22 Oct 13 | Africa, News and features, Politics and Society
In June 2013, police and protesters clashed at the offices of the Daily Monitor, Kampala. Picture Isaac Kasamani/Demotix
In the age of technology with high-speed Internet access and smart phones, it is sometimes easy to imagine that all journalists’ working lives are the same: deadlines, insufficient resources, worrying about the threats of digital media and the race to break news.
In some ways these concerns are indeed universal. However, what journalists in North America and Europe hardly ever have to worry about is their basic right to report the news. It is true that in a post-Wikileaks and News of the World journalistic environment, all reporters have had to consider their fundamental role in providing news and information and analysis ethically. However, in Africa many journalists find themselves carefully tiptoeing through minefields of media laws which limit their ability to report accurately and truthfully on the news of the day, particularly when reporting on activities of the powerful in government.
Recently in Swaziland, a journalist has been charged with contempt of court for reporting the fundamental issue of whether or not the Chief Justice is fit to hold office, given that he is the subject of impeachment proceedings back in his own country, Lesotho. Several Zambian journalists were brought to court earlier this year, initially accused of sedition. In Ethiopia, journalists are serving time in prison, sentenced for threatening the state with their reports.
Besides individual actions taken against journalists, whole media enterprises are also at risk. In Tanzania, the two newspapers Mwananchi and Mtanzania have been suspended by the unilateral action of the Minister of Information citing breach of the peace concerns – Mwananchi was reporting on new salary structures in the government. Earlier this year, the newsroom of the Ugandan newspaper Daily Monitor was under siege for over a week, while police was trying to find letters that were exchanged between editors and a source.
There is no doubt that much state action against journalists and media houses is unconstitutional. However, there is also no doubt that Africa’s media laws do make provision for draconian action to be taken against journalists and publications.
The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung’s Media Programme has recently published a two-volume Media Law Handbook for Southern Africa, written by Justine Limpitlaw. The handbook is available for free download on the internet. One of the most important aims of the handbook is simply to provide information about what the law is in a number of southern African countries. Statutes are often not available electronically and many journalists simply have no idea about what the laws governing the media are.
A key characteristic of many southern African countries is a media law landscape with a relatively benign liberal constitution at the apex. All constitutions protect freedom of expression to some extent. However, very few changes have been made to media legislation to ensure that the legislation accords with the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Despite oft-expressed anger at the colonial era and its on-going repercussions for the continent, African political elites have essentially retained colonial era media laws as is.
One only has to list many in-force statutes to note that African media law appears to have stultified in the early or mid-20th century. Both Lesotho’s and Swaziland’s Sedition legislation dates back to 1938. Swaziland’s Cinematograph Act is from 1920. Many countries’ Penal Codes date back to the 1960s – prior to their independence from Colonial powers. These Penal Codes criminalise many forms of expression including defamation, insult and false news, and provide for significant jail sentences.
Sadly few attempts have been made to update African media laws. On the rare occasion where a country has engaged in media law reform, the results have been decidedly mixed. South Africa’s attempt to update apartheid-era security laws has been roundly condemned for promoting governmental secrecy at the expense of the public interest.
There is hope. In 2010, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights adopted Resolution 169 on Repealing Criminal Defamation Laws in Africa. The resolution calls on states parties to repeal criminal defamation and insult laws which impede freedom of speech. In May 2013, the Pan African Parliament adopted the Midrand Declaration on Press Freedom in Africa. The Pan African Parliament resolved to launch a campaign entitled “Press Freedom for Development and Governance: Need for Reform” in all five regions of Africa. These initiatives by intergovernmental African organisations are historic and represent a real opportunity for media law reform. There is also significant pressure being brought to bear on a number of countries to enact access to information laws.
The objective link between a free press and accelerated development is clear. Sadly governments appear all too willing to forego development in their desire to retain political control. Journalists are under real threat in many countries in Africa and the threats are not only from rogue police officers but also from ordinary police officers and other state functionaries merely carrying out the letter of the law.
The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung believes that the media Law handbook could act as a catalyst for bringing together journalists, media owners, members of the judiciary, government officials and media activists to have a serious look at African media law with a view to taking it out of the colonial era. Together with the Pan African Parliament’s and the Comission’s efforts, this is a great opportunity to make Africa a place where journalists can report the news of the day accurately and fairly without fear of arrest and imprisonment.
This article was originally posted on 22 Oct 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
22 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
The European Commission released its report of final recommendations on media freedom on 21 January. The report from the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism outlined its desire to impose EU input into state libel laws, as well as suggesting countries should retain online data to identify trolls. It offered its concern that some members of parliament had rejected elements of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, advising the need for press regulatory bodies that have the abilities to act against the media. The report advocated giving media councils the ability to strip journalists of their titles and, in the event of an apology being required following a court case, order a correction of equal size and positioning as the original claim made.
