By EMMANUEL YIGA
Observers of media freedom in Uganda, which is the conceptual focus of this article, argue that the country is actually slipping into repression through enacting more restrictive laws as well as deployment of State agents against journalists. According to the press freedom rankings released by Reporters without Borders in January 2012, Uganda had slipped 43 places to the 139th position out of 179 countries surveyed. The report states that: “Led by President Yoweri Museveni, Uganda … launched an unprecedented crackdown on opposition movements and independent media after the elections in February [2011]” and that journalists “were the targets of violence and surveillance during the presidential election in February and were targeted again during the brutal crackdown on the ‘Walk to Work’ protests later in the year, when dozens of journalists were arrested”. This article analyses the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as a regulatory framework that impinges on freedoms of the media in Uganda; while paying attention to those clauses that the government insists work against public order, safety and therefore promote violent outcomes.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995
The 1995 Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda, and was produced following a highly participatory and consultative national exercise under the 1994 Consultative Assembly. To date, the Ugandan Constitution is hailed as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation on the African continent, according to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR Report, 2009, p.68). With regard to the mass media, Article 29 (1) (a) guarantees media freedoms:
“Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media”.
In Article 41(1), those freedoms are enhanced by the guarantee of access to information, albeit with important qualifications:
“Every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency of the State except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person”.
In addition to the fact that it is only “citizens” who are guaranteed access to information in possession of the State and its agencies, the other qualifications relating to the security and sovereignty of the State as well as those related to the privacy of individuals have over the years been deployed by government functionaries to deny journalists crucial public-interest information under the cloak of "classified information". Actually, Article 41(2) added a qualification that was to become an issue of contention for years:
"Parliament shall make laws prescribing the classes of information referred to in clause (1) of this article and the procedure for obtaining access to that information".
While the Access to Information Act was enacted in 2005 and finally made Article 41(2) operational, most government functionaries still ignore the new law as is discussed below. In addition to Article 41(1) above, however, Article 43 (1) stipulates further qualifications that:
“In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest”.
Whereas the Constitution does not define what public interest is, it gives what it is not. Article 43(2) (a) (b) and (c) read:
2) Public interest under this article shall not permit – a) political persecution; b) detention without trial; c) any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided in this Constitution".
While Article 43 is a fair reminder that enjoyment of rights goes with an obligation to respect the rights of others, government functionaries often cite Article 43 to deny journalists information on government operations.
From the above articles, it is clear that the Constitutional guarantees to media freedoms are limited and as the sections below show, what it gives with one hand, other laws take away with another; causing significant frustration to journalists as they are often charged under various laws (Sewanyana et al, 2007). Although government has lost most cases brought against journalists on appeal, court appearances are costly and emotionally draining to journalists. Further, the numerous charges brought against journalists over time engender a culture of self-censorship and often lead to journalists abandoning the profession all together. More so, the enduring debates in Parliament on various Bills relating to the mass media create an atmosphere of journalism under siege and over time wears down journalistic morale and industry.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda has therefore placed a high premium on media freedom. Yet, a dedication to the imperatives of journalism in emerging democracies almost inevitably puts journalists and political leaders at loggerheads. In the case of Uganda, the site of confrontation is laid out in the country’s plethora of media laws and regulations. A historical analysis of Uganda’s media regulatory frameworks shows that current media laws are a legacy of previous regimes, sometimes going back as far as the colonial British administration. Press historians on Uganda agree that since colonial days, no single government has ever unconditionally recognised the necessity of a free press.
As the mass media expanded, however, so did the need by government to control it through a stringent media regulatory regime (Lugalambi et al, 2010). Whereas the 1995 Uganda Constitution clearly enshrines media freedoms, the plethora of laws and regulations place undue restrictions on the media’s ability to freely operate; as well as engendering self-censorship among the media. In addition to the crowded media law books, the multiplicity of bodies governing media operations with often duplicated roles such as the UCC and Media Council fuel confusion and create a situation where the suppression and manipulation of media has been made easy.
This article therefore calls for an urgent need to rethink, reassess and reconsider the current media regulatory frameworks, particularly the 1995 Uganda Constitution in an effort to enhance media freedoms in the country, and short of this, the ‘media titanic’ is yet to sink. Additionally, there are several regional and international instruments which are in support of media freedom in particular and freedom of expression in general. These include; the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR, Article 19), African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR, Article 9), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC, Article 7), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 19), United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, Article 13), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 10), American convention on human Rights (ACHR, Article 13), The Johannesberg Principles (Principle 1), and many others. To this end, everyone has the right and entitlement to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Therefore, drawing on the above arguments, media freedom should be embraced but not sacrificed by the present media regulatory regime.
The author is an MA student at the Department of Journalism and Communication
- Log in to post comments
