Originally posted by the Voice of America. Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America, a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in the public domain. WikiLeaks Concern for South African Freedom of Information Activists Theyâre worried controversy will lead to state severely limiting access to information Darren Taylor | Johannesburg, South Africa 12 December 2010 As WikiLeaks continues to release heaps of United States government secrets, freedom of information advocates in South Africa are concerned the controversy will spur the countryâs parliament on to pass a controversial âSecrecy Billâ into law. âWeâre concerned that the issues around WikiLeaks may drive the Ministry (of State Security) to suggest that even more information should be made classified,â says Alison Tilley, executive director of South Africaâs Open Democracy Advice Center. ODACâs website says it strives to âfoster a culture of corporate and government accountability,â and seeks to achieve this âthrough realizing the (publicâs) right to know.â dapd Earlier this year, South Africaâs ruling African National Congress (ANC) party introduced the Protection of Information Bill in parliament, and proposed the establishment of a âmedia tribunalâ to âregulateâ the countryâs print media. The moves resulted in nationwide protests from human rights and freedom of expression groups, as well as the public, who remain concerned that theyâre the first steps towards an ANC clampdown on media freedom and a new age of censorship in South Africa. In recent years, the countryâs media has exposed several scandals implicating top ANC officials â including President Jacob Zuma â and businesspeople close to the ruling party, in a variety of crimes - including massive corruption. The ANC denies it wants to curb media freedom, insisting its bill merely seeks to protect state secrets - the publication of which it insists could endanger South Africaâs security. But legal, constitutional and access to information experts say the billâs definition of a âstate secretâ is so broad that it could allow the ANC to prevent the media from reporting on a wide range of issues embarrassing to the government â including corruption and even personal scandals. âCriminalize the chainâ According to the bill, the media would not be able to publish a story based on a âsecretâ document, even one that shows that a government minister has stolen taxpayersâ money. Instead, the person who leaked the document would be punished: the possession of such a document is a crime that could result in prison terms of up to five years â for the journalist and the whistle-blower who leaked the document. Tilley says if the South African bill becomes law, a lot of people could end up in jail for possessing information such as that published by WikiLeaks. âPerhaps I went onto the website and downloaded information from the WikiLeaks website â that would make me liable; if I sent it to a colleague â that would make my colleague liable; if my colleague sent it to a newspaper â that would make the journalist liable. And presumably once the journalist publishes it and people buy and read the paper, it would make them liable too,â the lawyer explains. âThe principle that we want to introduce in terms of the bill is that the only person who is liable is the person whoâs actually professionally responsible for keeping that secret - that is, the member of the security agency, the person in national intelligence,â she maintains. Thus, according to ODAC, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, should not be charged with any crime linked to the publishing of the US government secrets. Only his alleged source â US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning â should be held responsible for the leak. âOnce the information is leaked, we think itâs completely wrong to try and criminalize everyone down the chain,â Tilley tells VOA. âThatâs what the (South African) legislation does as itâs currently tabled.â No âpublic interest defenseâ Experts whoâve analyzed the South African bill say the fact that it doesnât contain a âpublic interest defenseâ holds extremely serious consequences. This means that whistle-blowers and reporters canât argue in court that the âsecretâ information theyâve revealed is in the public interest â even if such information shows evidence of damage to the environment or theft of taxpayersâ money, for examples. âThe Secrecy Bill says that in fact it doesnât matter whether informationâs in the public interest or not, it doesnât matter what the (confidential) documents reveal - it could be anything up to genocide and you still would be criminally liable if you made the documents available in the public interest,â says Tilley. Activists in South Africa argue that the South African governmentâs main motivation in drawing up the Bill is to prevent certain politicianâs crimes from being exposed. As few secrets as possible Tilley says the instinct of security and intelligence agencies across the globe, including in South Africa and the US, is to try to keep increasing amounts of information secret. This is dangerous, she says ⦠as Washington has discovered via WikiLeaks. âWe think that would be a very wrong analysis of what WikiLeaks should mean to security agencies,â she stresses. âWe think what it means is that you must narrow your focus, and concentrate only on that information which it is absolutely essential that you keep secret because lives are at risk. Then you secure that information as completely as you can.â ODACâs stance is that governments should keep as few secrets as possible, and strive for âopenness and transparency.â âWe think it improves decision-making; we think it allows people to participate in government more effectively; it allows them to advocate on issues more effectively; it allows better decisions around resources,â says Tilley. âThe more transparency, the better the decisions that are made â both by people in power and by people who seek power.â She adds, âThe instinct of security agencies to try to keep more and more information classified simply means that there are more people in the tent. And the more people there are in the tent, the more difficult it is to keep information secure, and the more likely it is that thereâs going to be a security risk, thereâs going to be a leak, and somebodyâs going to let slip the information.â Abuse of secrecy clause Tilley and ODAC are not suggesting that governments donât have a right to keep certain information hidden from the public. She says, âGovernments do have secrets that they should legitimately keep. They keep those secrets in the interests of their citizens. They generally relate only to narrow security issues. If we have undercover policemen, for example, working in gangs to try and end gang violence or trying to end organized crime, we would accept that those identities need to be kept secret. This would benefit the public, in that criminal activity would be stopped.â But Tilley says the âproblemâ is that once governments are entitled to keep secrets entirely at the stateâs discretion âit seems to know no endâ and is open to great abuse. â(In South Africa), we have documents that go in front of local government (municipalities) that are automatically marked âsecret,â simply because theyâre being dealt with by an executive committee in local government. Thatâs clearly wrong,â she says. Tilley says in South Africa, officials â using the excuse that certain information should be kept secret in the interests of the state â have tried to keep tender documents secret. âWeâve had people tell the Public Protector, sheâs not entitled to documents because theyâre classified so she canât investigate corruption,â she says. âThatâs precisely the misuse of classification which is problematic, and which we think will be probable â given the scope of the Secrecy Bill.â South Africaâs Public Protector is appointed by the president to investigate complaints from the public against government agencies or officials. Tilley hopes South Africaâs government, as it continues to try to limit access to information, learns some lessons from the leaking of more than 250,000 US government secrets to WikiLeaks. âIt shows that itâs very difficult to keep secrets â whatever you think about whether they should or shouldnât be kept. The fact is that America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with a very extensive network of specialists trying to keep secrets secret, has found that it canât be done.â .