<script language=Javascript> var EmailThis = '/EmailtoFriend.aspx?ID=' + ArticleID var emailURL = "('"+EmailThis+"','','dependent=yes,resizable=no,scrollbars=no,height=400,width=520')"; document.write('E-Mail article'); </script> <script language=Javascript> var PrintThis = '/PrintFriendly.aspx?ID=' + ArticleID var printURL = "('"+PrintThis+"','','dependent=yes,resizable=no,scrollbars=yes,height=700,width=635,innerHeight=630,innerWidth=600')"; document.write('Print-Friendly'); </script> <script type=text/javascript> OAS_AD('Middle'); </script> By Linda Ensor CAPE TOWN — President Kgalema Motlanthe has for the first time used his power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parliament, referring the con-tentious Film and Publications Amendment Bill and the Competition Amendment Bill back to the legislature because of concerns about constitutionality. The president has also dismayed leading members of the African National Congress (ANC) and its alliance partners by not acting swiftly to sign other controversial bills into law. These would scrap the Scorpions and permit the summary removal of the SABC board. The ANC is concerned that his delay in signing the Broadcasting Amendment Bill will prevent it from removing the SABC directors during the current session of Parliament. This would mean the board picked by former president Thabo Mbeki would rule over the national broadcaster during the elections. The bill is expected to be sent back to Parliament because of its failure to include a provision for a due process of inquiry before the dismissal of the board. The two bills abolishing the Scorpions have also been with the Presidency since November. Motlanthe's refusal to sign the Film and Publications Amendment Bill into law was welcomed by the South African National Editors' Forum and the Freedom of Expression Institute. They made strong submissions to the Presidency that the bill's provisions for pre-publication approval of material infringed the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Business also lobbied hard against the Competition Amendment Bill being signed into law. The Presidency did not disclose details of Motlanthe's concerns about constitutionality, simply saying that “the president has expressed reservation on the unconstitutionality of certain sections of the bills after careful consideration.” Those opposed to the Film and Publications Amendment Bill warned that it was unconstitutional because it discriminated between different categories of publishers and infringed the right to freedom of expression. The final bill exempted members of the Newspaper Association of SA from the provisions requiring prepublication approval, but not nonmembers such as the publishers of magazines and small community newspapers. These publications would still be required to submit their publications for pre-approval by the Film and Publications Board. Trade and industry deputy director-general Zodwa Ntuli said the Competition Amendment Bill was sent back because of concerns about the constitutionality of a clause allowing the court trying a company director on charges of anticompetitive behaviour to treat a finding by competition authorities against the firm as conclusive proof of such conduct. The Competition Commission and the Competition Tribunal warned that this was unconstitutional because of the different burdens of proof involved. An administrative finding was reached on the basis of a balance of probabilities whereas criminal courts required a higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt.Source:Journalism.co.za <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type=text/javascript> </script> <script type=text/javascript> _uacct = "UA-261209-1"; urchinTracker(); </script>

<script type=text/javascript> </script> <script type=text/javascript> </script>   <script type=text/javascript> </script> <script type=text/javascript> </script> <script type=text/javascript> </script> <script type=text/javascript> </script>