA) that had been gazetted in 1960. It was used by the Smith regime to prosecute any journalists and individuals who made statements that had the potential to cause “fear, alarm or despondency” in the country. In the 1990s, the Zimbabwean government announced its intention to replace LOMA with the Public Order and Security Bill, and it sailed through parliament in 1998, though it was not signed into law. POSA was enacted into law in 2002, following the publication of falsehoods in the media, as 3 well as violent demonstrations by civic groups and opposition political parties, which disrupted the smooth flow of business. These demonstrations were characterized by looting, vandalism of public infrastructure, stoning and torching of public and private transport. Contrary to what scholars like Makumbe (2002), Bond and Manyanya (2004) said about the repressiveness of the Act, peace and tranquility prevailed when this law became effective. It can easily be said that national security was guaranteed as the police monitored all political gatherings. Article 15, Subsection 1 of POSA states that: Any person who, whether inside or outside Zimbabwe, publishes or communicates to any other person, a statement which is wholly or materially false with the intention or realizing that there is a risk or possibility of inciting or promoting public disorder, or public violence, or endangering public