The country’s constitution provides for freedom of
expression and press freedom. However, several laws claw back on these
guarantees, and the government continues to crack down on critical journalists
and media houses using both subtle and blatant methods. Although the law on
sedition, which had often been invoked to bring critical journalists to book,
was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in August 2010, the government
continued to use other provisions of the penal code, including those on
criminal libel and treason, against journalists. - Freedom of the Press 2012 www.freedomhouse.org
Several
of the laws enlisted in numerous articles and acts as per the constitution of
Uganda, a case study of media as the centre of focus have numerous loopholes
which fail to account for many crimes and problems which keep on arising. The
speed of amendment of such laws is at a minimum and if the amendments are done,
they continue to favour the ruling governments to a large extent infringing on
media freedom, so in this context, am analyzing each act and what
recommendation should be done to cover those barrier points to balance media freedom
without violating other people’s rights, since that is the basis of the
establishment of such laws.
THE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION ACT, 2005
DATE OF ASSENT: 7th July, 2005
This
article was established as a pursuant to article 41 of the
Constitution;
to prescribe the classes of information referred to in that article; the procedure
for obtaining access to that information, and for related matters.
“Every citizen has a right of access to
information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency of the
State except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the
security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to the privacy
of any other person.”
Thus,
according to this, as a portrayal of democratic governance, the law gives right
for information access to every citizen to know, since it’s the sole reason for
the establishment of the act, as stated in section 3 (a)
“To promote
an efficient, effective, transparent and accountable Government;”
–
A show of
democracy, but however this access
of information is not absolute and 100% guaranteed because:-
(i)
some
information might not be released citing prejudice of security of Uganda and,
(ii)
Privacy
of other stakeholders who may include the executive, judiciary and the
legislative bodies.
This is unwrapped extensively in PART 3 of the same
Act where there is exemption of access; Section 24 elaborates it clearly 1)
”a person is entitled to access information
or a record of a public body if that person complies with all the requirements
of this Act relating to a request for access to that information or record; and
access to that information or record is not prohibited by this Part.”
Therefore, before anyone has
complete access, he/she is subject to conditions e.g. in the following section,
access to cabinet minutes is not allowed other than the public officer,
citing:-
(i)
Secrecy bring infringed which may bring both
internal and external conflicts in the country if that kind of information is
leaked to the public by media organizations or whistleblowers.
(ii)
There can also result into internal scrutiny of the
public body if the information is not favourable to the public.
Other following sections of this particular act also
stress access but with limitations to some particular kinds of information e.g.
section 29, 31; protection of records from productions of legal proceedings of
which may make the general public to analyze and start coming up with their own
conclusions of the court matters if that particular kind of information comes
out, for example when Lt. Former Iraq
President was hanged, it was all over the internet because someone videotaped
the clip and showed a negative unhearted American side. But I have to say this
is bound to happen and if the government wants to eliminate it, it has to ban
all media gadgets in these matters, but in that attempt, it will bring back the
jinx it’s trying to sweep away because:-
(i)
It’s
a clear sign of lack of transparency for its own citizens,
(ii)
It
wants to withhold information and thus blot out public scrutiny and
(iii)
This
automatically puts the citizenry out of the decision making process due to lack
of information, which is their fundamental right.
These laws particularly usurp each other
mainly due to technical inconsistencies in their establishments for example
Section 29,
“An
information officer -
(a)
shall refuse a request for access if the disclosure of the record could
reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a person;
or....,”
But
what if it’s of public interest of which the media have to provide to the
public because the latter are expecting them to give them the story, at this
point, ethical standards are questioned of that particular journalist. And yet
on the global level, Article 19 of the ICCPRs (1966) has this to say:
2. Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media
of his choice.”
This article grants the right i.e., regardless
of any frontiers, he/she (journalist) has the obligation to give it to the
public which is not the case in Uganda which becomes a loophole.
According to Busseik toolbox4, page 7, information
is a pre-requisite in any democratic society and some of the reasons why there
is a right to its access are:-
(i)
Information
is needed to make decisions on individual matters, communities and state,
(ii)
The
more the people a decision affects, the more important to dig the its relevant
information,
(iii)
Democratic
governance can only function if we have “equal” access to facts and thus able
to play an important part in decision making
(iv)
Access
to information is needed because if not openness and transparency, democracy
will remain a buzzwords on political discourse and
(v)
In
order to create a strong civil society focused on national development.
The other way round, is through the very sensitive
Anti Terrorism Act, 2002. Here the security officer according to PART
7-INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SURVEILLANCE, Sections 18 and 19, under the designation of the Minister, the
security officer is given authority to intercept communications of any citizen,
and 19 subsection 4 clause (a) advocates for this in the curtain of safe guarding public interest.
Section 18 subsection (1) states:
“The Minister may, by writing, designate a
security officer as an authorised officer under this Part.”
19 continues,
1) Subject to this Act, an authorised officer shall have the right
to
intercept the communications of a person and otherwise conduct
surveillance
of a person under this Act.
4) The purposes for which interception or surveillance may he
conducted
under this Part are—
(a) safeguarding the public interest;
There is abuse of privacy, which was protected by
the Access to Information Act, and if any journalist does the same, he/she
would be termed a terrorist as defined its meaning with obtaining information
being intercepted in an investigation and Section 9 subsection (1) clause (b)
which says
(1)” Any person
who establishes, runs or supports any institution for—
(b) publishing and disseminating news or
materials that promote terrorism;”
. This will make him meet his end since according to
Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, stipulates death sentence only. This makes
the whole information issue biased and favoring a few elite hence being a
loophole.
Thus if a society like Uganda having section 33 of
its Access to information Act refuses the people to have access to operations
and records of public bodies, funded by their own resources will make all the
above reasons loopholes as this particular section which states, “
(1)
An information officer may refuse a request for access -
(a)
if the record contains -
(i)
an opinion, advice, report or recommendation obtained or prepared; or…,”
Therefore, the only recommendation laid down here is
for the responsible legislative body to draft new plans of revising this Act
and on strong note to have a strong media consultancy team with whom they will
make this work in conjunction with the media organisations who at a large
extent have to mount on pressure for this particular cause. Other than that,
media practitioners will continue falling in grips of law breaking and thus
become tools and propagandists of the ruling government.
CHAPTER 104 THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA
ACT.
Commencement: 21
June, 1996.
“An Act
to provide for the setting up of a broadcasting council to license and regulate
radio and television stations, to provide for the licensing of television sets,
to amend and consolidate the law relating to electronic media and to provide
for other related matters.” The particulars as mentioned above, I focus on the
issue of licensing and registration since it’s the first issue tackled by part
2 Section 2, it says.
1)
a person shall not install or operate a television station, radio station or
any broadcasting apparatus without a license in that respect issued by the
council.”
Many professions require licenses
to practice, but should also journalism also be part of them, the sole answer
is no, journalists and particularly broadcast personnel here shouldn’t because
if so,
(i)
The
government at this point will use this as a reason to curb those who are
objective in their judgments which may not suit them,
(ii)
Secondly,
people want to express themselves everywhere but bringing in licenses will
automatically make expression relative-to a few, thus the right to disseminate
information by journalists is suppressed automatically affecting the agenda
setting of the citizens,
(iii)
Also
those practicing journalists who may not have the all the requirements are
faced with discontinuation of work.
But never the less, this licensing
has some merits it comes with e.g.:- unsaturating the journalistic market,
identification of all unethical and unprofessional television broadcasters and
others, but the problem comes with the requirements to meet the license. Clause
(2) of the same section has a range of pre requirements for one to get a
license for example: - One has to be a resident of Uganda; this enables the
respective bodies to monitor the television broadcast applicant and thus
further its interests
Other requirements include:-
proof of existence of adequate technical facilities; location of station and
geographical area to which broadcast is to be made; and Social, cultural and
economic values. The first one ensures
that the council ensures that what is broadcast is up to standards; the
location of the station is to be known, so that incase of any matter concerning
crime, the council knows the exact position to trace the culprit and thirdly,
broadcasts have to portray the social, cultural and economic values of Uganda.
This clause really makes the media to be at loggerheads with the focus to
broadcast national issues which promote unity rather than discrimination and
not forgetting developmental unlike promotion of public immorality to foster
development in Uganda.
However getting of the license is
after payment of a prescribed fee which is not standardized as stated in
Section 4:
“A person may be
granted a license under this section upon an application made in writing to the
council and upon payment of the prescribed fee.”
This leaves the power of giving
the license to any contender in the hands of the council of which if any
applicant is anti-government, the latter will be biased, thus giving him a higher
fee so that he/she will get disinterested and vacate the idea of setting up the
station. This is because the Council is subjective to the government because it
gets most of its funding from it as stated in Section 16,
“The
funds of the council shall consist of
– grants from the Government; monies paid for services rendered by
the council ; a percentage of the permit and license
fees payable to the council under this
Act, which percentage is to be determined by the Minister in consultation with
the Minister responsible for finance; and…”
Accordingly, the council since it
has to be independent should get other ways of funding for example soliciting
from communities and voluntary organizations so as to promote its independence.
