In the weeks since the launch of the Free Speech Union of South Africa (FSU SA) on 30 June, some have asked why it is we need a free speech union when free speech is protected by the Constitution.
Over the past 28 years South Africans across the spectrum have exercised that right with alacrity as society relished its freedom from the shackles of apartheid.
People phoning into radio shows are intensely critical about everything, particularly the government. The letters sections of newspapers are virtually an uninterrupted critique of government performance (or the lack thereof), corruption, cadre deployment and much, much more. Social media doesn’t need to be elaborated on other than to say that the nature of the critique is particularly acerbic.
South Africans have used their freedom of speech with vigour and accepted it as the right that it should be.
One reason for setting up the FSU SA is our concern about the risk of mounting intolerance of free speech among the ANC elite in conditions in which the ruling party’s crises of internal factionalism, the revelations of corrupt behaviour, and the diminution of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s reputation significantly strengthen the possibility that the ANC may lose the election in 2024.
As a flailing, incompetent and corrupt ruling party faces losing control of the country that it has governed uninterruptedly since 1994, members of the ANC elite are likely to lash out at criticism and call increasingly for the limitation of the right to free speech.
Signs are appearing to support this concern. On 28 June, home affairs minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi lashed out against the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) for having the temerity to mount a legal challenge to his Zimbabwe Exemption Permit.
Salient points
A summary of the salient points of Motsoaledi’s response to the HSF’s court application follows:
- In an open and transparent democracy, organs of civil society have an important role to play.
- Most of the times, they do so in the national interest. However, at times, some of them can be a stumbling block in the implementation of Government’s rational and lawful decisions, which are in the national interest.
- The court action by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) is a perfect example of the ‘destructive role that some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are capable of’.
- This time the HSF was ‘conspicuous by its silence’.
- ‘There’s a disturbing and growing trend by some NGOs to sabotage the polycentric and policy laden decisions taken by Government by using the courts. This development must be nipped in the bud as soon as possible’.
- South Africa is ‘now under the dictatorship of some of the NGOs, with some having faceless and dubious funders. Their ultimate aim is to assist in the dislodgement of government of the day from power by all means available’.
- The HSF, in its desperate bid to blackmail the nation, is twisting the support for the Minister’s decision by the majority of South African citizens as being “xenophobic”.
- The HSF’s access to the courts is ‘guaranteed in the Constitution. However, this should not be a licence to abuse the Bill of Rights by some armchair critics, who have no idea of the sacrifices and deaths of many freedom fighters, while they sat in the comfort of their homes because of the colour of their skin. They now claim to be champions of the human rights of the African people in the whole continent’.
- The HSF is now conveniently playing the victim card by alleging that it is being threatened. We have no evidence of the alleged threat.
- ‘The Minister and the Department of Home Affairs will vigorously defend the lawful, reasonable and rational decision of the Minister.’
- The Minister’s door is always open for constructive engagement, rather than wasting the ‘ever shrinking Government resources to defend unnecessary court challenges’.
- ‘The Minister hopes that sense will prevail and that the HSF will opt for engagement [rather] than embark on a spurious court action, which can only lead to further tensions between citizens and foreign nationals.’
- ‘If HSF has the interests of Africans in the continent at heart, the Minister expects it to play its constructive role in assisting the affected Zimbabwean nationals to apply for one or the other visas provided for in the Immigration Act.’
Challenge bad policy
NGOs challenging the government in court is a bog-standard way to challenge bad policy or legislation. It is a way of our political life.
Motsoaledi’s threats and vitriol were astounding. His outburst is filled with conspiracy theories and self-pity. A sign that a politician feels attacked personally is that he rants on about the struggle and/or his role in it to illustrate how ungrateful his foe is.
The Citizen described it thus: ‘Aaron Motsoaledi’s recent rant against the Helen Suzman Foundation revealed an intolerant, undemocratic streak worthy of any Trump Mini-Me.’
Daily Maverick reported: ‘Six South African civic organisations have condemned a scathing statement by the Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, about the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) filing a court case challenging the department’s decision to not extend the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP).’
Hot on Motsoaledi’s heels came an outburst from minister of police Bheki Cele.
Cele attended a community meeting in Cape Town where more than 30 identified community organisations from Nyanga and Gugulethu were in attendance to air issues regarding the very high levels of serious crime in their areas.
The Director of Community Safety at Action Society, Ian Cameron, stood up and accused Cele of politicising crime.
Cameron, accused of gatecrashing the meeting, criticised the minister for a failure to deploy sufficient law enforcement in hotspot areas.
Shortage of resources
He said that the shortage of resources made a bad problem even worse, especially in Khayelitsha and Delft, where rape and murder remained a cause for concern.
Cele shouted at Cameron to ‘shut up!’ He did it twice. He also shouted: ‘I am a son of the soil. I chose to not speak about politics today. Whatever happens to me, I will be buried in this country.
‘I did not join human rights battles yesterday. I will not be called a garden boy. Don’t provoke me. I’ve lived this life. Shut up!’
Cameron was then escorted out of the hall by the police
Cameron told Eyewitness News that Cele’s political job stood in the way of the department’s crime-fighting efforts.
Cameron believes that Cele’s now-viral outburst was uncalled for. Cameron was forceful in going through a litany of criminal ills that township residents face. If he was perceived as being unduly aggressive, it was Cele’s duty to take it; no one owed him deference in the particular meeting, given the failures by the police to be part of the solution.
‘Cele didn’t like the fact that I told him that he was failing his own constitutional mandate and that he was turning crime into a political issue, instead of focusing on the problem at hand. So yes, he lost his temper and he started shouting at me and I was then forcefully removed by police. But we won’t stop speaking out against him and the way he’s abusing his powers for thuggery and police thuggery,’ Cameron said.
Cele’s history cannot be an excuse for his inability to do something about rampant, often violent, crime. Taking political power is to serve the present and the future, not the past. His past, difficult as it may have been, plays no role in his position as minister of police.
Behaving defensively
Ministers behaving defensively is neither new nor unusual. What is new is the vehemence with which the political class is lashing out, and in so doing, vocalising the desperate desire to silence the criticism of detractors.
They have not stopped us from exercising our free speech, but they’re showing a desire to do so. We must watch this space.
[Image: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/caricature-painting-girl-silence-5123406/]
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend