Media Bill smacks of authoritarianism

sent by Robert Alai

Publication Date: 5/20/2007

The Media Bill introduced by the Kibaki Government is a shoddy and mediocre piece of legislation that would wipe out the freedoms of the press and speech as we know them in Kenya today.

This is a Bill that is reminiscent of the one-party authoritarian and totalitarian states of yesteryear, and not an emerging democracy like Kenya.

It is ironic that not even the Moi-Kanu regime, under whose watch the media suffered the worst abuses, proposed such a draconian law. We call upon the Government to immediately withdraw the Bill.

Even a cursory glance at the Bill leaves no doubt that its central purpose is to bring the media under total Government control through endless investigations, severe sanctions, and a scheme of malicious accreditation. If enacted, the Bill would make it virtually impossible for any journalist to openly report or analyse the news without the mortal fear of losing their licence. The effect of such a sword of Damocles is to castrate the press and deny Kenyans effective and informative journalism without which no democratic society can be constructed.

LET US UNRAVEL THE BILL TO DEMonstrate how dangerous it would be to our democracy. First, it must be understood that what the Government has proposed is essentially a state-like agency – not a self-regulatory body – to oversee the media. Its rationale is to constrain, not enable, the media.

The Bill creates two somewhat overlapping bodies – the Media Council and the Media Industry Advisory Board – to run the media. The primary function of the Board is to appoint members of the Council. Unacceptably, the Chief Justice, himself an appointee of the President of the Republic, can appoint the Chairman of the Advisory Board.

The members of the Media Council are themselves nominated by a hodgepodge of institutions without any reason or rhyme. Several of these nominating authorities, such as the Joint Forum of Religious Organisations, the Association of Professional Societies of East Africa, and the Law Society of Kenya, seem to be picked out of a hat because they have no more compelling interest in the media than other Kenyan institutions.

Why, for example, leave out the NGO Council, women's organisations, or other civil society groups? Why not simply leave it solely to the media groups to openly elect members of the Council? The same haphazard collection of groups is empowered to nominate members to the Advisory Board.

MANY OF THE NOMINATING BODIES for both the Council and the Advisory Board are not even remotely competent to make such choices because they lack any expert knowledge on the media. Chances are that they would nominate hacks and government agents to control the media. It is these unqualified members of the Advisory Board who would pick the members of the Council and oversee its work.

This system of composing these two key bodies has an inherent proclivity for political manipulation and is an inviting recipe for the control of the media by the state. In democratic societies, the media is allowed to self-regulate, something the Media Bill does not permit.

But the most disconcerting provisions of the Bill deal with accreditation and disciplinary proceedings, both of which effectively leave the media at the mercy of forces that can only muzzle it.

Let us take accreditation first. On the face of it, such a requirement seems benign and intended simply to keep track of who can be a journalist in Kenya. But this is a moronic rule in the age of the Internet since any citizen can be a journalist through the Web.

Secondly, the accreditation process is really the registration and licensing of journalists.

Thirdly, its validity is unreasonably shortened to only one year. There cannot be any public policy justification for such a short period.

CRITICALLY, ACCREDITATION IS AT the discretion of the Media Council without any recourse for those turned away. This means that the Council has final authority on who can be a journalist in Kenya. Woe be unto those who may not be in favour with the state or other powerful forces in society.

What is important here, however, is that freedom of journalists to report with integrity – no matter the subject and target – will be enormously chilled by the fear of being denied accreditation. Which journalist, for example, will be willing to take on investigative stories against powerful state officials or hegemonic private interests at the risk of losing their licence?

IN A BIZARRE LOGIC REMINISCENT of President Robert Mugabe's purge of the media in Zimbabwe, the Bill suggests that there are not enough slots for Kenyan journalists.

It does so by indicating that it may not accredit foreign journalists to protect local ones. If Nairobi is to be a world-class city in the age of globalisation, it must continue to be a friendly hub for foreign journalists.

You do not invite foreign journalists to Kenya by restricting or denying them accreditation. If anything, there is too much news and not enough journalists to cover it. If enacted, such restrictions can only turn Kenya into a myopic, unfriendly, and isolated outpost in Africa.

One of the most shocking features of the Bill deals with the severe and utterly irrational sanctions that the Council would impose on journalists it deemed errant. Such a journalist, who could be penalised for anything the Council did not like, is subject to de-accreditation or the payment of compensatory damages.

To make matters worse, a party aggrieved by the Council's decision has only 14 days to appeal to it, and only seven days to lodge an appeal only on a point of law before the High Court. After 30 days, the Council's decisions become enforceable as Orders of Court.

WE LIVE IN THE INFORMATION AGE. Societies that allow their citizens the most unfettered access to information will create the most knowledgeable and competitive countries. The freedoms of the press and speech are some of the basic keys to prosperity. The Media Bill seeks to deny Kenyans this possibility. It should be withdrawn without any second thoughts.

Instead, Kenya should refine and strengthen existing structures and laws to create a viable media. We must not substitute self-regulation for the state control of the media.