Section 3 of this Act puts more
emphasis on registration of the television and radio stations with special considerations
on the proprietor with the Media Council, an “independent” body set up by the
Press and Journalist Act. Subsection 2 clause (1) states;
The Media Council shall not register any station or
apparatus under subsection (1) unless the proprietor of the station has
supplied the Media council with the following particulars relating to the
person who is to be the producer in charge of the station or apparatus ---
(a)
his or her name and address;
(b)
certified copies of the relevant
testimonials as proof of his or her qualifications and experience;
(c)
the name and address of the station or
apparatus; and
(d)
Such other particulars as may be
prescribed by the Media Council..
Part (a) guarantees location of
the owner or proprietor is known including both his names and physical address.
This poses a security thumbs-up since if at whatever case if the station
commits defamation and other related media crimes. Further on, in this
subsection, proof of his/testimonials under the umbrella of qualification s and
experiences cite good professional work for the general public if his
application is passed through but there are many very good journalists who
don’t have these because of lack of journalistic training and therefore, it
comes as impedance.
Others like Part (d) make the requirements wanted by the council to remain open
and this particular part is subject to change i.e. the requirements wanted by
the Council are deemed to vary from time to time, nature of the applicants’
political ideology, nature of broadcast system the applicant’s station is going
to adopt and others. Therefore, this makes the whole issue of licensing and
registration not to be in good faith but rather partisan and discriminative
throughout.
Section 4 of this Act clearly
states the functions of the producer of the station:-
(i)
He
should ensure that what s broadcast is not contrary to public morality. Thus
accordingly this enables to develop a national culture in the way that it
protects the station from violating some people’s rights with different
religious and moral affiliations who don’t allow such practices e.g. the Muslim
and Christian communities.
(ii)
He
also has to keep a record of what is broadcast for at least 30 days, this makes
the station accountable for any information it disseminates because it will act
as proof for innocence or even an exhibit if the station is found guilty for a
broadcast made.
Section 5 accounts for the
producer disqualification. This is on a basis of certain terms and some include
when he is below the age of 18, thus termed as a minor, producing what he/she
doesn’t have a conscience about; if he is of unsound mind, he/she is
disqualified because the results of the broadcasts will be unprofessional and
thus misleading the public-destroying the public trusteeship of the media and
if he is not an ordinary citizen of Uganda.
Although the above show reasons
of disqualification, then what are the terms required for broadcasting, Section
8 of this Act refers these in the First Schedule
“A
broadcaster or video operator shall ensure that-
a) any programme which
is broadcast-
(i) is not contrary to public morality; (ii) does
not promote the culture, especially the children and the youth;
(iii)
in the case of a news broadcast, is
free from distortion of facts;
(iv)
is not likely to create public
insecurity or violence;
(v)
is in compliance with the existing law;”
What goes onto the air may cause
public immorality but what if it’s the public interest? This law is applicable
in developed nations who command a large listenership but not in Africa.
Broadcast stations in sub-Sahara broadcast elicit programs to get audiences in
order to get more advertisers since many are liberalized and Uganda, 1993
therefore, commercialization of media contradicts with this law.
The issue of non promotion o f
culture, which keeps the nation united and freedom from fact distortion are some
of the ethics laid down for Uganda’s media Journalists as stipulated in the
Fourth Schedule of the Press and Journalist Act. Therefore with these, the
media can remain objective, none affiliated to either sides of the “Story”
hence carrying out its information dissemination function with no “dirt.”
There is inevitability of
presence of government strings in the Broadcast Council because though termed
independent, the Minister is at the helm of the council who appoints the
Chairman thus, keeping the media at bay posing authoritarian principles as
Section 9 stipulates:
“a) a chairperson who shall be appointed by the
Minister in consultation with the council.”
After the establishment of the
Council-the functions enlisted one by one:-
“to coordinate
and exercise control over and to supervise broadcasting activities;”
Here, the council in its
obligations has to oversee all the broadcasting operations in Uganda.
“to be
responsible for the standardisation,
planning and management of the frequency spectrum dedicated to broadcasting and
to allocate those spectrum resources in
such manner.”
In this case, the law gives the
Council responsibility over frequency spectrum allocation of all TVs and radio
in Uganda.
