Lex Libertas | Media Statement Lex Libertas condemns Lamola-backed threats against institutions speaking out about South Africa PRETORIA – Lex Libertas has condemned and rejected proposals by senior ANC representatives, supported by International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola, to clamp down on South African citizens and civil-society organisations that engage internationally about the crisis in South Africa. In advancing this draconian proposal, Parliament’s International Relations Committee chairperson Supra Mahumapelo specifically named Lex Libertas and several other institutions, suggested that their engagements in Washington, D.C. could be regarded as treasonous, and called for legislation that would allow for citizens to be stripped of their citizenship. Other senior ANC representatives suggested that those involved should be prosecuted, while International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola endorsed the broader call for a clampdown and said the executive would investigate measures against people who, in his words, spread “misinformation” about South Africa internationally. ‘A serious effort to distinguish truth from falsehood should be welcomed, but this is by no means what is happening,’ said Dr Ernst Roets, Executive Director of Lex Libertas. ‘If somebody spreads false information, the answer is straightforward: identify the false statement, present the evidence and correct the record. That is how people who are interested in truth behave.’ ‘Those now threatening us have not even attempted to demonstrate that our claims are false. Instead, they are attempting to preserve a deceitful political narrative by labelling inconvenient facts as “misinformation” and threatening those who communicate them.’ Roets said Lex Libertas is confident that an objective assessment of the issues at stake would demonstrate that the organisations now being accused of spreading falsehoods have repeatedly raised legitimate and verifiable concerns, while the South African government has too often responded through denial, minimisation or dishonest deflection. Lex Libertas said the threats should nevertheless be taken seriously. ‘Freedom of expression is not a favour granted by the government. It is a basic and inalienable freedom. Even South Africa’s Constitution, despite the government now invoking the language of legality against its critics, expressly protects the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas in section 16. Section 20 goes further and states unequivocally that no citizen may be deprived of citizenship.’ Roets said the proposals are particularly disturbing in the immediate aftermath of the White Cross Project in Washington, D.C., where Lex Libertas presented a documented report on political incitement, farm attacks, race-based legislation, threats to property rights and possible solutions, while engaging American policymakers and the broader public. ‘The timing is revealing. The international narrative that the government has tried to maintain is increasingly being challenged. Lex Libertas’s White Cross Project demonstrated that a growing number of people internationally are willing to listen to evidence that contradicts the official version of events.’ ‘What we are now witnessing looks increasingly like the desperate reaction of a political establishment that can see its authority and credibility weakening. Instead of answering criticism, it wants stronger powers against the critics.’ Roets warned that nobody involved in legitimate civil-society advocacy should be deterred by these threats. ‘The exact opposite will happen in our case. If the South African government responds to international scrutiny by threatening organisations that speak abroad, then that response itself becomes part of the case that the international community needs to understand.’