| |
Back to Index
Agenda
Item 12: Statement by the Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
on the Occasion of the 38th Ordinary Session of the African
Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR), Banjul, The Gambia
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
November
28, 2005
Delivered
by Abel Chikomo, MMPZ Advocacy Coordinator
Madam Chairperson,
before I make the following statement on the subject of freedom
of expression (FOE), allow me to extend a request to you in your
capacity as Chair to dissuade honourable state delegates from using
disparaging language when they exercise their right of reply to
NGOs. Madam Chairperson, for the record, we representatives of Zimbabwean
NGOs with observer status with the Commission take great exception
to the manner in which the honourable Zimbabwean state delegate
keeps calling us names instead of addressing the grave issues we
raise. We feel such a reaction does not befit the honourable state
delegate and it tends to trivialise this August meeting. We therefore
seek your protection from such unwarranted abuse.
Madam Chairperson,
the Declaration of Principles on FOE in Africa acknowledges that
FOE is "an individual right, a cornerstone of democracy and
a means of ensuring respect of all human rights and freedoms".
The guarantee of free expression is a key means of holding government
to account and of protecting citizens against abuse of their rights.
The Press, as the conduit through which individuals can disseminate
and obtain information, has a pre-eminent role in a state governed
by the rule of law.
Disappointingly,
it is manifestly evident that, while the Commission does commendable
work to advance the cause of FOE, states often ignore its pertinent
and well-researched recommendations. Thus, instead of implementing
the recommendations of the ACHPR Fact-Finding Mission of June 2002
in order to create an environment conducive to freedom of expression
in Zimbabwe, the Government has strengthened repressive laws and
taken action that has had exactly the opposite effect. In particular,
the unduly restrictive provisions of AIPPA and POSA have been reinforced
rather than repealed, and together with the Broadcasting Services
Act, they form the backbone to legislation that unduly restricts
and controls Zimbabwe’s print and electronic media and gags the
public voice. New legislation like Constitutional Amendment No.17,
the Criminal Law Reform and Codification Act both of 2005 and the
General Laws Amendment Bill will further trench fundamental freedoms.
The threat of
terrorism presents serious challenges to FOE in Africa. The distinguished
delegate from Libya made reference to this issue and we thank him
for bringing the issue on board. Press freedom in Africa remains
under threat as long as national laws grant governments wide powers
to restrict it on the grounds of public order and national security.
Some governments, [like Zimbabwe], have appalling records of attempting
to classify as ‘top secret’ mere political embarrassment. Those
who wield executive power act in their own political interest, rather
than the broader public interest, and abuse restrictions to avoid
embarrassing revelations, and the exposure of corruption, incompetence,
illegality and other forms of wrongful action. Under AIPPA, Zimbabwe’s
cabinet deliberations can only be published 25 years after the discussions
making it impossible to scrutinise the decisions of the leaders.
It is essential
that restrictions on FOE, including for reasons of national security,
be subject to effective judicial oversight. In many African countries
there is a lack of clear statutory guidelines to examine the scope
of national security. The Ugandan Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, together
with sedition laws of that country show how difficult it becomes
for journalists to carry out their duties. Journalists from the
privately owned Daily Monitor face persistent harassment.
Madam Chair, the honourable delegate from Egypt informed this meeting
that his country is in the process of drafting an anti-terrorism
law. We implore Egypt to ensure the new law does not trench FOE.
Indeed, we want to remind states that respect for freedom of expression
is essential both in those countries which are potential targets
of terrorism and in those countries which risk harbouring or generating
terrorists. At the same time, terrorism thrives in repressive environments,
where peaceful, democratic means of expressing dissent, and of having
one’s views heard, are not available. A comprehensive strategy to
address terrorism must, therefore, seek to eliminate push factors,
including by enhancing protection for human rights.
The law of sedition
has also been extensively used across Africa. Typically it makes
it an offence to publish anything which may promote ill-will or
disaffection towards the government. The narrowing of the scope
of sedition would make it harder for governments to abrogate media
freedom on the basis of bogus or exaggerated claims. Clearly, only
acts or expression which undermine the territorial integrity or
institutions of the state or pose a grave threat to the safety of
its population by the use or threat of force should be regarded
as a legitimate national security interest.
While it is
conceded that there are instances in which it is legitimate to restrict
the exercise of media freedom on the grounds of national security,
it is equally true that if national security is defined too broadly,
media freedom may be easily abrogated on dubious grounds. The Malawi
Preservation of Public Security Act, the Subversive Activities Act
of Swaziland and the Zimbabwean POSA all of which criminalize expression,
are cases in point. The ground of "official secrets" also
unduly restricts media freedom as it prohibits journalists from
having access to "official secrets" on the grounds that it would
compromise national security.
In a number
of SADC countries, the law places the onus on a journalist who publishes
something to show that it did not threaten national security where
this is alleged by the state. To ensure protection of media freedom,
the law should place the burden of proof on those who wish to abrogate
the freedom on the grounds of national security. Again, where there
is effective judicial oversight, the Courts, and not governments,
would be the final arbiter as to what constitutes threats to national
security and thus ensure that FOE is not unnecessarily restricted.
The
tendency of governing elites to confuse "the life of the nation"
with "the survival of the regime" creates a grave risk
that derogations and limitations on expression and information rights
will be excessive. A proper balance between secrecy and liberty
cannot be struck without review of executive and legislative measures
by an independent national judiciary, supplemented by the oversight
and monitoring activities of international human rights bodies,
non-governmental organizations and a vigilant press.
Thank
you
Visit the MMPZ
fact sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