“to arbitrate in
consultation with the Media Council on disputes between-
(i) operators of broadcasting stations; and;
(ii) the public and operators of broadcasting
stations; “
The problems and conflicts
arising between radio and TV stations e.g. copying of programs and nature of
broadcasts and secondly if the media house tends to infringe on the privacy of
a person, the case is undertaken by this council to solve it since its
inconsistent with Section 29 of the Access to Information Act. A situation arises when the problems are
among the media stations and the state,
so this Council established in its essence has to make conflict resolution
schemes so that at any one point, any
journalist who contravenes the Fourth schedule is dealt with by the
Disciplinary Committee under Section 40 subsection (2) of the Press and
Journalist Act accordingly,:-
“A person who
contravenes any provision of the professional code of ethics commits
professional misconduct and shall be dealt with by the disciplinary committee.”
Thus in doing so, its setting
ethical standards as part of its function, but what if what if the information
is a fact supported by evidence, and wants to protect the source, there comes
some inconsistencies under Section 38 when the court wants him/her to disclose
these particulars because he becomes stranded, pinned and more so confused.
Therefore even if this Council and the Disciplinary Committee are termed
independent, they seem to be following the agenda settings for those in power,
who finance them and therefore play cards at their will.
This is seen more clearly in
Section 11 subsection (b) CAP 104 of the Electronic Media Act:
The office of the
member of the council shall fall vacant-
if the member is declared or becomes bankrupt or insolvent;
Thus incase of bankruptcy
followed by unemployment, why can’t he/she just follow the Minister’s orders
and get his life back and thereby putting the journalist on the edge of unfair
case charges. This is a loophole and the only solution is to make this Body
financially independent of the ruling class because in Section 13 of the same
Act, the Minister is the one in charge of their allowances and finances.
Therefore , even though this Act
accounts for broadcasting licenses, and dealers and viewers licenses under Section 22 and 23 of
this Act, 22 subsection (1) says:-
A person shall
not use, sell or transfer possession of his or her television set unless he or
she is in possession of a valid viewers’ license issued by the council in
respect to that set.
the latter have not come into
effect because mainly due to its un seriousness of law implementation in Uganda
yet countries where this kind of regulatory venture was adopted from, they are
doing it excellently. But on a sad note, this may be one of the ways to get
finances and resources for running public service broadcasters if they are any
in Uganda, promotion of the independence of Independent Media and Broadcasting
Councils and the Disciplinary Committee from Government interference of their
running due to its grants to them with strings attached.
But what if the above scheme comes
through, can the media achieve its freedom and from whom should it get it and
why? Will it promote the will of information access and expression? That takes
me to the next constitution law of the republic of Uganda
ARTICLE
29 OF CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995
Commencement: 8 October, 1995.
“Protection of freedom of
conscience, expression, movement,
religion, assembly and association.”
Freedom, what does it encompass,
and to what extent does this Article provide the rights of why, media are
around, the concept of expression; - conscience, movement assembly and
religion. Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or
limitation, or both and thus freedom of expression is the “right” to express
one’s opinions and ideas through speech, writing and through other mediums of
communication.
Recognizing
the need to ensure the right of freedom of expression in Africa, the
African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights declares that:
The Guarantee of
Freedom of Expression
1. Freedom of expression and information,
including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other form
of communication, including across frontiers, is a fundamental and inalienable
human right and an indispensable component of democracy.
2. Everyone shall have an equal opportunity to
exercise the right to freedom of expression and to access information without
discrimination
Article
29 Section (1) clauses (a)-(e) of Ugandan Constitution re-affirms the above as
stated:-
1) Every person shall have the right to—
(a) freedom of speech and expression which shall include
freedom of the
press and other media;
(b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief which shall include
academic freedom in institutions of learning;
(c) freedom to practise any religion and manifest such
practice which
shall include the right to belong to and participate in the
practices of any
religious body or organisation in a manner consistent with
this
Constitution;
(d) freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with
others
peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and
(e) freedom of association which shall include the freedom to
form and
join associations or unions, including trade unions and
political and
other civic
organisations.
The African
commission on Human and People’s rights guarantees this freedom, the sole
essence of the media and empowers it to seek and impart ideas, although also
this is also seen in clause (a) of article 29, but the freedom guaranteed here
is relative not absolute as seen in section 41 of the constitution which limits
it to national security and sovereignty of Uganda. This is also witnessed in Section
19 subsection (3) and 20 of the ICCPR’s which clearly show limitations. (3) Says:
“The
exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries
‘with it special duties and responsibilities (emphasis mine). It may therefore
be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are
provided by law and are necessary.’”
And
Section 20,
1. Any
propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2.
