Response to AP report on Media Practitioners Act, 2008

source: Republic of Botswana (25/1/09): TAUTONA TIMES no 1 of 2009
The Weekly Electronic Press Circular of the Office of the President "Democracy, Development, Dignity and Discipline"


C3) 17/1/09: Response to AP report on Media Practitioners Act, 2008

The Government of Botswana notes with disappointment a report published (15/1/09) by the Associated Press (AP) on the recently enacted Media Practitioners Act, which contains a number of false and misleading statements that could have been avoided had the said news organisation sought our comment.

In its opening, the AP report states that: “The Media Practitioners Act was passed last year, but lawmakers had asked for amendments and it had been expected to go to parliamentary committees for fine-tuning this year. Instead the government published it in the official gazette over the holidays, making it law.”

The Media Practitioners Bill was, in fact, adopted by a final vote of Parliament on the 11th December 2008 after it had passed through Committee Stage. In accordance with the Constitution any Bill can only become an Act (law) after it has been so passed by the legislature.

At Committee stage the Bill was, moreover, revised as a result of the adoption by lawmakers of a number of substantive amendments, which had been proposed by the Minister of Communications, Science and Technology.

At the time, no other amendments were brought forward for Parliament’s consideration, notwithstanding the fact that it is the prerogative of Members of Parliament to propose such amendments, as well as alteration and/or rejection of the content of any amendments proposed by their peers.

In the above context, we further note that the Bill’s institutional critics failed to bring forward any proposals for amendment of their own, despite having been encouraged to do so over a period of several months by both the Minister and individual Members of Parliament.

Indeed, the Minister, for her part had, in July of 2008, gone so far as to move that Parliament suspend its then ongoing consideration of the Bill, so as to allow for further consultations on its content.

The Minister’s subsequent public invitation to the Bill’s critics to enter into a dialogue with Government on possible revisions to the Bill was spurned.

The AP report also falsely states that: “The new law requires journalists to get the consent of the government media council to work.”

In the Act the Media Council is clearly defined as “a body corporate with perpetual succession, capable of suing and being sued” which “shall operate without any political or other bias or interference, and shall be wholly independent and separate from government, any political party or any other body.”

The Council’s first objective, as stated in the Act, is “to preserve media freedom”.

While the Act does provide for the registration and accreditation of media practitioners by the Council’s governing body, an Executive Committee elected by its membership, there is nothing in the Act that forces individuals to register with the Council. In this respect, language that may have implied such compulsion was removed from the Bill by Parliament at Committee Stage.

The AP report further states that: “The council also will have the power to impose fines and even prison terms on journalists it determines have violated standards.”

There is, in fact, nothing in the Act empowering the Council to impose prison terms on journalists. Any fines which the Council might impose on its members, through its disciplinary committees, would be the prerogative of the Council itself.

Finally, we note with dismay that the AP report falsely states that: “Government officials could not be reached for comment.”

The above is a blatant distortion on the part of the AP correspondent, who came to the Headquarters of the Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology demanding an immediate audience with the Permanent Secretary about what he described as the “rubbish” Act.

At the Ministry, the same correspondent was informed that the Permanent Secretary was on leave and that he should instead meet with the Coordinator for Government Communications and Information at the Office of the President, who was available for comment. This suggestion was rejected by the AP correspondent.

C4) 19/1/09: To Associated Press Correspondent - Re: Your questions received today, on the subject of the Media Practitioner's Act

This is to confirm receipt this morning of above communication containing six questions about the Media Practitioners Act.

Obviously we would have appreciated receiving these questions prior to your 15/1/09 publication of an article for AP on the same subject, which necessitated our having to make our own public response to said article.

Normally we would not copy our responses to questions received from you to others at this time, but given the above circumstance we have included select domestic media in the loop on this occasion.
In this context please find below our answers to your questions.

1. How was the public expected to ‘enter into dialogue with government,’ on the Media Practitioner’s Act?

Answer:

The Media Practitioners Act was the product of extensive consultations between Government, Media Stakeholders and members of the public beginning in 1997 when Government withdrew its initial draft bill for proposed mass media legislation.

In 1998 Government further agreed, at the request of MISA-Botswana and other media stakeholders, to the establishment of the Media Advisory Council as a stakeholder forum reporting to the High Level Consultative Council.

The need for a recognised Media Council has been an agenda item with the Media Advisory Council ever since.

In March 2003 stakeholders at the Media Advisory Council, including MISA-Botswana, agreed in principle to use the Deed of Trust of Press Council of Botswana as a basis for discussions on a Media Bill that would provide for a legislated Press or Media Council to uphold media ethics.

