In October, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and his cabinet pledged to carry out a series of reforms in the country’s intelligence services. He based these reforms on the recommendations made by the judicial commission of inquiry into state capture.
The reforms include strengthening the intelligence inspector general’s office. The task of the office is to monitor the criminal intelligence division of the police, the State Security Agency and the intelligence division of the national defense force.
Since then, the president has appointed a new inspector general, Imtiaz Fazel, for five years. This could be a fresh start for this office after years of controversy over its ineffectiveness as a spy watchdog.
I have been investigating intelligence and surveillance for over a decade and also served on the 2018 High Level Review Panel at the State Security Agency. The agency is supposed to alert the country to potential threats to national security.
In my opinion, the new inspector general must act urgently to restore the credibility of the office. This includes resolving a variety of civil society complaints about alleged intelligence abuse.
structural problems
The office was created through the 1994 Intelligence Services Supervision Act and had structural problems from the start. Lacks resources and independence. Also, much depends on the incumbent’s determination to hold spy agencies to account.
As the former inspector general, Setlhomamaru Dintwe, admitted to the state apprehension commission, the office could have done more to investigate the abuses aired at the commission, within the resources and powers available.
Had the office uncovered civil society complaints about suspected surveillance and interference with its activities, and acted on it, the agency might not have fallen as low under former President Jacob Zuma. Some of these complaints are summarized below.
litany of abuse
An example of an unsatisfactory investigation involves former journalist Tom Nkosi. He complained to the inspector general in 2015 that David Mabuza, the former chief minister of Mpumalanga province and now vice president, had told him the agency was spying on journalists. This claim appeared to be confirmed by the agency spokesperson.
Nkosi asked the inspector general to investigate whether he was under illegal surveillance. Seven years later, Nkosi said that he had not received a formal response. He insisted that he still wanted to be held accountable.
The Southern Africa Litigation Centre, an NGO that provides legal advice on human rights, and the Right2Know campaign also wrote several letters to the inspector general’s office between 2015 and 2016. They also met with the office.
In the words of Right2Know in a 2017 letter to the inspector general, these letters concerned
There is growing evidence that South Africa’s national security apparatus has taken an increasingly hostile approach towards civil society organizations that legitimately challenge executive decisions.
Right2Know called for an investigation into these matters, as well as into incidents that suggest the monitoring and harassment of civil society by intelligence agents.
It also asked the inspector general to investigate whether spy agencies were intercepting the communications of its members and key supporters. This request remained unresolved. In a letter dated 2018, through their attorneys, the Legal Resource Center, Right2Know expressed concern about the inadequacies of the investigation.
The Legal Resource Center says it has heard nothing more from the inspector general on this aspect of the complaint.
Mark Heywood of the Section 27 public interest law center also called for an investigation into a media report that ministers from the security group were investigating five civil society organisations. This was after the Southern Africa Litigation Center took the government to court for failing to arrest Sudan’s then president, Omar al-Bashir, who had an International Criminal Court warrant out for him.
The media report quoted an ANC source as claiming that these organizations were fronts for Western powers meddling in internal affairs. Despite assurances that the inspector general had investigated the matter, Heywood and the Southern Africa Litigation Center say they are still awaiting a formal response.
Substantial Complaints
There are very real risks that people will saddle the inspector general with paranoid and unfounded complaints that they are being spied on. But the complaints from civil society were substantial.
The High Level Review Panel found that the State Security Agency’s “special operations unit” had placed Right2Know and other civil society organizations such as Greenpeace Africa under surveillance. He had also planted agents in these organizations posing as activists.
The state arrest commission has also declassified a “boastful report” detailing the special operations unit’s successes in tracking and infiltrating civil society.
According to civil society whistleblowers, the inspector general’s office often gave them verbal reports, but failed to follow through on formal findings.
As a matter of principle, the results should be made public. The secrecy cannot be used to hide the illegality. The most effective inspector general to date, Xolile Ngcakani (2004-2009), set a limited precedent when he published a summary of findings on abuses at the then National Intelligence Agency in 2006.
If Fazel is to make any mark as the new inspector general, he will have to face the fact that the office has been failing civil society and ultimately South Africa. This failure could provide space for corrupt elements to repeat their abuses of spy agencies. The agencies could once again become a threat to the very national security they are meant to protect.
Jane Duncan, Professor, Department of Communication and Media, University of Johannesburg
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
