Chairperson, as far as Question 31 is concerned, the issues that are in front of the court, we will respect our oath and our Rules and we will not deal with them because hon members will know that in terms of the public domain those issues were there.
Quickly, to dispense with Question 31, let me say we have issued a statement. There was no executive authority or political decision. That is the answer and we have indicated that in terms of operational efficiency, an error occurred and we regretted the error. [Interjections.]
Hon members, hon members from the DA, would you please lower your voices. Your member asked the question and the Minister is responding. So please lower your voices so that we can allow the Minister to conclude.
And on that basis, we extended our apology. There was no intentional disruption of the signal. We took a decision as the responsible authority to carry out an investigation into that, but I can't give you the details because those details are before the courts.
The member should know that there was no executive decision, as per our statement, and thus the other part of the question becomes irrelevant. Thank you.
Chairperson, the Minister is absolutely the last person who should stand up in this House and give us a lecture on the Constitution, because the root cause of the problem is that the State Security Agency, SSA, is becoming like a Stasi, which cannot tell the difference between a national security threat and a political threat to President Jacob Zuma.
The Minister has set a new record by generating two scandals in the last two weeks - first signalgate and now spycablegate. I would like to ask the Minister whether he does not agree that it is in his interests, in our interests and in the country's interests that he take political responsibility and resign rather than relying on a rogue official's defence and making some poor official walk the plank. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chair, it sounds to me as if the version you want to give is your understanding of our mandate. I thought that our mandate is clearly stipulated in terms of section 191 of the Constitution. The same House passed various pieces of legislation. One of them is the National Strategic Intelligence Act, with the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act.
I would request that the hon member should not forget to read the documents. [Interjections.] We have a duty. Our duty is to protect the citizens of this country, the sovereignty of our own state. We are going to protect the infrastructure, including all South Africans - whether they belong to the ANC or not, including hon Maynier. He enjoys the freedoms and the liberties because of the work that our men and women do on a daily basis to keep South Africa safe. I thank you.
Madam House Chair, hon Minister, 12 February 2015 marks the day this country became an overly ANC-led securotocracy. We have never been poorer at any other time in the last 20 years in terms of our much- vaunted Constitution.
Hon Minister, you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein, which include the right to freedom of speech.
How do you correlate your department's actions on 12 February 2015 with your role as guardian of our Constitution, even if it was unintentional? Do you see South Africa as now being a state-controlled securotocracy? Thank you.
Chair, our security cluster and the State Security Agency, SSA, has been transformed. We operate within the ambit of the Constitution. [Interjections.]
Remember, we inherited national intelligence services and secret services that had no regard for human rights; that maimed and killed civilians and people who held a different view. Over the last 21 years, we have brought these men and women together with clear accountability measures.
When South Africans look at the record over the last 20 years they will see that we have ensured that this transition went well, because those men and women were working on incidents where this country was on the verge of incidents like those before the elections where right-wing elements wanted to kill the leadership of the ANC.
We can also speak about issues like the World Cup where other people tried to harm us. We have done well.
For accountability measures we have the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and we also have the office of the Inspector-General for Intelligence.
There is one message: We'll respect the law. But to all South Africans, irrespective of your views, rank and standing in society, we say, "Don't be on the wrong side of the law." [Interjections.] The intelligence agencies are going to pick out those South Africans who don't want to respect the laws of the country, because they threaten this country. We cannot be apologetic about that. I thank you. [Applause.]
House Chair, Minister, during the media briefing about the jamming of the signal one of the responses was that it was meant to protect the air space. In terms of the response that you are giving now, can you admit that you were trying to manage things by providing that particular answer, because today you are saying that you are still going to go back and investigate what actually transpired on that day? Thank you.
Chair, thank you to the hon member. We are going to try to indicate that if the member could find time and space and familiarise himself with the statement in totality, the statement is easily available and you will then be able to look at the details there.
One of the things that we admitted to all South Africans is the issue of an operational error and Ministers don't get involved in that. [Interjections.]
What we can indicate is that if the member wants to understand the technology that is being used as a countermeasure and to do the tradecraft, we are gladly allowing people to join our programme. He can be trained to become part of those men and women who can safeguard our country and intelligence office. I thank you.
Chairperson, let me start by saying that I quite agree with the hon Minister when he said that the services did well. They did very well. They did so well that you can read all the secret documents from Al Jazeera. [Applause.]
I want to ask the hon Minister something. In his answer he said that the executive didn't take any decision. Therefore, if I understand you correctly, hon Minister, you represent the executive, so you, as the Minister, didn't take such a decision? In that case I want to know: How is it possible that a member of the executive cannot be involved in a decision where the legislative body is involved? Because if you said that - as you said, you were not involved - then you didn't follow your responsibility.
If you said yes, you yourself were involved in that decision, then, also, I want to know how you see your responsibility. [Time expired.]
Chair, it is understandable that some people actually don't understand the role of the executive when they have never been in the executive or in operations. [Interjections.]
Hon members, can we please allow the Minister to give the answer.
There is a segregation of duties in terms of our own legislation that has been passed by the House. There is the role of an executive authority clearly spelt out. Then there is the role of the administration led by the accounting office. But, more importantly, if you work in the Intelligence community, you will know that the National Strategic Intelligence Act, as well as the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act, says that, as a Minister, I must be able to have regulations and operational directives.
I don't implement operational directives. If people don't know our responsibility, we'll find time through the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and promote public awareness so that members will be able to respect the segregation of duties. I thank you.
Particulars regarding involvement of State Security Agency during State of the Nation Address
46. Mr M S Mbatha (EFF) asked the Minister of State Security:
In view of the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act, Act 11 of 2013, which specifically limits and mandates the State Security Agency's (SSA) functions to state security such as terrorism and coups and not political acts, (a) why was the SSA even involved at all during the State of the Nation Address on 12 February 2015, (b) on what legal provisions does the SSA rely for such powers and (c) why did the signal jamming device target electronic communication from inside the Chamber of the Joint Sitting, instead of low-flying aircraft or other threats against the Government?