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Therefore
these limit media freedom to a few aspects, living out the others. The
constitution of Uganda provides the freedom of conscience, thought and belief
and academics; freedom of thought is absolute unlike expression because here,
one can think about anything, any undertaking without violating the other’s
rights but in expression, that absolutism disappears because what may appear a
right to me may be a violation to another person, which is a sole reason of
questioning why media should be free.
Others
like freedom to practice any religion either Pentecostal, Muslim or Catholicism
is also absolute, yet though clause (d)
guarantees freedom of assembly and demonstration, it’s relative because
in Uganda as of today, there are many riots erupting from clashes with police
and opposition party members leading to a deterioration in media freedom in
Uganda.Some
of the figures are as below:
Uganda
Status:
Partly Free
Legal
Environment: 19
Political
Environment: 24
Economic
Environment: 14
Total
Score: 57
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
Total Score,
Status
|
54,PF
|
53,PF
|
53,PF
|
54,PF
|
54,PF
|
Source: Freedom of
the Press 2012 www.freedomhouse.org
But in a general sense, it should
be noted that freedom of the media index of Uganda is at the average as shown
in the above figures because since the liberalization in 1993 some laws like
the last clause of subsection (1) of this Article have managed to be practiced
for example the freedom to join civic organisations in a bid to tackle human
rights abuse. In Conclusion, this
Article even though it offers a certain degree of media freedom, the counter
laws that impinge on it are numerous and the journalist or any media
organization in order to avoid problems and remain professional, he or she must
cling to the Fourth Schedule of the Press And Journalist Act, which provides
the code of conduct and ethics.
CHAPTER 105 THE PRESS AND
JOURNALIST ACT.
Commencement: 28 July, 1995.
“An Act to ensure
the freedom of the press, to provide for a council responsible for the
regulation of mass media and to establish and institute of journalists of
Uganda”
Therefore,
this act its powers, has to ensure that Article 29 Subsection (1) of the
Ugandan Constitution, 1995 has been put into practice, for example clause (a)
of the named article gives the freedom
of speech and expression which has to include the freedom of the press and any
other media. Section 2 of this Act-Press
and Journalist Act gives the a person rights to publish newspapers and
subsection 2 clauses (a),(b) and (c) put
more light on what constitute the newspaper as a part of the wider media
variety, the Act declares that:
1 ) A person may,
subject to this Act, publish a newspaper.
(2)No person or authority shall, on grounds of the content of a
publication, take any action not authorized under this Act or any other law to
prevent the-
(a)
Printing;
(b)
Publication; or
(c)
Circulation among the public, of a newspaper
This Act further on defines the freedom, like
the right to access to official information under Section 4. Since the freedom of expression is relative
and not absolute, it calls for adherence for the existing laws which bind this
kind of freedom e.g., the law of sedition though ex-communicated by the
Constitutional Court in 2010, the existing N.R.M government uses the police
under the Penal Code laws to still link journalists to Sedition under Section
40 of the Penal Code, Subsection (1) and thus liable to a term not exceeding 5
years in prison or fine or both. But one can’t a journalist can just report
news and therefore a provides a forum for news dissemination, he/she can’t
control how the public interprets them, its their right and therefore, this is
a loophole in the whole crime fighters i.e. the Judiciary and police at large.
The only
recommendation here is that, the law interpreters-Judiciary, should teach the
police some of the laws and therefore the latter won’t be ignorant using banned
laws to cause misjudgments on the journalists and the whole Ugandan Media arena
as a whole.
The
Press and Journalist Act like the Electronic Media Act call for registration
thereby the former declaring the registration of the editor’s particulars.
Section 5 subsection (1) clauses (a-d) state that:-
(1)
A proprietor of a mass media organization shall, on appointing an
editor, register with the council the following particulars in relation to the
editor-
(a) his
or her name and address;
(b) certified
copies of the relevant testimonials as proof of his or her qualifications
And experience;
(c) the
name and address of the newspaper; and
(d) Such
other particulars as may be prescribed by the council.
This registration
although may deem important in case of security, the editorial body of any
print medium will become biased on what it lets out to the public agenda
setting. This is because of fear of being shutdown and therefore the paper
loses the editorial independence which leads to subjectivity. At this point, it
becomes pro-government hence a loophole as a whole.
Section 6 of this
Act, declares some of functions of an
editor, and clause (a) makes him be
cautious that what he/she publishes is not contrary to public morality. But
what is public morality? It refers to the moral and ethical standards enforced
in a society by law or police work or social pressure and applied to the
content of the media and to conduct in public places. It often means regulation
of sexual matters, including prostitution and homosexuality, but also matters of
the dress and nudity, pornography and acceptability in social terms of
cohabitation before marriage, and the protection of children. It’s the main
justification of censorship. But the extent of the above named examples may
vary from one country to another, one culture, religion and belief in one area
to another. What may constitute to public immorality in Buganda may not be true
for the case of the Gisu culture.
