MPs’ failure to amend Media Bill may destroy gains in press freedom

The Standard

The principles of democracy, rule of law, good governance, respect for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms were all under attack yesterday when Parliament debated the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2013.

Hopes are dwindling that there are enough MPs in the August house willing to stand up and be counted among those opposed to the new law, because they are aware that these five principles are related not only to one another but also to poverty.

 The consensus around the world is that poverty is not only about lack of material resources but it is also about lack of power, opportunities, choice and resources.

History provides hard evidence that democracy and poverty reduction cannot be guaranteed by political leaders alone, irrespective of whether they are elected or self-appointed.

That means that a government elected with popular mandate to increase its people’s prosperity would be best advised to champion the building and strengthening of an inclusive society where a free and independent media is viewed as a necessary watchdog.

This is because in the end, only an independent media can serve to expand the people’s opportunity to influence their situation, claim their rights and voice their concerns. But to exercise these rights, there is a presupposition that citizens have access to information that has not been filtered, censored and distorted.

Yet, sad to say, the Bill before Parliament has the potential to make journalists work under such a cloud of fear that they would routinely deny their readers, listeners and TV audiences their rights by ensuring their work passes muster in the eyes and ears of the proposed tribunal expected to wield the power to levy hefty fines of Sh20 million and Sh1 million on media houses and individual journalists, respectively.

Equally chilling, the tribunal would have the power, under the proposed law, to suspend or de-register the individual journalist thus ensuring the hapless professional is no longer able to put food on his family’s table.

The result would be that the country’s citizenry would no longer be able to claim its rights because it would not know what they are.

The citizenry would not be able to voice its concerns either because it would be afraid of being persecuted.

Evidence from around the world shows that a general crackdown on the rights of individuals always follows curtailment of the freedom of speech and that of the press — often in that order. Logically, the next step is the reduction of the political space for all — the ruled and their rulers. There cannot be any argument that the quality of the information a citizen is able to access will, by necessity, greatly influence his or her ability to participate in the political process. Put differently, journalists have a responsibility towards their fellow citizens to provide correct and analytical information.

In other words, only an independent media and people can provide the complex system of checks and balances necessary for evolvement and sustainability of democratic society.

Yes, a society can only exercise control over authorities when it is aware of what those authorities are doing in its name.

This explains why the right to freedom of speech is enshrined in all Constitutions of democratic states, including Kenya. Attempts to tamper with these freedoms could very well, therefore, prove to be against the spirit — and the letter — of the very Constitution elected leaders swore to protect.