In its efforts to establish a credible Fourth Estate, the Juba Government is miles ahead of the Khartoum regime. With a Cabinet composed of people who spent almost their entire lives to liberating their land from northern domination, telling them to structure a free and independent media is like preaching to the converted. Yet that was the purpose of a high powered delegation made up of Kenyans, Southern Sudanese and Western media personalities led by the UK based Article XIX, which visited Juba in mid September 2006. The goodwill mission was received by the entire Cabinet chaired by President Silva Kiir.
Relying heavily on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article XIX had earlier drafted a media policy framework for Southern Sudan in the belief that “media freedom is an essential component of peace building and democratic development that achieve the goals and aspirations of the people.”
Essentially the recommendations made to the Cabinet were also based on thorough examination of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which, among other things, views freedom of expression as a vital component of human rights as they are enshrined in the Interim Constitution.
The failure of many despotic regimes, which are not very far from Juba, to recognize free speech as a basic human right has often meant that the world has been blinded to shameful atrocities and human slaughter due to cruel muzzling of the Press. While communities have been wiped out in ethnic cleansing without the international community lifting a finger because no journalist from the affected areas has had the audacity to write the truth for fear of violating draconian laws that impose all sorts of censorship on the mass media.
No country in the world has succeeded to uplift human rights among its people without first respecting freedom of expression. Freedom of expression alone, however, has been found to be wanting without freedom of information. The delegation therefore pleaded with the Cabinet to look at an Article XIX drafted Freedom of Information Act (FOI) which, if passed, by the Juba Government soon, will make it sail in freer waters than even Kenya where the media is vibrant but FOI Act has yet to do through Parliament.
While examining the Article XIX recommendations the Juba Government will have to pay special attention to the National Press and Publication Act of 2004 which experts believe does not allow the development of a free Press in Southern Sudan.
Paradoxically the so-called National Press Council based in Khartoum does not open any door towards free and independent media in the South. Under normal circumstances a self regulating media council would champion the course of a free media where journalistic professionalism is guided by ethical principles formulated by practitioners themselves. In Khartoum it seems the Council is used to muzzle rather than to free the Press.
Ever since its invention, the radio has been used as the most effective instrument of despotism through which the voice of the dictator is the loudest and most dominant while that of the people is perpetually suppressed. While Article XIX recommended to the Juba regime to “provide for the establishment of an independent broadcast regulator, including the licensing of private broadcasters and allow for the development of true public service broadcasting,” the delegates were extremely encouraged to note that the Southern Government had indeed already liberalized the airwaves with important broadcasters such as the BBC playing a vital role of informing the people freely to the chagrin of Khartoum.
The dialogue between the delegates and the Southern Sudan Cabinet provided an invaluable opportunity to discuss a number of errors made in neighbouring countries especially Kenya where the liberalization of airwaves has given birth to the creation of media moguls who are currently establishing monopolies with cross media ownership and concentration of many radio stations in very few hands. It is obviously with this in mind that Article XIX recommended to the Government of Southern Sudan to put the Interim Constitutional provisions into effect through legal frameworks that need to be developed in such a manner as to “underpin” and establish true “freedom of expression, t free flow of information and ideas, media pluralism and diversity, and the transformation of State media into public service media.”
The recommendation suggested that legislation should also provide for the establishment of independent bodies to regulate the broadcasting sector fairly and in the public interest, and to ensure that broadcasting reflects a diversity of views broadly representing Southern Sudanese society. This recommendation is so vital that it would enable the Southern Sudanese people to engage in social, political and economic discourse in a manner almost alien in Khartoum and many other African capitals.
A major weakness of the liberalization of airwaves in Kenya, for example, is the fact that it has made those with strong financial resources to gain a new powerful voice when the marginalized communities remain voiceless. The voice of the people need not only be heard about their own affairs but their views should be freely made public on any other issue be they international or only concerning their villages.
The diversification of liberalized airwaves in Kenya has yet to be achieved and the mistakes experienced today ought to serve as an important lesson to be avoided in Southern Sudan where ethnicity is still playing a major role of identity. Community discourse through liberalized airwaves could play a significant role in avoiding the negative aspects of ethnic diversity of which Southern Sudanese have bitterly experienced.
The suggestion by Article XIX to the Southern Sudanese to “seek to build a just, prosperous and equitable society, enriched by its diversity and informed by its values, with its people able to interact as equals and to their mutual benefit with other citizens of the world,” therefore could also be useful in many parts of Africa including where freedom of expression is taken for granted such as in Kenya.