Therefore, its left
in the hands of the editor to think critically and disseminate information
which has to cater for over 56 tribes in the Ugandan Nation, this is very
difficult to handle and thus a loophole because the only recommendation is that
Section 6 has to be revised and to it, added to what constitute public morality
as defined by the law, otherwise it will remain a very conspicuous flower for
editors to be trapped in crime about.
Section
8 calls for the establishment of the Media Council. The Media Council is a
Statutory Body established by the Press and Journalist Act of 1994 and charged
with the regulation of the Mass Media in Uganda. The objective of the law is to
ensure the freedom of the media and establish a system for the regulation of
the qualifications of editors and journalists, the ethical and professional
standards of the Mass Media and to arbitrate disputes within or related to the
Media industry. It’s composed of 13 members i.e.;-
(i)
A
senior officer from the Ministry of Information to serve as Secretary.
(ii)
Two
distinguished scholars in Mass Media.
(iii)
A
representative nominated by the Uganda Newspapers Editors and Proprietors
Association.
(iv)
Four
representatives:
a.
two
to represent the Electronic Media and
b.
two
the National Institute of Journalists of Uganda – NIJU
(v)
Four
member of the public who are not journalists, but persons of proven integrity
and good repute: two nominated by the Minister, one by the UNEPA and one by the
Journalists;
(vi)
A
distinguished practicing lawyer, nominated by the Uganda Law Society.
Thus,
the Minister is at the helm of the council like the in the Broadcasting Council
and therefore, below are the reasons/functions why it’s established:-
·
To regulate the conduct and
promote good ethical standards and discipline of journalists.
This
function is implemented in accordance with the fourth schedule of Press and Journalist
Act. It deals with the implementation of the professional code of Conduct of
journalists as with accordance to the UN Conventions and African Charters, what
the public expect from the media and what it gives them in return e.g.
opinionated, informed and unbiased or objective news.
·
To arbitrate disputes between-
(i)
the Public and the Media, and
(ii)the State and
the Media.
The
council since it has state and public hooks, the likes of the Minister and
people from the public, has it in its mandate to make conflict resolutions
between the public and the media in such a way as to tackle libel and
defamation using the disciplinary committee established to execute these
matters. But the problem/loophole here is that the police may arrest the editor
or Journalist before he/she is tried by the Disciplinary Committee and also if it’s
between the state and the media, the issues are all the same all over.
This is
because the persons who constitute the council also have a place in the
Disciplinary Committee and therefore there are government interventions in the
policies set by the Council since it finances it under Section 11 under
Ministerial remunerations and allowances, the council members will make biased
judgments in favour of the State in order to save their seats and finances.
This makes the journalists meet unfair judgments and trials, thus a loophole.
The recommendation here is that the Council should solicit its funds from
international bodies, community donations and charity to support its
independency both financially and in policy making to support the well being of
the people in between the lines and keep the state manipulations at arm’s-length.
·
To exercise disciplinary control
over journalists, editors and publishers
Section
40 of the Press and Journalist Act gives the Disciplinary Committee the powers
to implement the Professional Code of Ethics.
“(1)
A journalist enrolled under this Act shall be subject to the Professional Code
of
Ethics
provided in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
(2)
A person who contravenes any provision of the Professional Code of Ethics
commits
professional
misconduct and shall be dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee.
(3)
The Minister, may, by Statutory Instrument and after consultation with the Council,
amend
the Fourth Schedule of this Act.”
Therefore,
any irresponsible journalist I s subjected to discipline under these provisions
with reference to the Professional Code of Ethics, fourth Schedule which
provides for this. But a closer look at Subsection (3) above gives powers to
the Minister to amend what constitute the professional Codes. This makes every
journalist on the Ugandan soil to be very cautious because the Minister may
call for amendment in order to trap a single journalist citing breach. This
becomes a loophole and the recommendation is only to give these powers of
amendment to Parliament which may criticize both sides of the reason why it has
to be amended.
·
To promote, generally, the flow
of information
This is
in accordance with Article 41(a) of the constitution and thus pursued by the
Access to Information Act 2002. The access and promotion of information is a
sole function of this the council since it’s a sign of democratic governance.
The information can be accessed through the print media, broadcast and the
internet.
·
To censor films, videotapes,
plays and other related apparatuses for public consumption
This is
one of the difficult functions the Council has to implement. It has to control
what the public consumes and therefore censorship but today, there is the
internet which has proven very difficult for them to tame maybe due to lack of
resources at least in Uganda. The council has to deal with leaked information
and control the public’s agenda setting but in the other way round, it looks
like an abuse of the right to information, Article 19 subsection 2 of the
ICCPR’s has this to say:
“Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form.”
Therefore,
on international level, the nation is seen as a violator of this declaration,
thus authoritarian, hence a loophole and the only recommendation is for the
Council to define what content leads to
censorship and its true justifications to do so.
·
To exercise any function that may
be authorized or required by any law
Rather,
this function is left open and therefore may include any law relating to media
in Uganda, which may lead to conflicts in-between the Council and the National
Institute of Journalists in Uganda. This is a body setup by the Press and
Journalist Act and some of its law objectives are in line with those of the
Media Council. Section 14 subsection 1 clause (a) declares that:
“To
establish and maintain professional standards for journalists;”
This is
in line with function number 1 of the functions of the media Council. Therefore
this leads to conflicts of who has power over what and to what extent hence a
loophole. “NIJU has hampered the work of the Media Council in its failure to
enroll journalists and give them the enrolment certificate which the Media
Council would use to issue their practicing certificates. Most journalists in
Uganda are acting illegally and in accordance to the law. Any time the law may
decide to catch up with them. We should together discuss on how to remove the
present impasse in the relations between NIJU and Media Council.”- THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MEDIA COUNCIL IN UGANDA
Ford Foundation, Sheraton Hotel.
Therefore
although the Media Council has powers to give out certificates, it doesn’t do
so in the specific time required, acclaims, the NIJU which coupled with the
above function of regulating the conduct and promotion of good ethical
standards and discipline of the journalists leads to a conflict of duties
because in context, the objective and function are similar in their meaning
hence a loophole. The only way ahead is to have round discussions between the
two bodies and seek who has to do what.
Section
26 calls for the registration of journalists:
“The name and particulars of
a person enrolled under this Act shall, on presentation of the certificate of
enrollment to the council, be entered on the register of journalists of
Uganda.”
And
section 27 further on, puts on more emphasis on how to get the practicing certificate
prior work, Subsection (1) calls for payment of a prescribed fee to the
Council. The payment of the fee may not be big but its just prescribed and
subject to change. The conditions leading to the change may be:-
(i)
If
one (journalist) usually criticizes the Government
(ii)
If
the media house is pro or anti government
(iii)
Or
the content one usually airs or publishes out.
One
maybe charged a high fee because they want to make him lose interest in the
venture due to his/her journalistic antics or low because he or she is
pro-government in his or her journalistic work. Therefore, this poses a
loophole since there is creation of a larger thing, lack of objectivity. This is further put in action to under
subsection (2) of this Act where the certificate is valid for one year and thus
renewable upon payment of again, a prescribed fee. Any journalist who didn’t
take into account that year, the type of information he/she disseminated may
lose his or her certificate and therefore lose the profession unless pursued.
This becomes a dangerous problem for them to carry out their jobs without
making the state hidden behind the Media Council curtains to get angry and
refuse the renewing of their certificates. Of which it has powers to act as so
due to Section 28 of the Press and Journalist Act which gives it power to grant
a practicing certificate.
“No
person shall be granted a practising certificate by the council if-
i.
he or
she is not enrolled; or
ii.
He or
she has failed to comply with any order made under this Act.”
The
Code:
This Act contains information
curtailing who is a journalist be under the context of enlisting the
professional code of conduct under the Fourth Schedule. It’s very important to
first acknowledge who is subjective to this Code. The journalist, a person who
practices journalism as a profession, as stated in Section 27 subsection (5) of
the Press and Journalist Act.:
“In
this section, a person is deemed to practice journalism if he or she is paid
for the gathering, processing,
publication or dissemination of information; and such person includes a
freelance journalist.”
Therefore anyone who fulfils the
above is subjective to the Fourth Schedule, which says:-
·
No journalist
shall disseminate information or an allegation without establishing its correctness
or truth.
This clearly stated and any
breach by a journalist is likely to be charged with Misdemeanour, Section 50
subsection (1) of the Penal Code, Cap 120 which says:-
“Any person who
publishes any false statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear
and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace commits a misdemeanor.”
And
section 22 of the Penal Code further gives a punishment of imprisonment not
exceeding two years. So at any one point, the recommendation here is that and
journalist has to look for proof that the information disseminated is correct
citing Section 50 subsection (2), in order for the case to be revoked by the
Council, under Section 36 of the Press and Journalist Act.
