BRIEFING PAPER: ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION IN NAMIBIA Much of the problematic nature of the Act stems from a very broad definition of “terrorist activity”, which is both vague and inappropriate in parts. The various terrorism-related offences and actions by the State set out in the law spring from this definition. Hence, the Act could be applied in a manner that goes well beyond dealing directly with terrorist activity and impinges on the fundamental human rights set out in Chapter 3 of the Constitution. Apart from section 51(1), which makes “malicious arrest, search and seizure” an offence in terms of the Act, there are no attempts to put in place any checks or a monitoring system for potential abuses of the Act’s extensive powers. The following recommendations are made as a result of this paper’s analysis: l The Act should be referred for public consultation with a view to ensuring it complies with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. A revised version of the Act should then be re-submitted to Parliament where adequate time should be accorded for debate. l Such consultations and any re-drafting process should carefully weigh the proportionality of the law in relation to level of threat in Namibia and from beyond our borders. l The definition of “terrorist activity” should be tightened so as to remove all ambiguous and imprecise phraseology in the current version. In addition, the definition should be rewritten to ensure that it cannot be abused to target any legitimate activity that would normally take place in a democracy such as peaceful protests, labour strikes, freedom of expression on social media, and journalism, in particular investigative journalism. l The use of words like ‘promotion’ and ‘encouragement’ in relation to terrorist activity should be removed or more specifically defined so as to avoid possible abuse. l The manner in which the two draft bills were hastily passed by Parliament indicates that access to information principles were ignored on both occasions. Even MPs did not have prior access to the Bills. Any revised version of the law should be released for public comment and input at least 60 days before tabling in Parliament. As far as possible secret proceedings should be excluded from the Bill and access to information rights built in. l A revised Act should include a system for monitoring its implementation with a view to preventing abuse of power. This could be carried out through the appointment of an independent monitor or possibly giving such a role to the Ombudsman. PAGE 10