S. Africa Makes Criticism of Its Actions a Crime : Only Official Accounts of Unrest Permitted; New Rules Protested

President Pieter W. Botha imposed censorship Thursday on South Africa’s press, with regulations that make it a crime to criticize his government’s handling of the country’s deepening political crisis.

The new regulations, extending the already strict restrictions on the domestic and foreign news media, also prohibit the publication of unauthorized news and comment on South Africa’s continuing civil unrest and the protests against apartheid.

This prohibition will eliminate all reports, except for official accounts, of political violence, strikes, boycotts, protest meetings and criticism, except in Parliament, of the government’s efforts to deal with the crisis.

News media, including foreign correspondents based here, are now required to submit any reports on unrest to the government for “clearance,” a term officials said they prefer to censorship, before their publication or broadcast. This story was written to comply with the new regulations.

No ‘Subversive Statements’

Also, the measures will punish with prison terms of up to 10 years “subversive statements” by any individual, apparently even in private conversations or letters, and give to the police broad authority to define what is subversive.

The regulations provoked sharp protests, and the United Democratic Front, a coalition of anti-apartheid groups, announced its intention to challenge them in court.

Nkosi Molala, acting president of the black consciousness Azanian People’s Organization, compared the measures to “the steps adopted by Adolf Hitler and Mussolini and their totalitarian henchmen.”

Colin Eglin, leader of the Progressive Federal Party, a liberal white opposition group, described the measures as “Draconian” and “monstrous” and said that requiring government approval before the publication of political comment would undermine the parliamentary system.

Rightist Party Objects

On the right, the Herstigte Nasionale (Reconstituted National) Party said that Botha had gone too far in imposing censorship.

“The government is demonstrating that it has allowed the unrest to develop to such an extent that it now has to take extreme measures such as these to regain control,” Jaap Marais, the party leader, commented.

The South African Assn. of Chambers of Commerce, while recognizing “radical pressures at work,” said that it was “deeply concerned that the authorities have found it necessary to impose further serious restrictions on the flow of information to the public and to the business community.”

Most of the country’s English-language newspapers deplored the new restrictions.

Black Sash, a group of liberal white women opposed to apartheid, said that with censorship, “the lights will go out in South Africa.”

Defended as Necessary

But the government defended the new regulations, drafted over several months by a special Cabinet committee, as necessary to curtail what it sees as a growing revolutionary threat from the radical left.

“The purpose of these regulations is not to limit national debate, except as it falls under the emergency regulations,” David Steward, head of the government’s Bureau for Information, said at a news briefing. “But the government is serious and intends to make sure these regulations are applied.”

Steward later told a television interviewer that new restrictions were imposed because radicals were using the news media to win increasing support among the country’s black majority.

“They use the media as a means of mobilizing the population for the purposes of radical revolution,” Steward said, giving the government’s fullest public explanation of its reasons for introducing censorship. “It is a struggle of propaganda and perceptions. These perceptions are being manipulated consciously and unconsciously by elements in the media. . . .

“How are we supposed to restore law and order and the circumstances for further political reform when people are being conditioned in favor of the radical element?”

One result of the propaganda battle, Steward said, was that the outlawed African National Congress, the main guerrilla group fighting apartheid, and Nelson Mandela, its imprisoned leader, “have more positive coverage than the government and the president.”

New Rules Outlined

Under the regulations, only official statements or reports authorized by a Cabinet minister, his deputy or an authorized spokesman may be published about the country’s civil strife. Reporters are forbidden, as before, from firsthand coverage of any unrest or “restricted gatherings,” and no photographs may taken or published of these.

People who have been detained under the emergency regulations may not be identified, even when they are released, and details of their arrest and detention may not be published, even when they form part of testimony in court.

News media are prohibited from publishing “subversive statements,” which range from those advocating overthrow of the government to those used to organize peaceful protests.

The prohibition on subversive statements applies not only to the press and those active in politics, government officials told reporters, but to everyone in the country, and the wording of this regulation appears to extend it to all private conversations, letters and even casual comments.

Only statements made by members of Parliament and certain evidence in court are exempt from the restrictions.

May Seize Publications

The regulations also authorize the minister of home affairs, Stoffel Botha, who will administer the restrictions, to seize any publications containing prohibited material, to ban newspapers or periodicals that have published such material and to prohibit the import of foreign newspapers and periodicals into South Africa.