America’s Civil liberties crusader, the late Martin Luther King jr. once said that: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter".
The principle concern of the media as the forth estate of the state, is to break that silence and make our leaders accountable to the wider public.
The constitution of Uganda declares the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 29 thus: Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.
That declaration does not speculate or specify what a person is free to say or express. And this is for good justified reasons; It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to democratic society than freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, all is not rosy for the media in Uganda. According to the annual report by Freedom House an independent organization that monitors the global media environment in 161 countries - Uganda is ranked at 114 as of 2007 down from 111th position held in 2006.
The report attributes Uganda’s decline in the freedom of the media rankings to harassment and criminal convictions against critical journalists. Editor of Red Pepper Richard Tusiime was recently summoned by police who tried to slam sedition charges against him.
This is part of the harassment designed to intimate the free and independent media. Our constitutional court has since declared the obsolete charges of publishing false news and sedition as being impracticable in the modern world and therefore unconstitutional.
However, these offending provisions of our criminal penal law are still on our statute books with the state hiding under article 43 to justify their regulatory framework. Article 43 basically limits the freedom of expression where such expression would prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.
But as Justice J.N Mulenga stated in the country’s leading authority on this subject-the Supreme court holding in the matter of Charles Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mujjuni Mwenda vs. Attorney general; a democratic society calls for respect and promotion of the citizens’ individual right to freedom of expression , because it derives benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens.
In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of demonstrably untrue and alarming statements. Indeed, as the learned judge pointed out a democratic society tolerates such foolish and sometimes dangerous appeals not because they may prove true but because freedom of speech is indivisible.freed of the press cannot be denied to some ideas and saved for others. The reason is plain enough; no man, no committee and surely no government, has the infinite wisdom and disinterestedness accurately and unselfishly to separate what is true from what is debatable , and both from what is false.
Much as the national Resistance movement has made a demonstrable effort to nature freed of speech and expression through the licensing of over 200 FM stations and tolerating divergent views in the free independent press, there are also instances where government has come-on heavy against such media.
Media owners have at times been put under intense pressure to exercise self censorship in the coverage of public affairs. In some cases the professional careers of journalists and media managers have been put on the wire in the exercise of their constitutional duty to inform the public. Media houses have been threatened with cancellation of operating licences or in worst case scenarios - closures.
But the government should know that they have the constitutional mandate of the people and as such, the people have a constitutional right to know how they are governed. The Supreme Court of India whose jurisprudence similar to that of Uganda has stated that commitment to freedom of expression and the press demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered.",1]
But as Justice J.N Mulenga stated in the country’s leading authority on this subject-the Supreme court holding in the matter of Charles Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mujjuni Mwenda vs. Attorney general; a democratic society calls for respect and promotion of the citizens’ individual right to freedom of expression , because it derives benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens.
In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of demonstrably untrue and alarming statements. Indeed, as the learned judge pointed out a democratic society tolerates such foolish and sometimes dangerous appeals not because they may prove true but because freedom of speech is indivisible.
This liberty cannot be denied to some ideas and saved for others. The reason is plain enough; no man, no committee and surely no government, has the infinite wisdom and disinterestedness accurately and unselfishly to separate what is true from what is debatable , and both from what is false.
Much as the national Resistance movement has made a demonstrable effort to nature freed of speech and expression through the licensing of over 200 FM stations and tolerating divergent views in the free independent press, there are also instances where government has come-on heavy against such media.
Media owners have at times been put under intense pressure to exercise self censorship in the coverage of public affairs. In some cases the professional careers of journalists and media managers have been put on the wire in the exercise of their constitutional duty to inform the public. Media houses have been threatened with cancellation of operating licences or in worst case scenarios - closures.
But the government should know that they have the constitutional mandate of the people and as such, the people have a constitutional right to know how they are governed. The Supreme Court of India whose jurisprudence similar to that of Uganda has stated that commitment to freedom of expression and the press demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered.
And the court went ahead to qualify this by stating that the anticipated danger (which permits for limitation on the freedom of expression) should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should be proximate and have direct nexus (connection) with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.
The right to freedom of the press and expression is very fundamental for our fragile democracy to flourish with an informed society being in position to choose their leaders on the basis of the strength of their record and hold government accountable.
Freedom of press has also an effective tool in supporting participatory development and the fight against corruption.Next week in this column: Churches which have turned into businesses should be taxed.
And the court went ahead to qualify this by stating that the anticipated danger (which permits for limitation on the freedom of expression) should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should be proximate and have direct nexus (connection) with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.
The right to freedom of the press and expression is very fundamental for our fragile democracy to flourish with an informed society being in position to choose their leaders on the basis of the strength of their record and hold government accountable.
Freedom of press has also an effective tool in supporting participatory development and the fight against corruption. Next week in this column: Churches which have turned into businesses should be taxed.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate msserwanga@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment