South Africa | Freedom House Page 1 of 5
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
South Africa | Freedom House Page 1 of 5 South Africa freedomhouse.org South Africa is home to a vibrant media environment, and press freedom advocacy organizations regularly push back against government encroachments on the rights that journalists enjoy. However, such encroachments became more frequent in 2014, as President Jacob Zuma and the governing African National Congress (ANC) party stepped up the use of laws such as the apartheid-era National Key Points Act. The year also featured an increase in political and economic pressure by the ANC on both private outlets and the public broadcaster—the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)—as well as an uptick in violence, including the first work-related killing of a journalist in two decades. Legal Environment Freedoms of expression and of the press are protected in the constitution and generally respected in practice. However, several apartheid-era laws and a 2004 Law on Antiterrorism permit authorities to restrict reporting on the security forces, prisons, and any sites or institutions deemed important to the “national interest” by authorities. Journalists and media outlets at times face the threat of legal action as a result of their work, particularly when reporting on prominent political or business figures. Civil defamation cases, sometimes involving large fines, are occasionally brought against members of the press. Prosecutions for criminal defamation are rare. In a prominent recent case, the Pretoria High Court in December 2014 overturned the June 2013 conviction of journalist Cecil Motsepe on criminal defamation charges, for which he had been sentenced to a fine of R10,000 ($950) or 10 months in prison, suspended for four years. The charges related to a 2009 article he had written for the Sowetan newspaper about alleged abuse of power by a magistrate in Gauteng Province. Although it reversed Motsepe’s conviction, the Pretoria court also found that, contrary to the arguments of the journalist’s legal representatives and many civic organizations that filed briefs in the case, the criminal defamation law may be considered constitutional. The ruling had the potential to revive the use or deterrent effect of the seldom- invoked law. Journalists are unable to access or photograph areas deemed of interest to national security under the apartheid-era National Key Points Act. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of locations designated under the act. As of late 2014, at least 17 new key points had been added during the calendar year, raising the number to an estimated 200. Since the list of sites classified as national key points was not publicly available, journalists risked unknowingly performing investigations or taking photographs at http://cpf.cleanprint.net/cpf/print?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffreedomhouse.org%2Freport%2Ff... 5/1/2015 South Africa | Freedom House Page 2 of 5 a national key point, for which they could be arrested. Authorities could also claim that a site was a national key point to halt new media investigations. In 2013, the Right2Know Campaign—a coalition of civil society organizations and activists—and the South African History Archive submitted a joint freedom of information application to the minister of police, requesting the disclosure of the full list of national key points; after the minister twice refused, the groups took the matter to the courts. In December 2014, the High Court ruled that the minister’s refusal to release the complete list was “unlawful,” and ordered its release within 30 days. The minister appealed the judgment, and the list had not been disclosed as of the end of 2014. The constitution protects the right of access to information, and the country’s freedom of information law, the 2000 Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), is designed to implement this guarantee. The PAIA allows citizens to request information from a public— and in some cases a private—body, but it often falls short in practice as requests are frustrated by bureaucratic resistance. According to a 2014 report, PAIA applications were met with full disclosure of information in only 16 percent of cases in the period between August 2012 and July 2013. The controversial Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB) had not yet been signed into law at the end of 2014. The legislation would grant state agencies broad authority to classify a wide range of information as being in the “national interest” and thus subject to significant restrictions on possession or dissemination, with potential prison terms for violations. Vociferous objections from civic groups and opposition parties forced the government to amend the bill in November 2012. A revised version—passed by the National Assembly in April 2013—narrowed the definition of national security, included a limited public-interest exception, maintained the integrity of the PAIA and constitutionally mandated oversight commissions, and removed most commercial information from the bill’s purview. In a surprise move, Zuma, who had been expected to sign the measure, referred it back to Parliament in September 2013, after determining that some elements fell short of constitutional obligations. Continued pressure from civil society and opposition parties resulted in additional positive amendments, but the bill still contained worrying provisions, including the retention of prison terms of up to 25 years for the disclosure of classified information, and the criminalization of possession of classified information. A number of civil society organizations called on Zuma to submit the bill to the Constitutional Court for a legal review, and stated that they would launch a Constitutional Court challenge if the president signed it. The government does not restrict internet access, but state monitoring of telecommunications systems is authorized, subject to certain conditions. In 2014, the Film and Publications Board (FPB) released draft regulations, due to be finalized and implemented in 2016, that would require all online content to be classified in terms of the FPB’s guidelines. The regulations require web users, including bloggers, who wish to distribute films, games, or certain publications online to apply for an online distributer’s agreement or face either sanctions or legal action. Efforts by the ANC to replace the self-regulating Press Council (PCSA) and press ombudsman with a state-run media tribunal have been thwarted for the time being by PCSA http://cpf.cleanprint.net/cpf/print?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffreedomhouse.org%2Freport%2Ff... 5/1/2015 South Africa | Freedom House Page 3 of 5 reforms, including the establishment in late 2012 of a system of “independent co-regulation” that features equal public and media representation on the council, under the chairmanship of a retired judge. The overhaul also provided the public with greater legal redress, such as the ability to appeal directly to ordinary courts; an expanded definition of complainant that includes not just those directly affected by a story, but also public advocates; a clearer hierarchy of sanctions for violations; and a ban on hate speech and “harmful” coverage of children. Despite these reforms, the creation of a state-run tribunal remains a formal goal of the ANC. After the May 2014 national elections, in which Zuma won a second term, he announced the splitting of the Department of Communications into two separate ministries: the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services and the Department of Communications. The latter would oversee “overarching communication policy and strategy, information dissemination and publicity as well as the branding of the country abroad.” The Department of Communications, as described by the president, is primarily tasked with the dissemination of government messaging, both locally and abroad, and houses two public relations bodies: Brand South Africa and the Government Communications and Information System (GCIS). Also placed under the purview of the new Department of Communications were the SABC; the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA); and the broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), despite the fact that these entities have a measure of statutory independence from the executive branch. The move raised concerns among media watchdogs, as it placed the public broadcaster and other bodies intended to advance freedom of expression in a department dedicated primarily to public relations. Political Environment While officially independent in its editorial policies, the SABC has come under fire for displaying a pro-ANC bias, reflecting internal ANC rifts in its management struggles, suffering from financial maladministration, and practicing self-censorship. In recent years, a number of programs have been canceled due to political considerations, and prepublication censorship of critical reporting on the ANC and Zuma has increased. In 2013, the SABC canceled a popular political talk show just hours before its second season premiere on supposedly technical grounds, but activists alleged that it was due to the program’s critical reporting and intense scrutiny of government officials. In January 2014, SABC chair Ellen Zandile Tshabalala reportedly told journalists at the broadcaster that they were working at a national key point and therefore their telephones were being monitored; she warned them against leaking information about the internal practices of the SABC. A February report published by the Public Protector,