WHILE Parliament has many failings, its committees have always been open to the public. Yet it is easy to forget that the right the public has to attend committee meetings is granted by the c onstitution and is not a privilege granted by Parliament, its presiding officers or its bureaucracy.

Last week, Parliament took a retrogressive step, when nine members of the Right2Know campaign were prevented from attending a meeting of the ad hoc committee on the Protection of Information Bill. The bill has been the subject of controversy as the civil society campaign against the bill and the, at times, flawed processes of the ad hoc committee gains momentum. The members were informed at access control that they were not allowed to enter Parliament as they were "banned". They were allowed into Parliament after nearly two hours, and the threat of court action, by which time the meeting had ended. The Speaker’s office says it was a "misunderstanding".

However, a press statement released by Parliament on March 31 cited the Right2Know silent protest (in which members of the campaign donned masks depicting State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele ) on February 15 as the reason the delegation was refused entry. The statement said "security officials took precautionary security action by denying entry", ostensibly to prevent another protest. The statement does not deny the Right2Know campaign has been banned from entering Parliament.

The Right2Know campaign is a coalition of 400 civil society organisations and 12000 individuals. A ban of campaign members from Parliament is in effect a ban of civil society more generally. It is the arbitrariness of Parliament’s action that should concern all who believe an open democracy is our right. Parliament has yet to provide details of who gave the security official the power to restrict access to the committee meeting. Who gave the instruction to "ban" members from the committee meeting and on what grounds? Does a list exist of those "banned" from Parliament? And if so, will those affected be granted access to such a list?

In the five weeks since the silent protest, the Right2Know campaign has received no notification from Parliament that its members have been banned. Right2Know members were allowed into Parliament to attend the committee’s previous meeting on March 22, creating even greater confusion about the action taken by Parliament last week. To indicate further the arbitrary nature of the decision, two members of organisations part of the Right2Know coalition, who arrived before the others, were allowed into the meeting. It is therefore unclear what caused security officials to decide later that "precautionary action" was necessary.

Section 59 of the constitution provides for public access to and involvement in the National Assembly. It says "the National Assembly may not exclude the public, including the media, from a sitting of a committee unless it is reasonable and justifiable to do so in an open and democratic society". The demonstration by the Right2Know campaign was silent and lasted for no longer than two minutes. The participants removed their masks as soon as they were ordered to by the chairman. Parliament expressed its dissatisfaction by condemning the demonstration on the grounds that the Powers and Privileges Act of 2004 prohibits protests within the parliamentary precinct. It warned against further protests and threatened action only if there was another demonstration. Given these facts, the justification for further punitive measures is tenuous.

The secrecy law being discussed by the committee poses grave threats to citizens’ ability to access information from the state and hold government officials to account. The nine members of the campaign who were barred from Parliament are from community organisations in Delft, Khayelitsha and Manenberg; all concerned at the effect this bill will have on their struggle to access services from the state. By banning them from the meeting, Parliament has undermined the right of citizens to information as well as everyone’s right to participate in democratic processes. If the recent Constitutional Court ruling on the disbanding of the Scorpions proved anything, it was that our institutions need to guard against acting in a capricious fashion. Parliament is not exempt from that. The Speaker and those who lead Parliament would do well to apply their minds to that.

• Written by Sithembile Mbete and Judith February, who are with Idasa, which is a member of the Right2 Know campaign.

This article was first published in the Business Day, Tuesday, 5th April 2011.