Hon Chairperson, colleagues and fellow South Africans, the Protection of State Information Bill has traversed a long path to reach this point. It is a product of efforts of successive Ministers who led the state security portfolio. These were Ministers Nhlanhla, Sisulu and Kasrils.
Today, I stand before this House to complete this work. All these successive efforts have been made with a clear understanding that upholding national security is not a matter of choice but an obligation placed by section 198 of the Constitution on both the national executive and Parliament. This Bill is, therefore, a legislation of general application in upholding our national security.
We thank the members of the ad hoc committee who devoted sufficient time in improving the Bill. They also engaged members of the public through submissions and public hearings. They have done a sterling job, for which we are all grateful.
The ANC believes that the changes made to this Bill are a correct response to the valid concerns raised by fellow South Africans during the protracted engagements. The amendments continue to ensure a fine balance between secrecy and openness that are the essential pillars of national security in a democracy. Chairperson, allow me to clear the confusion surrounding this Bill by explaining its key objectives.
Currently, there is the Protection of Information Act, Act 84 of 1982 in our statute books. The apartheid regime followed a narrowed approach to national security, aimed at protecting the state mainly from those who were fighting the oppression.
From 1994, the democratic state followed a broader approach to human security, which went beyond securing the state to include protecting the people from fear or want. This Bill is heeding the clarion call of the Freedom Charter that "All apartheid laws and practices shall be set aside".
Secondly, since 1994, our country has been facing an increasing threat of espionage because of inadequate provisions in the 1982 Act. The foreign spies continue to steal our sensitive information in order to advantage their nations at the expense of the advancement of South Africa and her people. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Sections 36 and 38 of this Bill make espionage a serious offence that will deter to both foreign spies and their collaborators. However, Chairperson, it is important to note that you won't find foreign spies marching openly in the streets of Cape Town complaining that we are removing their easy access to our sensitive information, but they will fund their local proxies to defend their illegality. [Interjections.]
Thirdly, we currently have no remedy to the rising threat posed by information peddling. [Interjections.] This is where fabricated information is introduced to the organs of state with the ultimate aim of gaining financial reward or causing divisions. It often comes in the form of exaggerated yet unsubstantiated threats or conspiracies.
You may remember the Meiring Report which led to President Mandela appointing the Mohamed Commission to investigate claims that some in the ANC were plotting to overthrow the democratic government, and were sponsored by Michael Jackson. The Commission found these allegations to be a mere fantasy. [Interjections.]
Subsequently, other such conspiracy reports were investigated and found to be baseless. The most notable report tabled in this House, is the Special Browse Mole Consolidated Report, which was sold by peddlers to the erstwhile Directorate of Special Operations known as the Scorpions. Section 45 of this Bill criminalises and makes peddling a nonprofitable business.
The Bill also introduces the protection of valuable information by all organs of state. Valuable information is the nonclassified state information that requires protection from alteration, loss or destruction in order to prevent individual hardship to our people. I am certain that each hon member of this House has heard from our respective constituencies of the difficulties our citizens experience when their birth certificates, identification documents or driving licences are falsified, manipulated or destroyed.
In the recent years, we have had cases where unscrupulous individuals hijack companies worth millions of rand, largely by illegally altering the information in the companies registry. Sections 5, 8, 9 and 46 of this Bill bring relief to the public by protecting these databases in the hands of the state.
Hon members, in line with our new approach of balancing secrecy and openness, this Bill introduces a system of declassification of sensitive information. It introduces a practice and culture of regular reviews of classified state information. There are compulsory reviews after 10 years and mandatory declassification after 20 years, unless there are compelling circumstances to prevent such. The ANC introduced an amendment introducing the classification review panel, an independent body accountable to Parliament, charged with overseeing that the classifying authorities comply in this regard.
This Bill is not about regulating the media. There is no single mention of the media in this Bill. Neither is this Bill about covering up corruption. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate that as the ANC marches to its centenary celebration in two months' time ... [Interjections.] ... we remain resolute and steadfast against corruption and fraud. Section 49 of this Bill prohibits and criminalises improper classification with imprisonment of up to five years. The amendment made by the ad hoc committee further enhances the alignment of the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Protected Disclosures Act.
Chairperson, the improvements we applauded at the beginning would not have been possible without the submissions and contributions of our people through their diverse organs of civil society and campaigns. In the public hearings, they pointed out weaknesses in the earlier formulations of the Bill.
For instance, the committee, among other things, removed the provisions which were highlighted to be overbroad and may, thus, be unconstitutional. It narrowed the basis for classification from national interest to national security. All these were legitimate concerns and, as the ANC, we did not hesitate to support them.
Hon members, there are two demands that we cannot accommodate in this Bill. These are the public interest defence and public domain defence clauses. A public interest defence is a defence which allows a defendant who discloses classified or protected information to avoid criminality by claiming it was in the public interest to do so. The question is: Who determines such public interest? If the courts find that there is no such public interest after such disclosure is made, the state will have no recourse as the harm will have been done as a result of such disclosure.
We have looked at international best practices and there is no country which follows such a reckless practice. It has been persistently rejected in the United States of America, USA, over a long period of time. The British once accepted it but quickly rejected it as it was rendering protection impossible. In addition, the Bill has several in-built mechanisms for public interest protection and overrides. As we have said, we have strengthened even the provision around whistle-blowing protection.
The second one we cannot accommodate is what is called the "Ambrosini clause", the public domain defence clause. [Interjections.] The Constitutional Court has rejected this notion in the case of Independent Newspapers (Pty) (Ltd) v Minister for Intelligence Services and Others in 2008.
Hon Chairperson, it is my singular honour and privilege to invite the House to approve the second debate of the Protection of the State Information Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]