Rising concern over media restrictions

Proposed changes to Kenyan media laws have given rise to considerable concern among media firms and human rights groups, some of whom have called them "draconian" measures aimed at muzzling press freedom ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections due in 2002.

Proposed amendments to the Books and Newspapers Act, which got a first reading in parliament last week, would increase to 1 million Kenya shillings (about US $12,700) the bond, currently set at Ksh 10,000 ($127), which publishers are required to deposit with the government to cover costs in any potential libel suit.

According to the bill, first offenders in a libel case would pay a fine not exceeding Ksh 1 million or be liable to go to jail for up to three years, or both. Repeat offenders would risk up to five years in jail and a ban from publishing any newspapers in the country.

Under the terms of the new bill, broadcasters would be prohibited from screening films, television programmes or advertisements without a licence. The penalty for contravening these provisions would be up to Ksh 100,000 (about $1,270).

Kenyan media practitioners maintain that this clause would give the government express powers to censor programmes, and even news items, it deemed unfavourable.

"Soon they are going to use the law to insist on screening [pre-checking] all TV programmers, especially the controversial ones. It is a constitutional right we are being denied," Joseph Odindo, editor of Kenya's largest circulating newspaper, the Daily Nation, told IRIN.

Odindo said the proposed increase in security bond charges would discourage investment in the media, and give the government too much control in a country where libel laws are already stiff, and journalists are frequently beaten, and barred from covering political events.

"The media business is only going to be for the rich [under the new proposals]. In a country like ours, where capital is so scarce, how many people can deposit a million shillings in a libel suit?" he added.

The media have urged the government to drop the bill and instead support its efforts to effect self-regulation through a new Code of Conduct for journalists, already introduced, and a voluntary Media Council to be launched later this year.

Kenya currently has four mainstream daily newspaper companies and a single nationwide television station, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, which is owned by the government. There are also two privately-owned stations, Nation, whose broadcasts are limited to the capital, Nairobi, and Kenya Television Network, which only recently extended its broadcasting licence to cover the second city, Mombasa, in addition to Nairobi.

Human rights organisations have linked the proposed media amendments to the ongoing constitutional review process and the matter of finding a successor to President Daniel arap Moi, who is required by the constitution to step down next year. Moi, who has been in power since 1978, next year completes his second five-year term in office since Kenya became a multiparty state in 1992.

The Kenyan Human Rights Network (KHRN), an umbrella grouping of rights and civil society bodies, has urged parliament throw out the bill out when it is introduced in the next few weeks.

"We wish to recall that the Kenyan government has a tendency to introduce limitations to democratic rights just before and after elections," KHRN said in a statement made available to IRIN.

In 1992, it said, the government introduced controversial amendments to the Defamation Act which allowed for very high damages in civil libel cases. In 1997, the government passed the Kenya Communications Bill Act - the "restrictive and draconian" provisions of which led to the collapse of the privately owned Citizen TV and Radio, according to KHRN.

The owners, Royal Media Services, in August lost its court bid to be allowed resume broadcasting after its broadcasting equipment was seized in April by the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK).

"Everyone has the right 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," Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights states.

The ruling Kenya Africa National Union (KANU) party, would clearly like to limit the participation of the critical press in addressing the Moi succession, the constitutional review process and the all-important 2002 elections, according to the Kenya Human Rights Network. It called on MPs to reject what it described as a "shameless invitation by the KANU government to criminalise freedom of expression".

Kenyan citizens, media representatives and other parties concerned over proposed changes to the media laws have been invited to present their views next week to a parliamentary committee due to consider the bill.

Attorney-General Amos Wako has been quoted in the Kenyan media as saying that the proposed amendments had been brought forward because the Kenya media had failed to regulate itself, giving rise to numerous complaints of misreporting and the proliferation of the "gutter press", which was known to publish scandalous - and often false - reports on politicians or prominent individuals.

The Kenya Publishers Association has protested against what it terms a highly restrictive bill, which would introduce "excessive regulatory mechanisms" in a strategic industry which should be allowed to function freely, and which gave rise to concern about "possible adulteration of information" before it could reach readers.

The proposed amendments would infringe on human rights reporting by curtailing freedom of expression, restricting investigative journalism and limiting the exposure of past and present abuses, according to the Litigation Fund Against Torture, cited by the East African Standard newspaper.

Meanwhile, the Kenyan Union of Journalist (KUJ) complained that the government had proposed its changes without even considering a number of proposals the organisation had made to the attorney-general, which had suggested, among other things, the establishment of an independent complaints commission.

"It is despicable that the attorney-general went behind our backs to introduce draconian laws, while sitting on our proposals," a KUJ official told IRIN.