🚀 go-pugleaf

This article was fist published in Edition 16 of Africa Film & TV, Jan -
March 1998.

No freedom to broadcast?

"It has become clear that the management of the national broadcasters
cannot be called upon to take the lead in regulation for local content and
the development of our regional industry"

In 1998 we may see the beginning of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) decade for Culture and Information. That is if the council
of ministers adopts a draft document for the "formulation of policies,
priorities and strategies for culture, information and public education and
awareness".

Among the recommended strategies in the report is the call for:
*       Identification and repeal/amendment of all existing laws that
repress the media and restrict their operations;
*       The creation of political and economic environments which will
enable pluralistic media to flourish, including incentives to invest in
media enterprises, the granting of incentives and licenses to establish
radio and television stations;
*       The promotion of indigenous culture through the provision of more
local content programming in mass media; and
*       The expansion of the communications media infrastructure to improve
the quality and quantity of coverage by both government and private media,
to include satellite communication for broadcasting, multi-lingual
programming, viable community media and the development of internet
connectivity.

Has SADC and its member states renewed their commitment to the principles
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights? Or do they simply wish to become full
members of the international club of free nations? Media freedom is
certainly viewed by most 'northern' powers a pre-requisite to entry.

For example Malawi alone has received pledges of US$800 million in
financing over the next three years from the Paris Club, the grouping of
donor governments of industrialised countries. Conditions set by the donors
to qualify for the money include the sale of the state-controlled radio
network and an extension of privatisation -- particularly in
telecommunications.

For whatever the real reason we have seen a concentration of activity on
the media legislation front in 1997 and it seems to be heating up in 1998,
with virtually all of the countries in southern Africa bringing in new
legislation on the media and broadcasting front.

The Malawi Law Commissioner has re-opened consultations on the Malawi
Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) Act, shelved since the elections. The Act
will give the MBC programming and editorial independence from the
government for the first time. The new act together with two other pieces
of legislation, one setting up a broadcasting/telecoms regulatory body and
the other de-regulating the telecommunications industry, are promised in
early 1998.

One setback is that the Malawi government has already started issuing
licenses before transparent licensing procedures are in place. One can only
assume that it is in order to give certain business interests an unfair
advantage or to fill valuable frequencies with non-dissenting voices. This
is a situation that will probably be familiar to those in Botswana, Zambia,
Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the region where broadcasting reform is underway.

This reform is not a straight forward process, in answering SADC and donor
countries calls for comprehensive media policies and regulatory systems,
many governments are using it as an opportunity to introduce legislation
that may restrict and curb the expansion of independent media rather that
to assist it.

Last year the Botswana government released a Mass Media Communications
Draft Bill. The bill would have established a separate broadcasting board,
a state newspaper registration system, accreditation procedures as well as
a legislated press council. Each of these bodies would have been appointed
and managed by the government of Botswana through the Ministry of
Information which falls under the Office of the President. The draft bill
sparked national and international protests. Media in Botswana rejected it,
noting that it was "infringing and encroaching" on the right to freedom of
expression and media freedom. After the protests the government agreed to
defer the legislation, apart from the plans to set up a broadcasting board.

The Botswana government now intends to establish National Broadcasting
Board, members of which will be appointed by either the president or a
minister. Some members of the board will be representatives of government
ministries. Neither the government nor other interested parties should have
positions on a regulatory board. As such, appointments to the Botswana
broadcasting board by the president or minister fall short of guaranteeing
a non-partisan administration of broadcasting in Botswana. The body that
allocates licenses needs be independent of the government, and members
should be appointed through a public process and be approved by a
parliamentary committee.

All the signs are that Malawi and Zimbabwean governments, who are promising
legislation to set independent regulatory bodies early in 1998, will also
interpret 'independent" in the same way as their Botswana counterparts. It
is not yet know when Zambia will deliver on its 1996 media policy promise
to introduce and independent broadcasting authority.

Late last year the Swaziland government also announced the introduction of
a media bill aimed at introducing legal government control of public and
private media operations. Swazi Television also attempt to restrict access
to information by proposing to stop the re-transmission of the signals of
the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). The official reason for
this proposal was economic and was withdrawn after strong public protest.
Coming in the wake of a mass labour boycott in Swaziland, which in part was
called to protest the media bill,  it received wide criticism from people
who viewed it as an attempt to prevent the coverage of the boycott and
future political events in Swaziland. Swazi Television denied it was
stopping the service because of the SABC's full coverage of the strike
(Swazi Television only carried restricted and heavily censored coverage of
the labour boycott).

