Hon Speaker and hon members, the National Key Points Act is a relic of the old apartheid laws which the democratic order inherited holus-bolus, while other laws that preceded the Interim Constitution of 1993 were tweaked and tinkered with, if not repealed altogether. It is not surprising that Murray Hunter terms it "a dinosaur that has survived the extinction and is wandering around in contemporary society".
The unwieldy powers given to the Minister who administers the Act are the source of our concern. The problems lie in the secrecy, lack of accountability and lack of clarity about what constitutes an offence under this Act. The Minister under whose authority the Act falls, has total and unfettered discretion in designating places as key points, which is contrary to the principles of accountability and transparency.
Section 3 of the Act pertinently states that -
... the owner of the National Key Point concerned shall after consultation with the Minister at his own expense take steps to the satisfaction of the Minister in respect of the said Key Point.
If this were followed to the letter, we would not be expected to fund the upgrades at Nkandla.
The secrecy surrounding the application of the Act is surprising, when even Members of Parliament do not know how many national key points there are, let alone which they are. This defies the supposedly democratic, transparent government of our age.
At the time the idea of the Act was hatched, institutions of government such as police stations, military bases and all instances manned by security forces, were not identified as key points. This was simply because they themselves would provide the necessary security. However, we notice, that police stations are also being guarded by private security companies these days. If the Waterkloof Air Force Base, which has more stringent security measures than an average national key point, is not one - as President Zuma made clear to his Cabinet and Parliament - we shall keep guessing which institutions or installations are key points.
We, in the UCDP, believe that the days of secrecy are over. South African citizens deserve to be treated with trust and respect and be told which institutions are national key points.
We notice that, in some instances, government applies a "better safe than sorry" approach. Unfortunately, this default position more often than not ends up with the rights of the public being compromised.
The UCDP stands to speak out and state that the Act falls foul of legality, an important aspect of the rule of law, as there is no list of key points. This is something that makes it impossible for the public to know where they should go. The concomitant vagueness and uncertainty render legal compliance impossible. Prof Pierre de Vos summed it up well when he said:
We are unable to comply with the law because we are not allowed to know what the law has prohibited.
Finally, let us hope that as South Africans speak out, they will be heard, and goodness will follow. Thank you. [Applause.]