Controversy over freedom of expression

The start of criminal proceedings against two Zambian journalists and two political figures on charges of defaming President Frederick Chiluba has triggered off a heated debate on the role of the media in societies undergoing transition. Both local and international media watchers agree that the media has an advocacy role to play in the world’s emerging democracies, but are divided as to the lengths to which it can go in correcting what it perceives as societal wrongs. Journalists Fred M’membe and Bivan Saluseki of ‘The Post’, a privately-owned daily, and two leaders of the opposition Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD) could each face up to three-years imprisonment for calling Chiluba a thief. The charges against them stem from reports in the newspaper quoting the FDD leaders, Edith Nawakwi and Dipak Patel, as accusing the president of misappropriating US $4 million the government had earmarked for emergency food imports several years ago. A court hearing was on Friday deferred to 15 October. Both M’membe and the two politicians have defiantly repeated the purported defamation several times since they were charged last month, and have convinced over 2,000 people in the capital, Lusaka, to sign a petition that echoes the allegation. Among those who have put their names to the list are opposition leaders Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika, Dean Mun’gomba, and Emily Sikazwe, the head of the umbrella Non-Governmental Organisations Co-ordinating Committee. M’membe, the managing editor of ‘The Post’, told IRIN on Friday that the newspaper’s actions were intended to demonstrate society’s rejection of the law of criminal libel, which he claimed was intended to help the head of state cover up his alleged excesses. “Our view is that journalism exists to improve the lives of the people, and anything that restricts the lives of the people must be opposed,” M’membe said. “If a law is suppressive, we will fight it, and that is what we are doing.” This is not the first time that ‘The Post’ had deliberately challenged a law by breaking it. Eight years ago, the newspaper scored a landmark legal victory when it convinced the Supreme Court to scrap the Public Order Act, a dreaded law inherited from the colonial era which allowed the police to stop public meetings and demonstrations. However, the Chiluba government reintroduced the law, which is widely seen as being intended to stifle opposition activity, through a new act of parliament soon after the court nullified it. The law has been used several times over the past two years to ban or disrupt opposition rallies. Some media watchers support ‘The Post’s efforts to expand the freedoms of expression and association. However, some fear that the newspaper sometimes goes too far in advocating for what is sees as worthwhile causes. “The media everywhere can and does take positions on political and social issues. In fact, the media has a responsibility to stand up and oppose unjust laws,” Peter Prichard, the president of the US-based Freedom Foundation told IRIN. Prichard, in Zambia to attend a conference on media rights, however, conceded that the media in emerging democracies sometimes transcended universally accepted professional norms to push its agenda. “We are not in favour of deliberate defamation to put across a point. It is possible for the media to oppose unjust laws without breaking the law - by editorialising their concerns, for example, or by lobbying parliamentarians to effect legislative reforms,” Prichard said. Not all observers think that Zambia’s private media goes beyond acceptable norms in pushing for societal change, however. Some are of the view that old journalistic norms which demanded objectivity of journalists are out of place in today’s world. “There is a new kind of journalism in the world, civic journalism, which believes that journalists, as part of civil society, have a crucial role to play in advocating for good social change,” said Fackson Banda, director of the developmental NGO, the Panos Institute of Southern Africa. “If journalists, or any other members of civil society are faced with suppressive laws, the right thing to do is to break them,” he added. Some media watchers, on the other hand, fear that, by insisting on the right to shape society, the media may be in danger of losing its primary role as an untainted mirror of society. “You can not be a journalist and an advocate at the same time, just as you can not be both the judge and the accused in the courtroom,” a government journalist said.