Let’s Not Intercept Our Demcracy

NO ONE disputes that the security of Namibian citizens must be protected. On the other hand, each and every Namibian’s constitutional rights not only need to be protected, but cherished.

There is a very fine line between the two.Despite Government’s best assurances to the contrary, the controversial ‘spy clause’ in the new Communications Bill, unveiled last week, doesn’t even fall desperately short when it comes to protecting the rights of Namibians. It is off the cliff.The proposed legislation provides for setting up what Government calls ‘interception’ centres.Rights activists have already highlighted that that part (6) of the Communications Bill is on a collision course with that section of the Constitution (Article 13) which protects Namibians’ right to privacy.Apart from its constitutional shortcomings, we would go as far as to say that Part 6 is a sloppy piece of legislation when it comes to a lack of safeguards.In short, it gives ‘operatives’ the right to intercept telephone calls, e-mails and cellphone text messages as well snoop on your activities on the Internet.It also envisages some sort of control over prepaid cellphone services, such as MTC’s Tango. People will have to provide identification when buying this sort of service and be listed.Another worrying aspect is prohibiting encryption, which would have widespread repercussions for online banking and other electronic transactions (see opinion piece on page 6).At a breakfast meeting with members of the media this week, Information Minister Joel Kaapanda insisted that the legislation is ‘a good bill’ aimed at protecting our security, ‘the security of your children and future generations’.Government contends that it is ‘not unique to Namibia’ and that Namibians need to be protected against cyber-criminals and others. The official mantra is that it is in our best interest, that there is already a certain amount of ‘controlled’ monitoring going on, that other countries also do it, that if you’ve got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, and if people feel their rights have been infringed on they can approach the courts for legal recourse.The Minister also accused the media of ‘sensationalising’ the bill and accused us of ‘distorting’ the facts.First, we need to applaud the Minister for taking time out to discuss the issue, and to present Government’s view. It is vital that laws that affect us face the heat of public scrutiny. It is healthy for democracy. There should be more initiatives of this nature.However, when it comes to the ‘interception’ section of the bill, there is no need to be sensationalist. It is frightening enough.There are no safeguards entrenched in the legislation. That is out and out dangerous.Even the best legislation, drawn up with the best of intentions by the most noble of people, is open to abuse.As this particular section of the Bill stands at present, ‘interceptors’ or ‘operatives’ will have free rein to meddle in individuals’ personal lives, sniff around in their personal finances and monitor their every cyber move. This also lends itself to political manipulation.If this is not Government’s intention, they need to act with both due haste and diligence in entrenching the necessary safeguards, and to make them as watertight as possible.As unpalatable as it may be, we are aware that spying, like prostitution, will always be with us. But we cannot prostitute our democratic values on the altar of the ends justifies the means. There need to be stringent checks and balances if we do not want to erode our democracy.According to the Minister, the ‘interceptors’ will have to come up with ‘reasonable proof of suspicion’ if they want to monitor someone’s text messages, phone calls or Web activities, etc. They will then have to approach the Judge President, or some other designated person, for approval.The Minister also said that the ‘interception operatives’ will not be given an open-ended mandate to monitor a person or institution. A time span of three months was mentioned.However, these provisions are not represented in the bill.We cannot rely on verbal assurances. Safeguards need to be entrenched in the legislation.As it stands, Part 6 is an open invitation to abuse. We would also be ill-advised to ignore that the corruption of best democratic practices holds explosive dangers of its own when it comes to undermining national security.We also need to guard against deepening the culture of fear already prevalent in sections of our society. That too undermines democracy.Monday marked the 60th anniversary of the publication of ‘1984’, George Orwell’s classic book on a ‘Big Brother’ society,.As those who have read it know, it eloquently highlights the way in which human nature can impose itself on politics. That is precisely why we need safeguards.We need to protect our democracy as fiercely as those who fought for and shed blood for it.We cannot afford to play Russian roulette with our hard-won freedoms.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.

The Namibian uses AI tools to assist with improved quality, accuracy and efficiency, while maintaining editorial oversight and journalistic integrity.