ROLE OF THE MEDIA


countries are still shopping around for those who can bring in capital to form viable companies that can operate sustainable media businesses.16


This


however gives the false impression that there are no statutory constraints on the media in African countries and indeed, the laws usually provide that creation and management of a press organ is free. The fact is that these constraints become effective only after the investor has been lured into the media industry.


The licensing system in technologically advanced Commonwealth countries In most technologically advanced Commonwealth countries, it is commonly asserted that: “The media industry is free and vigorous but, in order to guarantee certain outcomes for the community, the media industry is also subject to various measures of control by governments.”17 It is no longer the problem in these


countries to bridge finance for the development of the media industry, and expertise in the management in this regard is also no longer an issue. The statutory constraints are directed rather towards the prevention of monopolies and foreign investments. Thus, in the United Kingdom, it is an offence for one newspaper to be transferred to the proprietor of another without the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where the joint circulation of two newspapers is above 500,00018 ; a thing that would readily be encouraged in the less developed Commonwealth countries since a newspaper publication hardly ever exceeds 10,000 copies. In Australia, the law restricts


newspaper owners from controlling TV or radio interests in the same market.19


the statutory constraints relate to the allocation and re-allocation of channels and wavelengths. Television and local radio services financed by advertising are now regulated by the Broadcasting Act of 1990 and current developments in technology such as direct broadcasting by satellite and cable


In the case of broadcasting,


systems will have profound effects on the established broadcasting and telecommunications authorities. Consequently, new forms of regulation have become necessary. In Australia, there are no controls


over the print media other than foreign investment provisions and in 1992 foreign ownership restrictions were applied which have frozen foreign ownership in the print media to pre- 1987 levels. These examples can be multiplied from other technologically


“The fact is that the institution of Parliament within a democratic environment requires much media attention.”


advanced Commonwealth countries. It is rather the control a posteriori, which appears to be more stringent, and needs to be revisited.


The case of Cameroon In Cameroon, once a license has been granted by the competent Minister, the commission in charge of control of the media industry is vested with powers to ascertain and approve the qualifications of journalists and auxiliaries sought to be employed by the media organs, constantly evaluate their performance20


and recommend


them for the grant of professional cards,21


regulate the conditions under


which photographs may be made of individuals and public places for publication and/or broadcast,22


and


bring up to date the code of ethics and deontology of the profession of press practitioners. These commissions also review


complaints from the public against press organs and their professional staff and undertake withdrawal of licenses as a result of professional misconduct. But the most stringent regulation of the media in Cameroon seems


to stem from the interpretations accorded legal provisions in respect of the violation of individual freedoms and the dignity of the person. Thus, virtually all press and other media offences are matters for criminal law and the sentences often consist of long prison terms, damages being awarded only incidentally to the aggrieved civil claimants. The damages awarded by


the courts are equally very heavy and many a press media cannot afford funds for their payment. The consequence is that they simply close down as the proprietors go to prison. In Cameroon, a suit in defamation


or libel and slander has almost 95 per cent chances of success. The law provides that any accused


person who intends to prove the veracity of a publication or broadcast on which he/she has been sued must, within five days of being served with the charge sheet, file with the Director of Public Prosecutions, inter alia, documentary evidence and/ or the names of witnesses he/she intends to adduce in respect of the facts characterized in the charge sheet as defamatory, libellous, slanderous and/or injurious to the person of the complainant, failure to which, at the trial, he/she will be deemed to have admitted their guilt.23


It has proven difficult for the


accused persons or the managers of media organs to put together the documentary and viva voce evidence necessary to prove the veracity of the publications or broadcasts and obtain the services of legal practitioners within the mandatory five-day period. Consequently, they are always presumed guilty, convicted and given long-term prison sentences and exorbitant damages. Moreover, there is little or no


redress available in the law in favour of a press organ, or journalist who has been dragged to court on frivolous and vexatious charges of defamation, libel or slander. The cases abound in the books from other African countries where attempts by accused persons and press organs to bring action in this regard have been thrown out of the courts.


On the other hand In technologically advanced Commonwealth countries, legal constraints stem from the various and varied commissions that have become commonplace in the media industry. For example, in the UK, the Press Council was established as far back as 1953, reconstituted in 1963 and 1973. It sought to preserve the freedom of the British Press, to maintain the highest professional and commercial standards and to consider complaints about the conduct of the press. It however had no power to impose sanctions when it upheld a complaint. It was replaced in 1991 by the Press Complaints Commission when it was thought that its independence was in question and that the number of complaints it receives in each year bore little relation to the level of dissatisfaction with the press. The Press Complaints Commission is modelled after the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, charged with providing effective means of redress for complaints against the press. The Independent Television Commission is a body corporate whose members are appointed by the Home Secretary to regulate the provision of television programmes, which are provided within the United Kingdom. The Commission is under a


duty to ensure both a wide range of services, including fair and effective competition in the provision of services and the actual programmes being provided by licence-holders granted by the said commission. In Australia, the Competition and Consumer Commission also has the power to audit the performance of the media industry and its central concern is the control of the influence exerted on the community by the media. These examples can be multiplied. It is worth noting here that Zambia and a few other African countries have adopted Media Tribunals in the like of these commissions and assigned to them similar roles.24 The interpretations the courts


of the technologically advanced Commonwealth countries accord to


The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue Three - Cameroon | 23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36