ROLE OF THE MEDIA


some of these statutory constraints are liberal and commendable. The application of the media offences is also satisfactory. Today, criminal proceedings are


rarely instituted for libel. If they are, it is not necessary to prove that the libel was likely to cause the bridge of the peace. It must be a serious libel to justify invoking the criminal law. In these countries, the whole law of defamation, which is directly relevant to good governance and the working of democratic processes, seeks to resolve the conflict between the freedom of speech and publication and the right of the individual to maintain his reputation against improper attack. There is no doubt that the press and the broadcasting authorities constantly have to be aware of the law on defamation.


Conclusion Even though it is commonly held that statutory constraints on the media constitute a travesty of the fundamental principle of press or media freedom, it is submitted that a case can be made in their favour. It is true that in democracies, the relationship between politicians and the media is often a love/hate one. Politicians govern but the media


critiques are what reach the people. It is therefore not surprising that governments would always want to control the media to get their “truths” across. They see the media as claiming “the prerogative of the harlot” and possessing power without responsibility.25


To this extent and this


regard, statutory constraints become a dangerous weapon in the hands of governments and must be rebuked. However, there are areas that if


constraints were not imposed, society would resemble something of a jungle-like state. The protection of every person’s


right to the privacy of their family life, the secrecy of correspondence and other communication are areas that if the press were left unregulated, it would cause untold hardship and scandal in the citizenry. Present day technology provides many avenues for monitoring and intercepting


through wire taping of private conversations. If there are no statutory safeguards in this domain, the private life of every citizen will constantly be in the market place. Cyprus took the lead in this regard, when in 1996, its Parliament enacted a law, which affords sufficient protection to the fundamental right of the secrecy of communication. It provides that the violation of


the said right is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment whether committed by an agent of the state or any other individual. It further provides for the prohibition of the importation, manufacture, advertisement or sale of any apparatus or device which may be used for the interception or monitoring of a private communication without the permission of the appropriate authority.26 Legal safeguards that regulate the responsibilities of the media in respect of programmes that may affect minors in their bodily, mental or moral condition and restrictions designed for the protection of consumers can also be justified. Again, Cyprus took the lead in this regard in its new Broadcasting Law passed on 15 January 1998.27 These few legal constraints aside, Commonwealth Parliaments should be exponents of the protection of the media as a necessary adjunct to democracy and good governance. Legislation that renders the operation of the media, based on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the dissemination of opinions and information without any intervention from the state and without censorship, should be the avowed goal of Commonwealth Parliaments. In Québec, the Act respecting


access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information came into force in 1982 and granted full access to public documents and the confidentiality of personal information held by the government. In 1994, this was extended to the private sector by another Act of that year. Any company or association, which holds


24 | The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue Three - Cameroon


or uses personal information on individuals, must conform to this Act and any individual may have access to the personal file the company holds on him or her.28


The key objective of


this legislation is therefore to protect information of a personal nature that is collected, held and used by the government and to grant to citizens the right to have access to information concerning them in order to avail them of the opportunity to correct matters. Finally and in the light of the


forgoing, the holding of committee meetings behind closed doors, as is the case in Cameroon and in many African and other Commonwealth countries, can no longer be justified. In many Commonwealth countries, while debates in plenary sittings of Parliaments are open to the media, discussions in the standing committees are not. The norms of democracy and


good governance demand that committee meetings be open to the media because they constitute the forums where frank discussion takes place. It is in the committees that members of governments are questioned and it is in the committees that experts give opinion. In many ways therefore, it is unfair to the people who are entitled to know how their representatives reach particular decisions.


Endnotes


1. The Republic of Cameroon on gaining independence in 1961 constituted a Federal Republic made of the two mandated territories, “La Republic du Cameroon” under the French and the “Southern Cameroons” under the English as Federated states. In 1972, through a referendum masterminded by the predominantly French-speaking Government, it became the United Republic of Cameron. In 1984 an act of government brought back the French anachro- nism “La Republic du Cameron” in English, “The Republic of Cameroon” as the name for the whole country. 2. See; Section 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. 3. This was known as the “Cameroon National Radio”. 4. This too was known as Cameroon Tribune.


It still exists today though its editorial has substantially evolved in its attempt to withstand competition from the flourishing private press. 5. Parliamentarians were elected on a single list system presented by the central caucus of the one party and it won at all the elections with a 99.99 percent of the votes. 6. This is the Social Democratic Front (SDF) led by Ni John Fru Ndi and is the main political party of the opposition represented today in Parliament. 7. There are about 300 political parties in existence today though only six are represented in Parliament. 8. There are over 60 newspaper publications, about10 privately owned television organs and very many local radio stations in existence today though the vast majority of them are mushroomed press organs. There is one government owned national television and radio with sub-national regional stations that in the past dominated the Cameroon media space. 9. Blackstone; Commentaries, 1765. 10. Law N° 90/052 of 19 December 1990. Section 7. 11. ibid; Section 8. 12. Fears of a movement towards monopoly conditions in sectors of the press led to the en- actment of provisions to ensure that newspaper mergers above a certain scale do not take place in a manner contrary to the public interest. See; The Fair Trading Act 1973, Sections 57-62. 13. Mr Hardgrave (MP) “The Media in Australia, A Unique Mix for a Unique Nation” The Parlia- mentarian 2001, Issue three pp15 and 16. 14. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 15. The New 1998 Broadcasting Law, The Parliamentarian, April 1998 p191. 16. The BBC and the RFI now operate from Cameroonian territory since 1999. 17. ibid; Mr. Hardgrave (MP) “The Media in Australia, A Unique Mix for a Unique Nation” The Parliamentarian, 2001, Issue three at p15 18. The Fair Trading Act 1973, Sections 58 19. The Fair Trading Act 1973, Sections 58 20. Decree N° 91/249 of 3 May 1991. 21. Decree N° 90/060 of 12 January 1990. 22. Decree N° 74/179 of 7 March 1974. 23. Law N° 90/O52 of 19 December 1990, Sections 80 & 81. 24. “Defamation Cases” The Parliamentarian, July 1997 at pp260 to 261. 25. Mr Austin Mitchell, MP, The Parliamentarian 2001, Issue Three at p263. 26. The Parliamentarian, July 1997, at p. 254 27. The Parliamentarian, April 1998 at p. 191. 28. The Access to Information Act, 1982 and the Private Sector Act, 1994.


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