A draft intelligence law amendment bill proposes to vet would-be founders of religious or other non-governmental organisations.
The state security services, which since 2021 have been within the Office of the President, are set to receive a broader mandate as part of legislation designed to resolve some of the failures identified by the Zondo Commission.
That mandate will now include mandatory security vetting of not only people who perform sensitive work for the government, have access to classified information, or are permitted access to national key points, but also people who wish to establish and operate a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or religious institution, or seek to establish a private security company.
On the face of it, such vetting is unjustifiable.
Security vetting involves a deep dive into a person’s personal and professional history and relationships. It looks for any undeclared interests that might make that person a threat to the security of the state, or make that person vulnerable to being blackmailed, bribed or otherwise exploited by hostile agents.
Protected activities
NGOs, churches and religious organisations do not have any special powers. All their activities are protected by the Constitution in the clauses guaranteeing freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and protest, freedom of association, and political freedom.
These organisations do not have access to classified information or national key points, so even if they were to be compromised by hostile agents, this would not, in any way, threaten state security.
The draft Bill does not specify exactly what constitutes a ‘non-governmental ogranisation’, or a ‘religious institution’. Presumably, they are not limited to ‘nonprofit organisations’, which are governed by the Nonprofit Organisations Act 71 of 1997.
That Act makes detailed provisions for ensuring that non-profit organisations are managed responsibly and honestly, and report on their activities and finances appropriately.
It functions much as the Companies Act functions to ensure private-sector companies don’t appoint delinquent directors, and report their finances appropriately.
Vetting the founders and operators of non-governmental organisations and religious institutions, however, goes much further.
Intrusive vetting
Vetting is a highly intrusive process in which all manner of private information is surrendered for scrutiny. This includes criminal records, educational history, employment history including references and performance reviews, personal financial information and credit reports, medical history and drug tests, details of personal and professional relationships, and the catch-all, ‘any other information which is relevant’.
This gives the intelligence agencies access to potentially embarrassing information. The operator of a religious institution might, for example, not wish it to be public knowledge that they have, or have had, gay relationships. Far from verifying that such a person is immune to blackmail by hostile agents, this makes a person vulnerable to blackmail by the state.
The draft Bill is also vague about what constitutes a threat to national security. Although it nominally excludes ‘lawful political activity, advocacy, protest or dissent’, it includes a number of broadly worded activities that could be used against non-governmental or religious organisations.
They include causing ‘damage, harm or loss’ to ‘measures that seek to advance and promote equality and equitable access to opportunities as provided for in section 9 of the Constitution’.
Bona fide political lobbying against draconian hate speech laws, for example, or against black economic empowerment and affirmative action, could be considered to be threats to national security, under this clause.
Other threats include undefined ‘[f]oreign hostile acts directed at undermining the constitutional order of the Republic’, which could conceivably be used against organisations lobbying for or against changes to the Constitution.
Then there’s ‘subversion and undue influence by hostile interests on Government processes, policies and the sovereignty of the State and its organs’, which could enmesh both local and international NGOs seeking to influence legislation or regulation involving environmental, social or political rights.
I accept that certain organisations merit criticism, and may appear hostile to the interests of South Africans. I have criticised both local and international NGOs myself, for the influence they seek to have on national legislation and executive decisions in South Africa (most recently here).
However, the solution to this problem is simply to counter misinformation with better information. The solution is to be critical of the ‘reports’ of such organisations, and not to succumb to lobbying when it is not in the interests of the country.
I fail to see how intimidating the organisers of such groups by vetting them is a solution to any particular issue the government might have with a particular NGO.
Critical functions
NGOs and religious groups are private institutions that perform many important functions in a liberal democracy. They raise awareness of important social issues. They advocate for policies that promote social change, justice, and human rights.
They provide essential social services, including shelter, counselling, healthcare, education, clothing and food help, and employment assistance, to people in need, both as ongoing charitable institutions and as respondents to disasters.
Some NGOs monitor government and corporate activity, to keep them honest and ensure they comply with financial rules, administrative justice procedures, environmental regulations, and human rights law. They, along with the media – which may or may not be covered under the ‘NGO’ label – play a crucial role in holding the powerful accountable for their actions.
Civil society organisations play an important role in educating the public on a wide variety of important issues, including crime awareness and prevention, environmental protection and nature conservation, healthy lifestyles, government services they are entitled to, and the importance of civic engagement and voting.
Many NGOs work to protect and promote the basic human rights enshrined in our Constitution, such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to education, and the right to a fair trial. They also help to document human rights abuses and hold perpetrators accountable. Some offer legal services to those who cannot afford commercial legal assistance.
NGOs can work to protect the environment, such as by promoting sustainable development, reducing pollution, and conserving natural resources. They can also help to raise awareness of environmental issues and advocate for policies that protect the planet.
In a society born in conflict like South Africa, NGOs have been instrumental in promoting dialogue and understanding between different groups, providing humanitarian assistance to victims of conflict, and supporting the reconstruction of post-apartheid society.
NGOs help to promote democracy by educating citizens about their rights and responsibilities, supporting independent media, and monitoring elections.
These are critical functions, even in cases where one might not agree with the political or ideological content of the work of any particular organisation.
The real threat
None of these functions require security vetting or other government oversight, and many of them would be crippled if government officials were given the power to lean on founders or organisers, or withhold vital clearances and permits.
Most societies have appropriate laws to ensure the financial probity of NGOs and religious institutions, and police their compliance with healthcare, education or social services regulations.
The only societies that impose further government control over these institutions, and require rigorous vetting of their founders and operators, are undemocratic, totalitarian countries.
The threat to national security here does not come from NGOs and religious institutions. The real threat to our freedom and democracy is that government seeks to treat NGOs and religious institutions as potential threats to national security.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend