The object of this Act is to:
Promote transparency and accountability in governance while recognising that state information may be protected from disclosure in order to safeguard the national interest of the Republic. – (2(b), Protection of State Information Bill 2010)
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show presidential spokesperson and then transport minister Mac Maharaj received 1.2 million French francs in “commissions” from French weapons maker, Thales, before he awarded them the credit card licence contract. According to the documents, R2.3-million was paid into his wife Zarina’s Swiss bank account.
Dear Ray,
Wow! This is great! I’m just a bit concerned that the financial information is classified top secret. If you tell me it’s only valuable, I’ll believe you. I think we can get away with that. Jeez, imagine the Forex costs. OMG, right?
Regards,
Jacqui
Times POIB Advisor
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show presidential spokesperson and then transport minister Mac Maharaj received a large sum of French francs in “commissions” from French weapons maker, Thales, before he awarded them the credit card licence contract. According to the documents, a large sum was paid into his wife Zarina’s Swiss bank account.
Hi Ray,
Yeah, this is better for all the plausible deniability and such and such. But can we mention names? I hate to poo-poo this piece because it’s really quite good, but the names are part of the same report which unfortunately contains classified information, in which case all the information is classified. It sucks, I know, but…delete.
Regards,
Jacqui
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show that the presidential spokesperson and then transport minister received a large sum of French francs in “commissions” from French weapons maker, Thales, before he awarded them the credit card licence contract. According to the documents, a large sum of money was paid into the presidential spokesperson’s and then transport minister’s wife’s Swiss bank account.
Hi Ray,
Hmm. It still sounds a bit espionage-y. Perhaps we should approach it from another angle. Make Thales the focus, or something. I don’t know. You’re the editor, I just get paid to make sure you don’t go to jail 
Jax
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show French weapons maker, Thales, paid the presidential spokesperson and then transport minister a large sum of French francs in “commissions” before he awarded them the credit card licence contract. According to the documents, they paid a large sum of money into the presidential spokesperson’s and then transport minister’s wife’s Swiss bank account.
Ray,
On second thought, making Thales sound like the guilty party could prejudice South Africa in its international relations. Change it back, but don’t mention the company’s name. Or where they’re from. That way we can’t be held responsible for serious financial loss to the commercial entity, or anything. Two birds. Yay! Also, I checked, and using the person’s “official” job title is tantamount to a big fat pointing finger. Sorry.
Jax
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show a member of state (then a different member of state) received a large sum of foreign money in “commissions” from a foreign weapons maker before the member of state awarded them the credit card licence contract. According to the documents, a large sum of money was paid into the member of state’s wife’s Swiss bank account.
Hey Ray,
We’re almost there. I’m worried about the word “commissions”, though. Is this the official term in the declassification database? Also, did you pay for the info? Wouldn’t want to go through this kerfuffle just for you to get arrested for stealing
And do we want to mention the project he awarded the company? I mean, that’s a giveaway. Am I right, or am I right?
J
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show a member of state (then a different member of state) received a large sum of foreign money in finding fees from a foreign weapons maker before the member of state awarded them a certain contract. According to the documents, a large sum of money was paid into the member of state’s wife’s Swiss bank account.
Ray,
It’s been bugging me; do we want to mention the Swiss and “weapons maker” in the same article? I mean, we don’t want to prejudice any commercial entities, right? And there’s the irony. Lol. Also, I spoke to Steve in fraud and he says “letting the public know that she has an offshore account could make her a phishing target”, which could endanger her security, so chuck it. In fact, try not mention her.
Financial reports uncovered in the arms probe show a member of state (then a different member of state) received a large sum of foreign money in finding fees from a foreign weapons maker before the member of state awarded them a certain contract. According to the documents, a large sum of money was paid into the member of state’s family’s bank account which may or may not be in the country.
Ray,
Perfect!
J
Good one Jason. Thoroughly enjoyed this post.
