Last Friday the African Centre for Media Excellence hosted a meeting at which we, and other media NGOs and journalists, briefed selected new members of parliament on our concerns about freedom of expression and media law in Uganda.

We had done a series of such briefings with members of the old parliament, but now that nearly half of them did not return, we have started all over again.

We told the MPs that although Uganda had made tremendous strides in the enjoyment of press freedom from 1986 to the late 1990s, a period in which the media also thrived, recent developments posed major threats to freedom of expression.

The proposed Press and Journalist (Amendment) Bill, 2010 contains several provisions that would further erode press freedom and free expression in Uganda.

Among these are the following:
•    The proposal to expand the powers of the Media Council to include registering and licensing newspapers (on annual basis).

•    The proposal to change the composition of the Media Council and have the minister responsible for information appointing six of the 12 members without consultation.

•    The proposal to prohibit the publication of information injurious to national security, stability, and unity, to Uganda's relationship with neighbours, and to the economy, as well as the criminalisation of such publication.

We told the MPs that this last proposal was perhaps the most dangerous as such provisions would be subject to subjective interpretation. What constitutes injury to national security? Who defines injury to national security? The same can be said about Uganda's relations with neighbours and others. And who defines economic sabotage? If it’s President Museveni, for instance, covering demonstrations could also be considered economic sabotage.

We also told the MPs that existing laws— the Electronic Media Act, the Press and Journalist Act, the Anti- Terrorism Law, the Police Act and several provisions in the Penal Code—already contradict the government’s expressed commitments to and constitutional guarantees of the right to freedom expression.  In particular, the use of criminal sanctions for violations of those laws represents a departure from internationally accepted standards.

It was also brought to the attention of the MPs that reports by local and international human rights organizations including Human Rights Network for Journalists—Uganda, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists, among others, show that “a worrying decline in press freedom in Uganda over the past five years has been accompanied by a rise in self-censorship and physical attacks on journalists”.

We told the MPs we recognise that according to international law and the Ugandan Constitution, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Both recognize that freedom of expression may be restricted. However, any limitations must be within strictly and narrowly defined parameters.

Article 2 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa states that “Any restrictions on freedom of expression shall be provided by law, serve a legitimate interest and be necessary in a democratic society.”

In similar breath, Article 43 (2) (c) of the Ugandan Constitution limits limitation of rights and freedoms to “what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society”.
We also tried to disabuse the MPs of the tendency to label press freedom and freedom of expression advocates as extremists who don’t want any form of regulation of the media.

We are not opposed to regulation of the media. We are opposed to the nature and purpose of the regulation in our laws and proposed legislation.

The key objectives of media regulation are supposed to be the promotion of press freedom and free expression and the protection of the rights of others as well as public order and morality. For broadcasting, regulation is also supposed to ensure that no single player enjoys a monopoly over the spectrum, which is a public resource. It is also supposed to ensure orderly use of the spectrum, through careful allocation of frequencies.

Then it came to the MPs to give us their perspective.

Apart from FDC’s Roland Tugume (Rukungiri Municipality) who suggested that the current government was not ready for multi-party politics (because of its tendency to equate dissent to criminality), most of the other MPs spoke from the same script.

Don’t we see the problems in the media industry? Don’t we see the disproportionate attention paid to entertainment at the expense of information and education? Don’t we see the sensationalism in our media? Don’t we see the disproportionate attention paid to political stories from Kampala at the expense of real stories in the countryside? Don’t we care about peace, stability and unity in our country? Do we take time to listen to the BBC, which does not damage the national unity of Britain? Don’t we know that the barrel of the pen can be more destructive than the barrel of the gun? “Whatever you write must be educative, constructive.”  Don’t we see the bias in our media?  Don’t we see the inaccuracies and irresponsibility of our media? (Brigadier Angina, UPDF MP and Chairman of the Army Court Martial, was particularly unhappy that some newspapers had reported that he was among the rebels that fought the government in eastern Uganda, yet he was with “the forces that pacified the region”.) Don’t we see the exploitation of journalists by media owners who care only about the bottom line?

We told the MPs we understood and in some cases shared their concerns about media (ir)responsibility. We understand the need for ethical and professional journalism. But the proposed amendment bill does not contain any proposals that would in fact address these concerns. And certainly a legal regime that criminalises publication offences will not in itself deliver professional journalism.

Those who care about media responsibility should look at how we can strengthen self-regulation. Credible media associations or bodies that monitor journalism performance and promote mid-career training as well as regular reflections on ethics should be supported. But those in the media can’t leave this responsibility to others. We must step up to the plate and show them we can clean our own house.

About the Author:
Dr. Peter Mwesige is Executive Director of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). He has chaired the department of journalism and communication at Makerere University and is a former Executive Editor of the Monitor in Kampala.