General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill [B25-2011]: consideration of written submissions

Meeting report

The Committee noted the apologies of Mr Siyabonga Cwele, Minister of State Security.

Written submissions on the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill
The Chairperson advised that the Committee had received nine written submissions from interested parties.  Copies of the submissions had been circulated to the Members.  The period 27 to 29 March 2012 was set aside for public hearings on the Bill. 

Mr N Fihla (ANC) and Mr F Bhengu (ANC) observed that the submission from the Intelligence Services Council (ISC) dealt with labour-related matters rather than with the Bill.  Both Members agreed that the Committee should hold public hearings on the Bill and suggested that the other eight interested parties were invited to present oral submissions.

Mr D Maynier (DA) supported holding public hearings.  The Committee would benefit from the input from as broad a spectrum of society as possible.  He felt that the ISC could make a significant contribution and should be included in the invitation to present an oral submission.  The submission from the ISC did not include any confidential information and dealt with the service conditions of members of the intelligence services in general.  The Institute for Security Studies (ISS) had requested an extension of the deadline for submissions in order to prepare a more detailed submission.  He asked the Committee to consider granting the request.

Mr M Sonto (ANC) recalled that the Committee had previously discussed the request from the ISS and had decided not to extend the deadline for submissions.  It had not been clear who was represented by the ISS.  He agreed that all parties that had submitted written submissions should be given the opportunity to present oral submissions at the public hearings on the Bill.  He suggested that the Committee allowed a limited amount of time for each party to present its oral submission at the hearing.

Ms H Mgabadeli (ANC) observed that the ISS had submitted a written submission by the deadline (i.e. 16 March 2012).  She reiterated that the submission from the ISC did not deal with matters related to the Bill and should be referred to the appropriate forum for attention.

Mr Maynier said that the ISS was not acting on behalf of anyone else.  He felt that the Institute should be allowed the opportunity to present a more detailed submission, which would include an analysis of international best practice.  The submission from the ISC made reference to the Bill and the Council should be allowed the opportunity to provide further comment.

Mr D Stubbe (DA) agreed that the Committee should consider the submission from the ISC.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had refused the ISS request to extend the deadline for submissions.  The ISS would be invited to submit a verbal submission.  The submission from the ISC was addressed to him personally (not the Ad Hoc Committee), was unsigned and did not provide the name of the person making the submission or his/her contact details.  The submission dealt with labour-related matters, which were more appropriately dealt with at the Ministerial forums and by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI).

Mr Maynier suggested that the Committee informed the ISC in writing that the submission would be referred to the JSCI.

The Chairperson said that the ISC was taken seriously by the JSCI and he was confident that the issues raised in the submission would be addressed by that Committee.  He undertook to write to the ISC.

Mr Fihla suggested that the public hearings on the Bill were held on 28 March 2012.  There were no objections to the date from other Members.

The Chairperson advised that each party would be allowed thirty minutes for the oral submission.  Ten minutes would be devoted to introducing the salient points of the submission and twenty minutes would be allowed for responses to questions from Members.

Mr Maynier was concerned that one day did not allow sufficient time to hear the input from eight interested parties.  At some stage, the Committee should hear input from the Inspector-General as well.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee had no oversight responsibility over the Office of the Inspector-General.  An invitation to the Inspector-General to brief the Committee could be made but the briefing would not be part of the public hearings on the Bill.

Mr L Ramatlakane (COPE) welcomed the contribution of the Inspector-General.

Adoption of minutes of Committee meetings
The minutes of the meetings held on 28 February 2012 and 9 March 2012 were adopted, without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.