Persists and We Say No

The Media Commission Bill is on again. First of all, let us examine whether Government can, at this point in time, table it before the [National] Assembly.

"Section 210 of the 1997 Constitution provides: 'An act of the National Assembly shall within one year of the coming into force of this constitution make provision for the establishment of a National Media Commission to establish a code of conduct for the media of mass communication and information and to ensure the impartiality, independence and professionalism of the media which is necessary in a democratic society.' Our first observation is that the fundamental law is specific: it says as underlined 'within one year' which simply means that the bill should have been enacted in 1998. For us, the non-observance of the stipulated timing makes any further attempt null and void.

In fact, we go further to posit that the Government had been contemptuous of the Constitution by failing to abide by its declared timetable for a commission. Was it incompetence, negligence, commission or omission? We also think that all retroactive laws are bad laws. Therefore, the die is cast as 1998 is gone and we cannot enact such a law in retrospect.

Number two, the bill is meant to ensure the development (perfection) of the media as well as normalize relations between government and the media. Let us not forget that the above quoted provision was inspired by the Ghanaian (don't forget that the chair of the constitutional commission was a Ghanaian) and we know our colleagues in Ghana led by Amiebore put that provision there in the first place to normalise relations between the future elected government of Ghana and the media, as they were strained during the Rawlings transition. Therefore, to talk about investigations, trials, hearings, witnesses, fines, etc sounds like a tribunal that refuses to say its name. Now, are investigations, trials, hearings, witnesses, fines, compatible with the goals set out in Section 210 for the commission? Of course, No! What has impartiality of the media got to do with trials, witnesses, fines, etc? Nothing! What has independence of the media got to do with fines, trials, [and] witnesses? Nothing!

The drafters of the bill have failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the constitutional provision for the simple reason that impartiality, independence and professionalism have to do with the principles of the craft of journalists and not what the crafters wrongly perceived. Better still, laws cannot enforce impartiality, independence and professionalism, as they deal with the conscience and morality of journalists. We are concerned that the drafters have failed to understand these basic journalistic principles. We hope they would not form part of any Gambian negotiating team with the outside world for, if they do, adroit negotiators would dribble them.

The bill is unwelcome as journalists could regulate themselves in this age of deregulation. A body of journalists by journalists monitoring skiddings of journalists is what we need and nothing else.

And the courts are here to address libel, sedition, the publication of false information and so forth. This is a tribunal and we have enough legal jurisdictions to deal with journalists should they aggrieve people or institutions. A commission is not qualified to try the consciences of the people.

(The Point, Saturday, 13 April 2002)
(Reprinted with permission)