The recent revelations in the leaked #GuptaEmails suggest that the prominent Gupta family spied on various individuals including former Finance Minister, Trevor Manuel; his wife and Absa Bank Chief Executive Officer, Maria Ramos; EFF leader, Julius Malema and FirstRand bosses, Laurie Dippenaar and GT Ferreira, and had access to their travelling movements.  While the motives for the spying on Manuel and Malema remain unclear, reports suggest that the spying on the rest is due to the Gupta interests in purchasing a South African bank. Should this be the case, then a number of laws appear to have been transgressed.

The extent of the surveillance detailed in news reports suggests that the Gupta business network operated in the same vein as a spy agency. The National Strategic Intelligence Act (Intelligence Act), established in terms of the Constitution, defines the functions of the members of the national intelligence structures. It makes it apparent that domestic intelligence should only be gathered in order to identify potential threats to the security of the Republic or its people.

1. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) is a unit of the FW de Klerk Foundation – a non-profit organisation dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). To this end, the CFCR seeks to promote the Constitution and the values, rights and principles enshrined in the Constitution; to monitor developments including legislation and policy that may affect the Constitution or those values, rights and principles; to inform people and organisations of their constitutional rights and to assist them in claiming their rights. The CFCR does so in the interest of everyone in South Africa.
   

WORLD REFUGEE DAY #WithRefugees

20 June 2017 marks the United Nations (UN) World Refugee Day. This day honours the courage of millions of people worldwide, who flee their countries due to conflict, violence and the threat of persecution. The day was earmarked by the UN in terms of a 2001 resolution, which marked the 50-year anniversary of the adoption of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Convention). The 1951 Convention sets out the fundamental concepts for international refugee protection, and signatories – of which South Africa is one – are obliged to ensure they adhere thereto.

Earlier this year, the youngest parliamentarian in South African history made her debut in a debate about government’s failure to improve the lives of young South Africans in terms of employment, education and training. At 24, Hlomela Bucwa is an example of the kind of young person needed in leadership positions – a young person whose presence will assist in effecting change for other young South Africans.

South Africa has yet to mature as a constitutional democracy. Nonetheless, its progressive Constitution is hailed globally as a blueprint with which to effect social justice, particularly for vulnerable groups, including its young people. Yet, when one considers the average age of Parliamentarians, the ratio of young people compared to those above the age of 50 is startling. In 2016, almost 48% of all voters were below the age of 40. This constituency translates to over 12.7 million young people able to elect leaders. It then seems odd that these numbers are not reflected in the composition of Parliament.

On 29 May 2017, the National Council of Provinces’ (NCOP) Select Committee on Social Services invited the public to submit written submissions on the further amended Refugees Amendment Bill [B12B-2016]. The Refugees Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced in the National Assembly (NA) in September 2016 and aims to amend the Refugees Act of 1998.

In essence, the Bill seeks to address systemic corruption, which has besieged the asylum system for years. Furthermore, it provides further disqualification and cessation provisions regarding refugee status, and re-establishes the Standing Committee.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) delivered both written and oral submissions on the Bill to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. However, despite these concerns, very little has been amended and the further amended Bill was passed by the NA on 15 March 2017 and sent to the NCOP for concurrence.

1. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) is a unit of the FW de Klerk Foundation – a non-profit organisation dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). To this end, the CFCR seeks to promote the Constitution and the values, rights and principles enshrined in the Constitution; to monitor developments including legislation and policy that may affect the Constitution or those values, rights and principles; to inform people and organisations of their constitutional rights and to assist them in claiming their rights. The CFCR does so in the interest of everyone in South Africa.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) today announced that former Chief Operations Officer, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, has been dismissed from his position at the public broadcaster. This comes after the SABC’s interim Board accepted the recommendation that he be dismissed, from the Chairperson of the disciplinary committee. Motsoeneng was charged with and found guilty of bringing the SABC into disrepute and causing irreparable damage to his employer after breaching the conditions of his suspension. The verdict comes after a drawn-out hearing, which Motsoeneng tried to stall multiple times.

The charges stem from a press conference held by Motsoeneng in April whilst on suspension, as ordered by the Western Cape High Court in December 2016. The Court also held that Motsoeneng could not hold any position at the public broadcaster unless and until the Public Protector’s report – in which he was named as part of the cause of the disarray at the SABC – was set aside, or a new disciplinary hearing cleared him of wrongdoing.

The South Gauteng High Court recently made a ruling concerning the conditions of detention in police holding cells, amongst other issues. The Mathe v the Minister of Police case was an application for damages, as a result of the trauma experienced by the plaintiff at the hands of the South African Police Service (SAPS). Whilst it was action for damages, key constitutional questions were raised.

The facts of the case briefly: the plaintiff and her friends were arrested for the offence of prostitution after being found seated outside a service station, awaiting public transport in the early hours of the morning. An unmarked police vehicle arrived and plainclothes police officers arrested them without first informing them of their rights in terms of section 35(1) of the Constitution. This provision addresses the rights of those arrested for allegedly committing a criminal offence and includes the right to be informed of their rights. The officers also failed to identify themselves as police officers before bundling the women into the vehicle. There was a short exchange before they left for the police station and, in essence,  the women were arrested simply for being women who were seated outside a filling station in the middle of the night.