RESPONSIBLE PRESS


opposed to freedom of expression and are extremely detrimental to the media being able to function appropriately in a democracy. In many countries, licensing of


newspapers is standard practice under law; but in countries like The Gambia, recent amendments to their laws place practically insurmountable barriers in the path of independent reporting. Increasing threats of criminal prosecution for publishing “seditious” material and large fines lead to self-censorship by journalists. Large fees levied for licenses also mean that publishers are imposing strict levels of self- censorship to negate the risk of losing such large sums of money. The continued use of both the


Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Sedition Act should be a source of embarrassment to Malaysia as a developed nation. Both of these pieces of legislation have their origins in the colonial era when their primary aim was the subjugation of the population. In South Africa, the Media


Appeals Tribunal and the Protection of Information Bill represent a clear and present danger to the progress that country has made in the past two decades towards a free and open media and society. Reporters Without Borders


places this in clear relief, highlighting the fraught relations between President H.E. Jacob Zuma and the media who “criticize the way he governs, cover his private life and investigate such sensitive issues as corruption and crime”.


Applying diverse pressures On the surface, the situation in Sri Lanka does appear to have improved and there is certainly less direct violence against journalists. However many of the laws that have been of concern in the past are still in operation and the government has yet to introduce amendments to reform them. Also


the emergence of new publications, which are solely a platform for the political opinions of the owners, has created a dichotomy in a once-balanced and united independent media. Sri Lanka is also one of the few remaining Commonwealth countries which still has state- owned newspapers alongside a vibrant independent press, an anachronism in today’s world. Uganda has had a turbulent


recent history. While exercising one-party rule President H.E. Yoweri Museveni was responsible for increasing socio-economic standards across health, education and the national economy; but since the reintroduction of multiparty democracy there have been reports of a drastic decline in the freedom of expression and a constriction of the legal space in which the media can operate. The nature of this constriction


has utilized both judicial and extra- judicial practices. Much of the increasing


restriction has been centred on existing institutions, primarily the Media Council and the Broadcasting Council. Both bodies are expanding their remit far beyond the original legislation intended, increasing powers and areas in which they can regulate. One of the most worrying developments is the Press and Journalist Amendment Act, which introduces a strict licensing system. Even the United Kingdom is not


exempt from criticism. Many of the issues here surround privacy and the workings of the 1998 Human Rights Act. The current controversy


surrounding phone hacking has magnified this problem, though the problems relating to privacy and the use of injunctions that arise from the Act probably have far longer-term significance. The U.K. Human Rights Act


includes a margin of appreciation clause meaning that decisions under the Human Rights Act in the U.K. must take account of


European case law in relation to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR combines a cross section of European judiciary, all with different jurisprudence with regards to privacy. Many jurisdictions in Europe have much tougher rules surrounding what constitutes privacy and a much lower tolerance relating to the reporting of private lives. This too could have a damaging long-term impact. We are very conscious that


what happens in the U.K. can and does have a knock-on effect in the wider Commonwealth and there is much concern that the present problems in the U.K. newspaper industry may have serious effects in other countries, particularly with regard to media regulation.


Regulation versus self- regulation and effective training Many of the problems that surround media independence stem from a single question: should the media be encouraged to regulate themselves or are statutory means of government regulation necessary? Countries with true self-regulatory bodies are in a minority in the Commonwealth; conversely, a number of Commonwealth member states have government-appointed press councils operating under more or less stringent structures of statutory regulation. Understandably, opinion tends to be polarized, with the media supporting the former option and governments the latter. The Commonwealth Press Union Media Trust has long called for the establishment of effective and properly funded media regulation bodies, and in the case of the press, self-regulatory bodies; but many governments find it easier to constrain the media by statute rather than to find ways of helping them police themselves. Equally, the need for effective


training institutions is long overdue. In some countries where


independent training institutes have been set up, standards of journalism have generally improved; but if governments are not prepared to allow freedom of expression, then anything learnt will fall on fallow ground. If you are attacked, then it is only human to fight back – with whatever means at your disposal. In short, the situation with


regard to media law in the Commonwealth is ambiguous. Some countries, such as New Zealand and Canada, could be seen as models of press freedom while others, including the examples given above, are still deliberately seeking to constrain it.


Full adherence to a fundamental Commonwealth principle The newly published CPU Media Trust report The Test of Democracy sets out 10 recommendations for governments to consider that would enhance press freedom across the Commonwealth. It is hoped that these recommendations could form the basis for an informed discussion with both the Commonwealth Secretariat and individual governments to assist the process. I commend it to all readers of The Parliamentarian. Of course it is difficult to make


substantive change overnight; but if the will is there then change can be made gradually. This is what the CPU Media


Trust is seeking. Slow but well thought through revision of those laws which are now inappropriate and whose existence on the statue books signals an unwillingness to move forward and fully embrace a free press as part of the foundation of democratic institutions.


Endnotes 1. The Independence of the Commonwealth Media: CPU: 1999. 2. Media Law, Robertson, G, and Nicol, A: London, Penguin Books:1992: p102.


The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Two | 103


FREE AND


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72