Initially the Media Advisory Council accepted, without dissent, the then Minister of Communications, Science and Technology's suggestion that that the private sector propose a draft for giving the Press Council of Botswana some sort of legislated recognition and authority.

Following a consultative workshop organised by MISA, with the participation of Government and other stakeholders, in August 2003 a joint Government – Private sector Task Force was established to draft a Media Bill still focusing on enhancing the role and authority of the Press Council.

The Task Force, as well as the Minister, thereafter carried out extensive public consultations.

By the end of 2007 the Task Force had achieved consensus on most, though admittedly not all, aspects of the Bill.

On the basis of the Task Force’s discussions proposals for a Bill were brought before Cabinet for their consideration, ultimately resulting in the draft Media Bill which was taken to Parliament last year.

In the context of criticism of the Bill from some quarters of the private media, in July 2008 the Minister of Communication, Science and Technology deferred Parliament’s then ongoing consideration of the Bill, so as to allow for further consultations on its content.

The Minister’s subsequent public invitation to the Bill’s critics to enter into a dialogue with Government on possible revisions to the Bill was unfortunately spurned, though the Minister still did meet with a delegation of media stakeholders after they requested an audience, and received submissions from other members of the public. Such further consultations as did take place are partially reflected in the amendments which the Minister introduced when the Bill was a Committee stage in the last session of Parliament.

At the time, no other amendments were brought forward for Parliament’s consideration, notwithstanding the fact that it is the prerogative of Members of Parliament to propose such amendments, as well as alteration and/or rejection of the content of any amendments proposed by their peers.

The Minister’s amendments were adopted in full, which paved the way for the passage of the Media Practitioners Bill by Parliament on 11th December 2008.

2. Was a forum established for this purpose and how did it work?

Answer:

Yes – as outlined above.

3. You say that the media council is not run by government but appointments to the appeals and complaints committee are made by the Minister. Does this not affect the independence of the Media Council from Government especially because the Chief Executive Officer of the Media Council will also be remunerated by the Minister and moreover it is the Minister who has the power to dissolve the Media Council, if she believes that this is in the public interest?

Answer:

The autonomy of the Council is, among other things, manifest in the language of the Act.

In the Act, the Media Council is clearly defined as “a body corporate with perpetual succession, capable of suing and being sued” which “shall operate without any political or other bias or interference, and shall be wholly independent and separate from government, any political party or any other body.”

The Act further mandates that the Governing body of the Council shall be the Executive Committee, whose Chairperson and other members are elected by its membership.

The Act further empowers the Executive Committee to appoint a full time Chief Executive, who will remain under their own supervision and direction. In this respect, the Act also clearly states that the Chief Executive shall be subject to the direction of the Chairperson and shall be responsible for the management and administration of the Council and that the officers and employees of the Council; shall hold office upon the terms and conditions determined by the Executive Committee.

The Act also states that any allowances payable to the Executive Committee shall be paid from funds generated by the Council.
With respect to the overall funding of the Council section 32(1) of the Act provides that the funds of the Council shall consist of: -

(a) members’ voluntary contributions, bequests, and subscription fees;
(b) fees and other monies paid for services rendered by the Council;
(c) monies from the rental or sale of any property of the Council; and
(d) grants, gifts or donations from lawful organizations or sources.

The Council is further empowered to keep bank accounts in such banks and in such a manner as it may determine and to disburse the funds of the Council for such things as

(a) the salaries and expenses of the staff of the Council;
(b) such reasonable travelling and subsistence allowances for members of the Council or members of any committee of the Council when engaged in the business of the Council; and
(c) any other expenses incurred by the Council in the discharge of its functions.

The Minister may only direct that the Executive Council be dissolved and a new Executive Council be elected by the membership in the specific circumstance when the Executive Council fails to submit its annual financial report.

Clear guidelines, furthermore, exist within the Act governing the Ministers appointment of the Complaints and Appeals Committees to ensure that they remain independent of political influence.

4. At 6(1) of the Media Practitioner’s Act it stresses that ‘a resident media practitioner shall be registered and accredited by an executive committee. ‘Why are suggesting therefore that registration process will be voluntary?

Answer

The section gives the Council, not Government, the responsibility of registering media practitioners. There is no penalty clause in this section. Neither is their any suggestion that one needs to be accredited with the Council to make a contribution to the newspaper. If an individual does not wish to be accredited that is his or her prerogative.

