How does one reconcile the issue of "sensitive" or "classified" information with the idea of the freedom of information? Perhaps the first can be understood as a way to protect the nation's security from others who may want to utilise such information to hurt it on a grand scale, like in the case of the enemies of the US obtaining information relating to weapons and defence projects.At another level, as in this country, we can speak of "sensitive" information in terms of that which is sub judice, to mean that it is within the domain of the courts and as such cannot be divulged for public information.But granted that public reaction to information may be prejudicial to a case in the courts, is it not incumbent upon lawyers to sift the wheat from the chaff and make a case based on the facts?
In any event, does the public not have the right to know if such information is in the "public interest" as enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act? Another impediment to freedom of information is the issue of libel. It is true that libel is acceptable as a legal measure to curb information which may be inaccurate and so damaging to character, but is it not often used as a means, especially by those who have the resources to do so like the state, to suppress information that may be incriminating?And as far as the elimination of libel for journalists is concerned in this country, should they not be subject to the same discretionary selection of information as is required of all professionals?
Are our politicians using this as a tool to woo our journalists for favourable coverage which ironically may be a two-edged sword equipping them with an unfettered means to "share licks" to the same politicians with impunity?In any event, can jargon such as "sub judice" and "libel," be legal constructs which ironically result in the subversion of true justice as much as the issue of evidence as a necessary requisite for successful prosecution when no such evidence is available is, or that of "beyond reasonable doubt" which sets a criminal free because of one per cent doubt as against 99 per cent guilt?Which brings to mind this leakage of a report for which that PCA is being pummelled? Wrong as the leakage may be procedurally, does the information contained therein not take precedence, or is the "leak " issue merely a legitimate diversion from the actual contents which may be embarrassing for the government–a theory which seems all the more credible because of the highly exaggerated suggestion that it is an act of treason?Will we in this country ever reach a point where we look at what lies beneath and not be taken-in so easily by surface impressions?I think among a small number it is happening, and that number is growing!
Dr Errol Benjamin
via e-mail