A radio talk show host in Uganda has been suspended for featuring politicians critical of the government on a programme. Kasiriivu James, who works for Endigito FM radio in Western Uganda was suspended on 10 January by the Uganda Communications Commission and has yet to be able to return to work. The current affairs show Ekitandaro was also replaced with music by the radio station following pressure from the government. James hosts the news and political analysis shows, World Express and News Hour. Endigito FM is owned by politician Nuru Byamukama, who also owns Ugandan station Hits FM, which was also subject to censorship after it suspended its political programmes off of the air due to government pressure.
– A man protests against the Cybercrime Prevention Act in the Philippines
Cyber crime laws in the Philippines are being discussed by the Supreme Court today (22 January). Government lawyers will present evidence to the court to discuss the legalities of passing the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which has had its constitutionality questioned by campaigners, and also has been criticised for being too broad and vague. Topics for discussion will include internet libel, cybersex and the authority of officials to remove data seen to violate the proposed legislation. Implementation of the cyber crime law was stopped for 120 days on 9 October 2012, but it is due to lapse on 5 February. Campaigners requesting that suspension of the bill be continued.
A Russian human rights defender has been subject to a series of death threats for his work. Vitalii Ponomarev, head Central Asia expert at Memorial Human Rights Center, was initially sent anonymous threatening emails against him and his family on 12 January. The emails, written in Uzbek and Russian and sent from a single IP address in Tashkent, threatened to decapitate Ponomarev should he go southern Kyrgyzstan. After writing a press release about the incident on 18 January, he received further threats via email. He has filed a complaint to the Federal Security Service and Moscow prosecutor’s office, requesting for an investigation to be held.
Journalists in Swaziland were insulted and threatened by Senate president Gelane Zwane on 17 January, after they turned up to a meeting they had been invited to attend. During the meeting to prepare for the opening of parliament, Zwane allegedly swore at the press in attendance. He then threatened to ban them from covering the State Opening of Parliament — due to be held in February — should they print anything that was discussed in the meeting. The threats came after the clerk of parliament, Ndvuna Dlamini, said that he could not make an announcement during the meeting because of the presence of the media.
26 Mar 12 | Africa, Index Index, minipost
Swaziland’s justice minister has told the country’s senate that the government is finalising a law that would make it illegal to criticise the King Mswati III on social media networks. “We will be tough on those who write bad things about the king on Twitter and Facebook,” Mgwagwa Gamedze said. Internet penetration is low in Swaziland, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, but social networks have been used to organise public demonstrations, including a student protest last Monday against funding cuts. Last week Swazi senator Thuli Msane claimed online activism was spiralling out of control and disrespecting Mswati III.
20 Jan 12 | Sub-Saharan Africa, Uncategorized
There’s renewed attention internationally on Swaziland with King Mswati III excesses. He’s getting it from all angles: criticised for squandering the country’s sugar, turning a blind eye to the tax bill of Coca Cola, and the continued incarceration of the student leaders, teachers and journalists after the November 2011 demonstrations.
Most recently, Times of Swaziland columnist Mfomfo Nkambule publicly apologised to King Mswati III for articles that were critical of the king’s leadership style. In his apology in the paper, Nkambule wrote: “I know what the lion is capable of doing when it is angry or threatened.”
With a personal fortune of about $100m (£64m), King Mswati III presides over one of the worst-off countries in the world, with 64 per cent of the population living in absolute poverty. Political parties are banned and activists are regularly arrested, imprisoned and tortured. The kingdom’s largest opposition party, the People’s United Democratic Movement (Pudemo), was banned as a terrorist organisation in November 2008 and its president, Mario Masuku, arrested under the suppression of terrorism act. With one of the highest literacy rates on the continent at 92%, the media is hugely stifled, with debate, and progress, completely constrained.
Coca-Cola says that Mswati III does not directly receive any profits or dividends from its Swaziland operation, its biggest in Africa. The plant supplies all of the Southern and Eastern African region, (over 23 million people) and Coca Cola is often available where clean water isn’t. It’s relatively cheap regionally, at about 25p a bottle, but its production leaches valuable water tables, rots teeth, and most poignantly, say activists, the drinks firm is propping up a dictator.
Local activists estimate that Coca-Cola, the world’s biggest beverage company, contributes as much as 40 per cent of the country’s GDP. The company admits it cannot account for how the money it pays in taxes is used by the Swazi government. Swaziland has the highest HIV rates in the world, at 26 per cent of the population living with HIV and aids.
Mary Pais Da Silva, co-ordinator of the Swaziland Democracy Campaign, has called for Coca-Cola to pull out of the country immediately. “Coca-Cola must know they’re doing business with the wrong people,” she said. “At the end of the day it doesn’t benefit the economy in any way. Their profits don’t help the average Swazi, while the King is getting richer by the day.” She added: “The king is milking the country. This is entrenching him more and more, giving him economic strength to crush opposition. Nobody should do business with the regime in Swaziland. They should cut ties and take their business elsewhere.”
