‘New laws a bad idea’: NGOs, churches subject to state vetting in SA

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have described the Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill as unconstitutional, ill-conceived, lacking guardrails and only emboldening the government to decide which organisations should be vetted.

This was in response to the government this week explaining the benefits of the draft legislation as being crucial in fighting money-laundering and terrorism.

In line with the Bill provisions, NGOs and churches could soon find themselves being subjected to mandatory security vetting by the State Security Agency.

This, as Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni assured civil society organisations there was “no reason to fear” the new law, soon to be tabled in parliament.

Amending three intelligence laws – and splitting state security into two separate agencies, foreign and domestic – Ntshavheni assured not all NGOs will be vetted.

The intention, she said, was to curb terror financing.

“We will not have the ability to vet all NGOs in the country,” she said.

Asked yesterday what processes the government planned to follow in vetting NGOs and churches, Ntshavheni’s spokesperson Sipho Mbhele, said: “The legislation is before parliament and the parliamentary process is managing it.”

Former South African intelligence analyst Dalene Duvenage – now based in the US – said she was “appalled about what is happening back home” with the new Bill.

“It is like putting a communist lipstick on a rotting pig carcass stolen by looters from a starving family,” she said.

Duvenage said the Bill broadened national security “by adding “potential threat to national security” without proper guardrails and definitions – opening it up for more abuse than what is still the order of the day”.

She described oversight function as “politicised and ineffective”. Added Duvenage: “The Bill requires vetting for all NGOs and churches in a system where security vetting is totally broken.

“The list of stupidities and malice just goes on. Government tried to clarify, saying that the Bill was ‘in line with those in major democracies, such as the United States, United Kingdom and Germany – a smokescreen, smacking of arrogance.

“To say ‘not all NGOs will be vetted, with the intention being to curb terror financing – only subjecting those who pose a risk to national security interests’ – just shows how ill-advised the writing of the Bill was.

“If this is the intention, state it that way in the Bill with proper checks and balances, to prevent abuse,” said Duvenage.

“To say: ‘Regulations will be published once the law has been passed to clarify the vetting process’, again disrespects the intellect of the citizens. We know how long it takes for regulations to be drafted and executed in this dysfunctional government.”

Some NGOs that receive most of their funding from foreign donors have expressed fears they could be seen by government as “foreign agents”.

An NGO activist said: “I work in a sector which offers assistance and solutions to the poorest of the poor in rural areas – mainly receiving funding from abroad.

“We are a nonprofit operating within the law – compliant in terms of registration and tax requirements. The Bill is ill-conceived and unconstitutional – providing no checks and balances.”

The activist said banks were better placed to follow-up on money-laundering than intelligence agencies.

“With NGOs in South Africa totalling 110 000, including voluntary sports associations and knitting clubs, where is the minister going to start? With the minister enjoying a wide discretion, is she likely to pick on you because she does not like you?”

He claimed this was a threat and a ploy to close NGOs.

“We are seen as a threat by government and competing with it when it comes to sources of foreign funding.”