I have spent the weekend reading the National Security Service Bill, 2014. My thoughts... operationally, i dont think it changes how the national security fellows have been operating. If you have had a running with the boys in the blueish building ... you know they are a law onto themselves. This bill, just begins to put those activities on paper. there is a lot to be alarmed about. The Bill is vague in definitions of some key phrases central to its operationalisation like what is meant by interests of South Sudan. is this the interest of the government in power. is it the interest of the political party that forms that government or the interest of the legislature which arguably is representative of the people of South Sudan? Some of the things mentioned in definitions i.e what amounts to threats to national security are equally alarming. Subversion for example. who determined what is subversion and what is not? As such, although the entity that is national security now finally exists legally in the constitution, its operations are unlikely to change or become lucid.
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:59:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015