Justice Committee adopts Cybercrimes Bill

A ‘B’ version of the 2017 Cybercrimes Bill was adopted this week by the National Assembly’s Justice and Correctional Services Committee, with two substantive amendments proposed by the DA’s Werner Horn and Glynnis Breytenbach. Endorsed by Justice and Constitutional Development Deputy Minister John Jeffery, they were eventually accepted by the handful of other committee members present after a lengthy debate, reports CompliNEWS contributor Pam Saxby. As is so often the case, ANC MPs were called in to ensure a majority vote in favour of the amended Bill. As Legalbrief Today has regularly reported since the Bill was released in draft form during 2015 for comment, it does not seek to criminalise identity theft. According to a statement from the Deputy Minister last year, this matter will be further researched and possibly considered ‘at a later stage’. Neither does the proposed new piece of legislation seek to empower the State Security Agency to ‘control the Internet’.

Against that backdrop, on the vexed issue of search and seizure – and in keeping with the DA’s recommendations – sub-clauses 32(2) and 33(3) respectively were removed from the Bill’s ‘B’ version with the aim of ensuring that no computer system or data storage medium seized without a search warrant may be opened or read without authorisation. This is noting that the definition of ‘seize’ under clause 25 paragraphs (c) and (d) refers to making, retaining and/or obtaining a printout of data or a computer programme. In Breytenbach’s experience as a prosecutor, the process of obtaining an emergency warrant from a magistrate or judge in chambers is quick and efficient – making it unnecessary to provide for accessing a computer system or data storage medium without a warrant to do so.

Regarding sub-clause 52(6), ANC members of the committee rejected Breytenbach’s recommendation that the Minister of Police report annually on the functions and activities of SA’s ‘designated point of contact’ not only to the National Assembly’s Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, but also to the committees responsible for justice and police. Jeffery’s view was that certain information such as assistance received from a foreign state justifies the level of secrecy afforded by the Intelligence Committee, which is not open to members of the public. Once revised to reflect the changes to sub-clauses 32(2), 33(3) and other minor technical amendments, the Bill will be tabled in the House for a second reading debate before being sent to the NCOP for concurrence – at which point a final round of public hearing is likely to be arranged.