From paragraph 14:
b) classification of state information may not under any circumstances be used to—
(i) conceal an unlawful act or omission, incompetence, inefficiency or administrative
error;
(ii) restrict access to state information in order to limit scrutiny and thereby avoid
criticism;
(iii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organisation, or organ of state or agency;
(iv) unlawfully restrain or lessen competition; or
(v) prevent, delay or obstruct the release of state information that does not require
protection under this Act;
In other words, if the Bill is used to conceal any of those elements, that’s a criminal act. Under Section 47, if you classify something Top Secret in order to cover up the embarrassing or criminal truth, you could get 15 years for doing that.
So, basically, the Bill doesn’t provide for any of this, in practice. It’s easy to imagine gutless journalists being afraid to publish stories, or to imagine thuggish politicians abusing their power to suppress stories. But you should stop blaming the Bill — or at least read it before you blame it.
Great! Small quibble…… how about ‘a previous member of State’, then again, or…..
POIB changes the original story from NEWS to RUMOUR which is all that could be published if it becomes law.
Although there is a Constitutional provision for prosecuting those who abuse the practice of classifying information as Secret or Top Secret, it’s just too risky for the public to rely on Constitutional protection when a government is determined to undermine the Constitution in the first place. Zuma is clearly anti-judiciary which is why he is systematically replacing real judges with stooges.
@The Creator: the Bill makes provision for censorship by not defining parameters for confidential information. Each organ of state is allowed to determine for itself what constitutes top secret, secret and confidential. The clear lack of definition opens the bill up for abuse. It also stipulates that any information contained in a document or file series in which confidential information appears, is itself confidential as a result. This imposes further restrictions on information that doesn’t necessarily merit the ‘privilege’ of being classified as secret. Perhaps you should read the Bill.
The bill only affirms the insecurites of the ANC – the ANC is still a leberation movement and they achieved their objective 17 years ago. They must stop hijacking their own supporters and reform because there are a lot of young talent of much better quality than Malema, that can take over leadership now and govern a true democracy properly.
In todays age you do not need to be scared of journalists, you can use the social media efffectively to your own advantage (remember Mbeki’s rant about Twitter?).
Come on guys – we live in 2012 – dump the old leadership – let them retire!
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Good one Jason!
@The Creator: “But you should stop blaming the Bill — or at least read it before you blame it.”
OK, fair point raised in your comment about the clauses preventing abuse of the bill. And, in honesty, I have not read the bill (so much to do, so little time!).
However, in IT security there is a “stance” regarding security: Either you ALLOW all access by default (and protect against exceptions), or you DENY all access by default, and open up for good reasons.
Now my conclusion (admittedly based primarily on press, blogs, comments, etc) is that the bill’s stance is default DENY (meaning state institutions first have near carte blanche to deny access to information unilaterally, and then Joe Citizen has to struggle to get access). That goes against my grain of open, transparent government, and is the primary issue I have with the bill.
It protects the government against the people (whom they can then abuse, and who have to take high risks to protect their rights). In fact, it is the people who should first be protected against the (inevitable!) excesses of governments.
So the bill is autocratic in flavour, and reveals the internal psyche of the ANC (as having strong autocratic tendencies, while espousing democracy publicly).
PS. This internal psyche of the ANC is also visible in the way ANC supporters continue to refer to the party as the RULING party, rather than the SERVING party. Choice of words reveal so much!
Unfortunately it is the media’s paranoia that has stiffled a healthy debate on matters regarding the bill, and the debate has been reduced to a noisy, messy affair along with tea party protests. I hope the media will learn that shoving their point of view on to to the public in an attempt to block other percpectives will not serve them any good.
The truth remains that this bill is not a media bill, and its aim is purely a constitutional obligation to protect state information from syndicates and culprits that are engaged in the leaking of tender info, information peddling, espionage, hacking, fraud etc. In the same tone it seeks to maintain the constitutional obligation for transparency, whistle blowing and access to information.
As such the bill gives heavy penalties to transgressors, and at the same time has made all classified documents to be accessible to the public through the PAIA Act, as well as an independent body that will review all classifications made by the state on a yearly basis.
My take is that the media has long been relying on scrupulous and illegal ways of obtaining information through shady characters, and is simply seeking to protect their food chain without the care of the consequences, as long as they profit.