|
Information Bill: government should abandon effort
2007-02-26 09:30:24
By Ani Jozeni
Government authorities were more or less persuaded that the new draft of the so-called Freedom of Information Bill that was tabled in two pieces to stakeholders would be the first step towards presentation to Parliament and enactment.
A statement given on the eve of the stakeholders` meeting with Minister Muhammad Seif Khatib and Director of Information Kassim Mpenda said the discussion would continue up to the end of March, a day before it is tabled to the House. Is it a matter of continuing to talk, or to agree?
From what the statement was saying, the government was more or less encouraging people to `talk` about it, but did not consider that anything substantial would still be considered, at any rate before it is tabled at the august assembly.
When it arrives there, chances of there being strenuous demands for its being altered are more or less non-existent, as finally the House votes on the bill if there are some dissident voices.
And the bill is far more of a threat to the media profession than to MPs, and thus little disaccord was expected.
What Director Mpenda told the media while introducing the new write up, before the stakeholders` meeting the following day, spoke plenty of what the government thought of how much was to be changed.
Apart from separating the right of information of the wider public and media organs specifically into two parts of the bill, or two separate bills (in like manner as the Land Acts), little else had changed.
There was an effort at reassuring the public (in the press conference) that other laws (Newspapers Act chiefly) were removed.
It was on that basis that the stakeholders` meeting was expected to take an approval note of improvements in the original text, removing a few stumbling blocks for instance setting a time frame for questions being responded by government officials, etc.
And adding the carrot that things like banning newspapers would no longer rest with the minister but the Standards Board, or any such punishment on a media house or a practicing journalist, all would be well.
The director was clever not to raise a crucial issue: the licensing bit.
That is why it is unlikely that an agreement can be reached with the media profession (major stakeholders at the professional level, but otherwise it is the public as a whole in relation to freedom of information).
Trying to get the bill split into two, where some freedoms are explained and how the public can access information, but journalism is still licensed, even if all the other laws, including the minister`s power to ban newspapers being removed, little changes.
The core of the bill is to remove a journalist\'s license, to silence a newspaper.
Thus it is easy to see that the supposed dialogue going on between the government and stakeholders is a dialogue of the deaf, for the minimal freedom that newspapers (chiefly) seek is that they are free, not having their personnel veted by a Standards Board.
They need to be free to hire or take stories written by anyone entering or present in the media profession, without having to look over the shoulder to get a permit.
The envisaged board is described in technical terms as filled with professionals; in reality it is a state censor.
Censorship would no longer be related to the particular news but the writer, and when the leading writer or investigative reporter in a newspaper loses his license, it follows that all others will start marching in step.
No one will dare follow the troublesome story again - be it Richmond, Twin Towers, Alex Stewarts, radar etc, for the simple reason that one`s license would be withdrawn.
When it is simply one person losing the license the director of information gives any explanation and it is believed, unlike say banning a newspaper.
There is a title in the series of books by James Hadley Chase reading like `Lay off this story, newshound, or else…..,` a bouncer or bike rider could pump bullets into a troublesome reporter following up a story.
This is the case in countries where corruption is intense, and oligarchies have developed inside the government who itch to stop investigations because they cannot foretell where all this might lead.
No journalist has been shot by hired killers in the streets, but if corruption intensifies it is possible to reach a stage like that.
Former premier and ex-Attorney General Joseph Warioba put the matter clearly enough when the motion to put off a stakeholders` meeting with the government was being debated at the Karimjee Hall.
He considered that the bill amounts to interfering with certain provisions of the Constitution regarding the right to obtain information by anyone, rather than this being set out for the media, upon obtaining a license.
He intimated that the bill, or whatever changes it might have, still constitutes an intervention in key constitutional rights.
But then there are good chances that even this observation or objection would be ignored by Parliament as certain sections of the House would be in favour of a statute of limitations for the media.
Recent exchanges on the media and what was suggested on the floor of the House show that there are weaknesses in how the media is seen in certain quarters, and their misconceptions may provide the background to the work of the Standards Board.
It is evidently better to have no legal innovation at all than a thoroughly bad new statute.
That is why it is helpful to ask the Director of Information and probably the Minister that there should be a different way of interpreting what appears to be remarks by President Jakaya Kikwete about the ministry`s work when he visited their offices upon taking office.
It is scarcely true that the current draft or its revision is an effort to improve the media - save in a negative direction as a more conformist sector where many in the government will be happy with its work.
Their happiness is inversely proportional to that of the public.
|
