South Africa Counsel for the Speaker, Baleka Mbete disclosed the State Security Agency (SSA) had installed the cell phone blocking equipment and in the statement, the SSA described the signal jamming as an operational error by the member on duty. The SSA went on to say that it was responsible for threat and risk assessment, and on the day was supporting SA National Defence Force efforts to enforce airspace security.”1 This supported Minister of State Security, David Mahlobo’s explanation that the cellphone jamming was installed to protect the president and Parliament against attacks by remote-controlled drones. Minister Mahlobo and President Zuma held a meeting with the SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) at which they promised this would never happen again. Indeed, at another meeting with the media Zuma condemned the jamming. The one positive element noted by the media was the speedy response by the authorities when the journalists complained about the jamming. The authorities immediately disabled the jamming device. Part of the “security measures” taken that day, included police officers disguised as waiters who then swooped in on members of the Economic Freedom Fighters, the opposition party led by Julius Malema after they disrupted the proceedings. The EFF MPs started off by calling for the President “pay back the money’’ - a reference to the Public Protector’s demand that he pay government back the money spent on features at his country estate at Nkandla in Kwa-Zulu Natal which 1 Source: South African Press Agency as published in AllAfrica: South Africa: Signal Jam ‘An Error’ State Security the Public Protector declared gave him ``undue benefit’’. Soon after, the heckling deteriorated into physical confrontations between MPs which is when the VIP Protection Unit police members were called in to remove the EFF members from the House. Instead of filming the skirmishes, the parliamentary TV broadcasting team focused their cameras on the Speaker and failed to show the turmoil and unruly behaviour that had erupted on the floor of the House. While the (Cybercrime) bill includes many progressive clauses, experts have warned that the bill is too broad and encroaches on constitutional freedoms placing excessive limitations on the right to access information, right to privacy, and the right to freedom of expression and opinion. Media organisations, Sanef, Primedia and Media 24, immediately made an So This is Democracy? 2015 53