An effective clampdown on information about the actions of the police and the army failed to conceal that the declaration of a State of Emergency in South Africa on 12 June was part of a systematic country-wide attack on anti-apartheid organisations.
The little information that emerged also showed that in carrying out this attack, and in using the emergency powers to suppress protests, the police and army made full use of the armed force at their disposal. (See POLICE AND MILITARY CLAMP-DOWN)
Information about detentions disseminated in defiance of the emergency regulations showed that in every area of the country activists and officers of hundreds of organisations were detained. Monitoring groups put at thousands the number of those who avoided detention by going underground. Emergency regulations were used in many areas to prevent the same organisations from holding any meetings, and in the Western Cape even from issuing statements. The offices of many organisations were searched by the police and documents removed. Some buildings used by anti-apartheid organisations were attacked with petrol bombs and their equipment destroyed. (South African Crisis Information Group, London, July 1986)
Censorship made it difficult to gauge the nature and extent of resistance to the imposition of the emergency. Industrial action by workers protesting at the detention of trade unionists was the earliest visible sign of protest. (See UNIONS TARGETTED) By the end of July attempts to use emergency powers to coerce pupils into abandoning action over education had led to widespread defiance. (See EDUCATION STRUGGLE). Mass arrests of whole church congregations at services to commemorate those who died during the Soweto uprising of 1976 highlighted another expression of resistance. There were also organised legal challenges to the validity of the emergency regulations. (See below)
These developments suggested that the regime's actions had not destroyed the structures of resistance, whose adaptation to conditions of extreme repression had been signalled during the past year by the formation of such bodies as street committees. (Briefing Paper No.20 'Repression and Resistance during 1985')
CONTROL OF INFORMATION
The emergency powers included most of the powers activated during the emergency in force from July 1985 to March 1986. In certain respects the new emergency went much further, particularly in its restrictions on the dissemination of information and on the making of statements described in the regulations as 'subversive'. (See Briefing Paper No.19 'State of Emergency' for previous emergency powers)
Journalists attempting to report events in the townships are faced with a barrier of laws restricting information about police and military activities. They have had to depend increasingly on police reports, particularly since the imposition of the State of Emergency in July 1985, when the military presence in these areas was substantially expanded.
The new emergency regulations ban the filming, recording or representation of any public disturbance, violence, strike or boycott or any assault on or killing of a person, any person involved in such actions, or any actions of the 'security forces' with regard to the public safety and order or the termination of the State of Emergency.
On 16 June the South African Police Commissioner used his powers under Section 7(1) (c) of the regulations, which deals specifically with control of the media, to impose a further ban on all reporting, without permission, of news about the conduct of the 'security forces' regarding the public safety and order or the State of Emergency. He also banned journalists from reporting in any African residential area or any other area in which unrest was occurring without prior permission. However, this second order was withdrawn a week later.
All these regulations apply to the dissemination of news both within and outside South Africa. Journalists are expected to make do with the increasingly sparse daily news briefings given by the government's Bureau of Information. The maximum penalty for an offence remains the same as under the last State of Emergency - ten years' imprisonment or a fine of R20,000. (GG 12.6.86; DD 17.6.86; Star 30.6.86)
In addition, the new regulations contain provisions broader and more severe than those which came into effect during the course of the last emergency. Under Section 10 it is an offence to write, record, disseminate, possess or display to the public any 'subversive statement'. A 'subversive statement' is defined as one which is calculated or likely to have the effect of promoting the aims of an unlawful organisation, inciting people to take part in unlawful strikes, boycotts, demonstrations or acts of civil disobedience or in discrediting or undermining the system of compulsory military service; inciting people to resist or oppose the government or 'security forces' in relation to the emergency regulations or public safety, engendering or aggravating hostility between persons or groups of persons; weakening or undermining the public's confidence in the termination of the State of Emergency; or promoting or encouraging disinvestment or the application of sanctions or foreign action against the country.
The Minister of Law and Order, or anyone authorised by him, may authorise the seizure of copies of any publication which he considers contains a 'subversive statement' or any other information that may be detrimental to public safety, the maintenance of law and order or the termination of the State of Emergency. The Minister may also make it an offence to publish subsequent issues of any periodical publication he considers 'subversive' for any period he specifies.
Within days of the declaration of the emergency police seized copies of the Sowetan and Weekly Mail newspapers from newsagents. The Sowetan was informed that charges were being investigated against it. Police also demanded to see copies of newspapers at the City Press and Sunday Tribune offices. The offices of New Nation were raided and the only staff member present, Tladi KHUELE, was detained under the emergency regulations. Several days later the editor of New Nation, Zwelakhe SISULU, was detained and held for three weeks. (Star 14.6.86; BBC 16.6.86; S 17.6.86; WM 20.6.86; Tel 30.6.86)
After some newspapers displayed blank spaces to indicate the censorship imposed on them, one newspaper, the Sowetan, was informed that the police interpreted these, too, as 'subversive'. (S 20.6.86)
However, in July much of the farreaching definition of what qualified as 'subversive' under the emergency regulations was declared null and void by the Natal Supreme Court. In response to an application by the Metal and Allied Workers Union, it found five of the six definitions too vague to be lawful - leaving only the definition referring to incitement to participate in strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, civil disobedience and to oppose conscription. (GN 17.7.86)
Within a month of the declaration of the State of Emergency 22 journalists had been detained and four correspondents for foreign news agencies deported.
On 16 June telephone communications were temporarily cut off in major townships, including Soweto. The Bureau of Information said that this was due to an accidental breakdown. (FT 18.6.86)
The following day the Bureau of Information issued a directive to the South African Broadcasting Corporation prohibiting all live satellite transmissions out of South Africa by foreign television networks for the duration of the emergency. (BBC 18.6.86)
Information restrictions were extended on 17 June to all the bantustans not declared 'independent' when the State President issued a proclamation providing for the application of the emergency regulations to these areas and giving bantustan authorities corresponding powers. (DD 19.6.86)
