President’s advice on media law repressive

Despite the high hopes the public and players in the media industry had that President Uhuru Kenyatta would reject the oppressive Bill on the media that MPs passed, he appears to have bypassed public interest and constitutional requirements in his recommendations.

The memorandum that the President sent to Parliament with his recommendations on how the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2013 should be amended, fly in the face of Article 34 of the Constitution which requires that any law on the media should be promotive and not restrictive.

But the President’s recommendations threaten to be more oppressive than the Bill passed by Parliament and reverses the gains made in entrenching media freedom. What’s more, it claws back the agreements reached in the past, which are anchored in law.

On broadcasting, for example, the recommendations, if passed, will overstep the legal provisions which clearly limit the role of the state to licensing and regulating the distribution of airwaves and signals.

But by creating an authority that exercises control over the media, the Bill oversteps its mandate and offends the Constitution.

Considering that four members of the authority’s board are to be appointed by the Cabinet Secretary responsible for communications while the chairman is to be picked by the President, the amendments claw back provisions requiring that regulation be overseen by a body independent of the government.

And since government appointees in such boards carries weight, there is a clear danger that they will act at the behest of their appointing authorities rather than in the public interest.

Headed to the courts

This not only sets a bad precedent but also lays the ground for the government to restrict media freedom contrary to the Constitution.

In all worthy democracies around the world, the media have been allowed to self-regulate. Kenya can neither safeguard nor build on the democratic gains made over the years by reverting to government control of the media.

Since it is highly likely that Parliament, after receiving the memorandum will be inspired by the spirit of Article 34 of the Constitution, it could mean that the matter will be headed to the courts for a constitutional interpretation.

This is a route that could have been avoided through broader consultation, which unfortunately, was sorely lacking in this matter.

But it is a sad reminder that the consultations between the media and the two arms of government — the Executive and the Legislature — have not borne fruit on a matter of such far-reaching public interest.

Going forward, one of the realities that should inform debate on media laws is the recognition that the campaign is not about the interests of the media owners but about democratic principles and the interest of the citizenry in its quest to build a nation founded on justice, good governance and accountability of the leadership.

Uhuru’s changes to media Bill criticised

President Uhuru Kenyatta was Sunday put on the spot over the changes he has suggested to the media Bill that he sent back to Parliament last week for amendment before it becomes law.

Religious and trade union leaders, lawyers, human and civil rights activists, politicians and other professionals criticised the President’s proposed amendments to the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill 2013, which they said were unconstitutional.

The National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK) accused the government of seeking to claw back the freedoms that Kenyans have painfully gained over the years through introduction of draconian laws.

The umbrella organisation of Protestant churches demanded the withdrawal of the controversial Bill and the Public Benefit Organisation Bill through which the government is seeking to have direct control of the media and NGOs.

“By seeking to control the NGOs and the media, the government is essentially seeking to muzzle the institutions that hold it to account,” said NCCK secretary-general Rev Peter Karanja.

Mr Kenyatta’s proposed changes transfer control of institutions which can punish journalists and their employers from the National Assembly to the Executive and the Presidency.

The amendments retain the Sh20 million fine against media houses proposed by MPs and expands offences for which media houses can be punished by a government-controlled tribunal.

The Kenya National Union of Teachers chairman, Mr Wilson Sossion, also criticised the proposed changes.

“We are urging members of Parliament to rise to the occasion and be sensible in amending this controversial Bill,” he said.

The Law Society of Kenya threatened to move to court if the proposals are adopted and the Bill passed into law.

“This well-orchestrated choreography seems to be an attempt to take us back to dictatorship. Remember the President and his deputy are very good students of former president Moi,” LSK chairman Eric Mutua said yesterday. “We as LSK shall move to court to have the act declared null and void if the amendments are passed into law.”

At the Coast, religious and civil society leaders warned that the country could easily slide back to the dark days of repression should the Bill become law.

Human Rights Agenda executive director Yusuf Lule and Sheikh Mohammed Khalifa of the Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya (CIPK) said there were indications that the country was sliding into a dictatorship.

The latest developments emerged as journalists said they would hold a demonstration in Nairobi tomorrow in protest at the proposed changes that threaten to curtail Press freedom.

Editors’ Guild vice-chairman David Ohito said journalists had issued a notice of peaceful picketing to Central Police Station on Saturday and asked the officers to provide security during the demonstration.

Nyanza NGOs Council chairperson George Obondo also criticised the President’s decision as did Siaya Senator James Orengo.

“The recommendations in the Communications Amendment Bill are the opposite of the constitutional provisions that have staged freedom of expression including that of the media; we cannot accept the recommendations as they attempt to curtail such freedoms,” said Mr Orengo.

Cotu secretary-general Francis Atwoli took issue with the composition of the panel to pick the members of the proposed Communications Authority of Kenya in which the President proposes various institutions to be represented but leaves out the Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ).

Media owners said President Kenyatta’s memorandum of refusal on the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2013, should be taken to the parliamentary departmental committee on Energy and Communication.

The Media Owners Association, on behalf of the Nation Media Group, Radio Africa Group, Royal Media Services, Kass and Standard Group said the Bill as passed by the National Assembly on October 31 fundamentally violates the spirit and letter of Article 34 and is thus unconstitutional.

“In some respects, the proposals by H.E. the President in his memorandum to the National Assembly are even more violative of the Media Freedom, enshrined in Article 34, than the Bill as originally enacted by the National Assembly,” the association said in a joint statement.

It also said it would go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the proposed law if Parliament does not shoot down the changes.