No one will pretend that Swazi Television is independent of government
control and influence. But at one stage people held out hope that the
leadership of the other government broadcasting corporations under the
umbrella of The Southern Africa Broadcasting Association (SABA), would be
strong voices for reform. In 1995 SABA had passed an important policy
document, entitled "On the Move - Public broadcasting in Southern Africa".
It stated many progressive principles for public broadcasting including
those about access, balance and impartiality. Importantly, it also called
for autonomous boards to govern the public broadcaster, appointed in an
open and transparent manner, together with the establishment of
broadcasting regulatory bodies whose independence is guaranteed by law.

Sadly, in 1995 SABA was still young and eager, now that it has matured as
an organisation, 'on the move' has become an 'on paper only' policy. It is
quite clear that SABA is not moving anywhere. Here are some examples of the
actions of SABA members during the last few months of 1997.

Part-time broadcaster for the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) Gerry
Jackson was sacked for broadcasting information on public demonstrations
against a tax increase aimed at generating money for disgruntled
ex-fighters. The Zimbabwe government had announced a 5% War Veteran Levy
increases in sales tax on goods, fuel and electricity.

Mollande Nkhata, director of news and current affairs at the Malawi
Broadcasting Corporation (MBC), was also demoted to chief editor and
ordered to withdraw from media activism. In a letter handed to him on 17
November 1997, Nkhata was also ordered to resign from the Malawi chapter of
MISA of which he is chairman. He has also been ordered to dissociate
himself from the Malawi Institute of Journalism (MIJ), the Media Council of
Malawi (MCM) and the Journalists Association of Malawi (JAMA), or be
summarily dismissed from the MBC. Nkhata was being penalised for allegedly
reporting the suggestion by the opposition newspaper The Daily Times that
President Bakili Muluzi had lost his voice while at the Commonwealth Heads
of Government Meeting.

At least four journalists have either been fired or suspended from the
national broadcasting station since the failed October 28 1997, coup in
Zambia. On October 31, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC)
management suspended announcer Loveday Haachiyumba for allegedly speaking
approvingly of the coup by rebellious army officers. On November 3,
journalist Goretti Mapulanga, was dismissed from her job ostensibly for
carrying out a 'vox pop' on the failed coup. Her husband Hopkings who was
ZNBC regional manager was also asked to leave on the same day as Goretti.
Earlier, senior broadcast journalists Kenneth Maduma and Wellington
Kalwisha were forced to retire.

Haachiyumba was one of the three journalists who were at gun point forced
to operate broadcast equipment for the coup plotters on October 28. He
claims to have been hit with a gun butt and ordered to speak approvingly of
the coup on air or lose his life. He says he was ordered not to scare the
public. The ZNBC management has refused to accept his explanation.

It has become clear that  the management of the national broadcasters can
not be called upon to protect or advocate for media freedom. Nor do they
seem able to influence their own governments to assist in the building
effective and efficient independent public broadcasters. Let alone take the
lead in regulation for local content and the development of our regional
industry.

The independence of film makers themselves is now coming under threat from
proposed legislation. As in the case of Namibia where the Ministry of
Information has circulated a draft Namibian Film Commission Bill which
proposes that "No film producer or film production company shall be allowed
to produce any type of film in Namibia, without a valid film production
license". It also proposes that licenses should be issued for "each
individual film production". The only exemption from licensing are certain
television programme productions "as from time to time determined by the
commission". The penalty for not complying with the regulations would be a
fine of N$ 2000 (US$ 455), and/or six months' imprisonment. There is no
reason to believe that this is an isolated incident, with Zimbabwe also
looking at new film legislation they could also use the opportunity to
clamp down on media freedoms.

Even in South Africa, which many have held up as a model to the region,
there are more and more cases of the government attempting to restrict
media freedoms. Of note is the current threat to the autonomy of the South
African IBA. The Ministry of Telecommunications and Broadcasting has
already taken over some of the authorities policy functions. They are now
proposing to merge  the IBA with  the South African Telecommunications
Regulatory Authority (SATRA), which is not independent of government and
answerable to the Minister.

All this means is it is up to media practitioners ourselves to keep
informed and inform others of the legislative process in our own countries
and advocate directly for those policies which will benefit the industry
and foster truly independent and pluralistic broadcasting.

John Barker, Regional Programme Coordinator (Broadcasting), Media Institute
of Southern Africa, Private Bag 13386, Windhoek, Namibia Tel: +264 61
232975 Fax: 248016 johnb@ingrid.misa.org.na

John Barker, Regional Programme
Coordinator (Broadcasting)
Media Institute of Southern Africa
Private Bag 13386,
21 Johann Albrecht Street
Windhoek, NAMIBIA
Tel: +264 61 232975 Fax +264 61 248016
E-mail johnb@ingrid.misa.org.na

**********************************
* http://www.misanet.org *
**********************************