Given that such professional accreditation is common practice around the world, and indeed called for in various international instruments, e.g. the SADC Protocol for Information, Culture and Sport, unaccredited individuals, however, do run the risk of being seen as non-professionals in the eyes of international as well as domestic stakeholders now that the Council is being established partially for said purpose.

5. Section 7(5) stipulates that a person who contravenes the provisions of this section commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding three years, or to both.” What is your interpretation of this section of the Act?

Answer:

The section clearly refers to the responsibility of publishers of news and information to apply to the Executive Committee for membership of the Council. In this respect there is nothing in the Act empowering the Council to impose prison terms on journalists for carrying out there work as has been claimed elsewhere.

6. What is the express purpose of the Media Practitioner’s Act?

Answer:

The express purpose of the Media Practitioner’s Act is to establish a Media Council whose objectives are to:

(a) preserve media freedom;
(b) uphold standards of professional conduct and promote good ethical standards and discipline among media practitioners;
(c) Promote the observance of media ethics in accordance with a Code of Ethics;
(d) Promote public awareness of the rights and responsibilities of media practitioners, through such outreach programmes as may be established;
(e) Establish links with similar organisations within and outside of Botswana;
(f) Monitor the activities of media practitioners;
(g) Receive complaints directed at Media Practitioners;
(h) Bring together media practitioners and other media stakeholders in Botswana, with the view to exchanging information, sharing ideas and dealing with any challenges facing the development of the media industry;
(i) Register and accredit media practitioners;
(j) Issue accredited media practitioners with identity cards;
(k) Maintain a media register;
(l) Seek financial and other assistance for the operations of the Council;
(m) Sponsor training in media work and advise on matters pertaining to the education and training of media practitioners; and
(n) Undertake such research into the performance of the press as may be consistent with the furtherance of the Council’s objectives

We further take this opportunity to reiterate that Media Practitioners Bill was finally adopted by a vote of Parliament on the 11th December 2008 after it had passed through Committee Stage. In accordance with the Constitution any Bill can only become an Act (law) after it has been so passed by the legislature.

At Committee stage the Bill was, moreover, revised as a result of the adoption by lawmakers of a number of substantive amendments, which had been proposed by the Minister of Communications, Science and Technology.

In the above context, we further note that the Bill’s institutional critics failed to bring forward any proposals for amendment of their own, despite having been encouraged to do so over a period of several months by both the Minister and individual Members of Parliament.

C5) 24/1/09: Response to second AP report on Media Practitioners Act, 2008:

For the second time in as many weeks the Government of Botswana finds it necessary to correct a few errors contained in a report published (23/1/09) by the Associated Press (AP) on the recently enacted Media Practitioners Act.

The latest AP report, which follows our response to an earlier misleading report, at least acknowledges our position that reporters have nothing to fear from the Act establishing a Media Council, which according to Sections 4-5 of the Act, “shall operate without any political or other bias or interference, and shall be wholly independent and separate from government, any political party or any other body”, and whose primary objective will be “to preserve media freedom.”

The article, however, falsely reports that the Council’s chief executive is to be appointed by the “minister of communications” despite the fact that we had drawn the AP correspondent’s attention to Section 24 of the Act, which states that “the Executive Committee shall appoint a full time chief executive to the Council”.

This is consistent with Section 18 of the Act, which mandates that “the governing body of the Council shall be the Executive Committee”, whose Chairperson and other members “shall be elected at an ordinary general meeting or a special general meeting of the Council”.

As we pointed out to AP, Section 24 also states that “the chief executive shall be the administrative head of the Council and shall be under the general supervision and direction of the Council…subject to the directions of the Chairperson and shall be responsible for the management and administration of the Council.”

Section 25 of the Act further provides that that all officers and employees of the Council shall hold office upon the terms and conditions determined by the Council’s Executive Committee.

We further note with dismay that the latest AP report once more misleadingly states that: ‘lawmakers had asked for amendments and it had been expected to go to parliamentary committees for fine-tuning this year. Instead the government published it in the official gazette over the holidays, making it law.”

As we have informed the AP correspondent, the Media Practitioners Bill was only adopted by a final vote of Parliament on the 11th December 2008 after it had passed through Committee Stage. In accordance with the Constitution any Bill only becomes an Act (law) after it has been so passed by the legislature. Its gazetting, thereafter, is usually a formality.

At Committee stage the Bill was, moreover, revised as a result of the adoption by lawmakers of eighteen substantive amendments.

Finally, in light of further comments in the AP report, we wish to once more note that Section 6 of the Act gives the Council, not Government, the responsibility of accrediting resident media practitioners. As there is no penalty clause in this section it is left to individuals to decide whether they wish to be so accredited by the Council.