·
No journalist shall disclose the
source of his or her information; he or she shall only divulge the source in
the event of an overriding consideration of public interest and within the
framework of the law of Uganda.
Under
Section 38 of the Press and Journalist Act, any rational journalist can’t
reveal the source of his information except on the order of the Court. This
makes many people to undertake whistleblower ship in order to save themselves
and the others involved. The only solution here is that if any person wants to
disclose in formation, there should be put in place public forums to tackle
these issues such as in Zambia and South Africa under the Protected Disclosures
Act, 2000 were information disclosers are protected from the culprits of the
content being disclosed and as in Zambia, in its Article 19 subsection (1)
protects all the information whistleblowers.
·
No journalist shall solicit or
accept bribes in attempt to publish or suppress the publication of a story.
It’s in
his power for a journalist not to solicit or accept bribes. This law is in
established in good faith for the Journalist because if he accepts bribes or
solicits, the saga may affect the way he publishes now if not, later. The
stories will be affected due to blackmail, manipulations and therefore, him
/her becoming subjective contrary to the job requirement.
·
A journalist shall not plagiarize
the professional work of others or expropriate works or results of research by
scholars without acknowledging their contribution and naming his or her sources
of information.
To a
certain extent, this ethical standard is contrary to number two, which says
he/she shouldn’t disclose his information source and therefore, his life will
be on the mercy of how the law interpreters reason out this standard, and if
fueled by the state interests, he/she-the journalist will find his place in the
prison if not police cell, if fate deems in his favour.
·
A journalist shall obtain his or
her information through the skillful application of application of journalistic
principles and shall never bribe or offer inducements to his or her source.
·
A journalist shall originate or
encourage the dissemination of information designed to promote or which may
have the effect of promoting tribalism, racism or any other form of
discrimination.
This is
a difficult issue to take caution about and therefore pressurizes anyone
practicing journalism to always be on his guard not to promote the matters said
above. Its very difficult because, what may seem to be an effecting point on
the aspect of tribalism to some Munyoro, I, as a Muganda may see it as
something propagating and cherishing my culture making the whole thing very
complex to internalize and get the solution out of it. This is what a
journalist has to do, and to make matters worse, he/she will have to face trial
in case things go bad.
But nevertheless,
putting the code in action although it’s the responsibility of the media to do so
by disseminating, publishing and broadcasting it to the public will in other
words make the media to lock itself in a cell, because its own work will start
impeding it to do its job. To maintain the issue of the public trusteeship, the
media has to abide by the Code as stated in the Fourth Schedule to have that
social responsibility aspect, which will lead to the profession having its own
independence, using public donations, community and village donations and
others to run its finances; creation of numerous Public Service Broadcasters to
define a single national Culture and not disturb themselves with the issue of
tribalism, because at that point, there will be only one culture and one single
national language whereby in the end, the media won’t fall into pitfalls with
numerous laws as stated in the above Acts and the Constitution.
This
will keep the state at bay and not have it coming in and start directing its
overall operations under the reason that the former had failed in carrying out
its own issues independently and professionally. This would automatically lead
to loss of independence, loss of watchdog job of the media and thus, loss of
the status of the Fourth Estate.
References:
(i)
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA,
1995
(ii)
PRESS AND JOURNALIST ACT CAP 105, 1994
(iii)
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT2002
(iv)
ELECTRONIC MEDIA ACT CAP 104, 1977
(v)
PENAL CODE
(vi)
ANTI TERRORISM ACT
(vii)
ARTICLE 19 OF ICCPR
(viii)
OVERVEIW OF THE STATE OF MEDIA FREEDOM IN
UGANDA, A RESEARCH REPORT,2010
(ix)
WEBSITES:-
a.
www.freedomhouse .org
b.
www.business dictionary.com
(x)
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MEDIA COUNCIL IN
UGANDA Ford Foundation, Sheraton Hotel
(xi)
BUSSEIK TOOLBOX 1 AND 4
“Those (journalists) who would fail to meet
whatever standards, which may be set (by the Media Council), would lose their
right to work as journalists, a threat and possibility they have never faced until the decision was made,
thereby depriving them of a right of livelihood they previously enjoyed”.- -Busseik
toolbox1
“The CID now runs a Media Crimes
Department dedicated to monitoring media and questioning
of journalists, with a view to charging them in the
courts. The offices of the resident district
Commissioners (RDCs) have also established units to
monitor media. In districts such as Jinja
and Soroti, RDCs have sent officials to ask radio
station managers to provide names, titles,
phone numbers, and residential addresses of journalists
under the guise of monitoring security.