What Article XIX is recommending to the Government of Southern Sudan amount to the establishment of a Fourth estate which plays its watchdog role professionally by making sure the Executive is Efficient, the Judiciary independent, and the Legislature supreme. The fact that the media in its embryonic stages in Southern Sudan has escaped the devastating censorship guidance of the Authority is evidenced by the pride in which the Cabinet talked of its determination to establish a mass media that will be both professionally and ethically exemplary in the entire continent.
Luckily the Southern Sudanese Interim Constitution does indeed guarantee respect for cultural, religious and ethnic diversity which makes the work of the Cabinet extremely easy as its will and determination was exhibited at the reception they accorded the visiting media personalities. No matter how good the intention of any Government is the need to regulate the mass media will always exist and no country in the world however free can claim to have no media regulations.
With this in mind Article XIX presented to the Government of Southern Sudan a number of legislations for its considerations and recommended that “no restrictions shall be imposed on freedom of expression and the media other than those that are set out in law, that are specifically and narrowly defined, and that are subject to tests of necessity, proportionality and pressing social needs, as required by international human rights law.”
An important recommendation by Article XIX suggests that journalists should not be forced to reveal the identity of sources of information. Whereas confidentiality will always rank high in journalistic integrity, attribution will likewise make the stories they write to be more authentic and easily believable.
If there is an apparent contradiction between the two, self regulation always provides a vital solution which is more often than not achieved through journalistic professionalism rather than the force of the law. Kenya could provide a healthy example for Southern Sudan to learn from. Three top editors were recently acquitted after the government entered a nolle prosequi after accusing them of publishing “facts” they could not substantiate because they refused to reveal their sources. The maturity of the Attorney General’s chambers in this case made them realize that the people have the right to know—an act that made the entire country proud and more democratic than it was at the beginning of the year when armed government hooligan invaded The Standard editorial offices to terrorize journalists because a government minister believed they had “rattled” a snake and deserved to be “bitten” by it.
Many dictatorial regimes repeat the mistake by the Kenyan Government through licensing of journalists in order to manipulate and silence them. Article XIX advised the Southern Sudanese Government to avoid such ridiculous mistakes by making sure “there should be no licensing or regulation requirement of newspapers, news agencies, magazines, periodicals or other print media, other than pursuant to general rules governing all bodies seeking to engage in commercial or non-profit activities.”
Even after liberalizing airwaves, many African Governments have been extremely reluctant to change Government radio and TV stations into public broadcasters without any interference from the rulers in formulating editorial principles. Indeed whenever there is a military coup in Africa the first government office the soldiers capture is the government radio and TV stations. On this sensitive issue Article XIX advice the Southern Sudanese Government to ensure editorial policy of former government controlled stations shall be controlled by an independent board of governors which will guarantee its independent editorial policy which will in turn ensure “accountability to the public, in accordance with the modern democratic standards.”
Many despotic governments have made use of laws and courts to muzzle the Press. One of the most abused laws in this aspect of free speech are libel laws which sometimes have very little respect for the truth journalists try to expose. In any democratic country the defence of justification is what protects journalists who believe in “publishing and being damned” for the sake of the truth. The Southern Sudanese government was to respect such defence. Hand in hand with the defence of justification, that of “fair comment” on
matters of public interest, is also taken seriously by many democratic countries of the world. Editorial independence and courage loses its meaning when journalists operate in ignorance of the nuts and bold of story gathering and writing due to incompetence. To avoid these anomalies the Southern Sudanese Government was advised to encourage journalists to establish their own professional organisations that will create their own code of ethics and training facilities.
Most of the recommendations made to the Southern Sudanese Government by Article XIX were in fact almost identical to those found in the Bill of Rights in the proposed Kenyan constitution which was rejected by the people in the referendum of 2005. Though Kenyans had all sorts of reasons for rejecting it, almost all of them agree eighty per cent of what they rejected was agreeable to everyone in the country. The Bill of Rights was part of that eighty per cent.
This knowledge made a number of Southern Sudanese Ministers wonder whether the issues that made Kenyan reject the so called Wako Constitution such as guaranteeing the rights of the gay community which, according to the Ministers, was repugnant to the African culture, were not being sneaked in Southern Sudan through the back door. An assurance from the delegates that that was not the case created an atmosphere of an open and free discussion. With this kind of open dialogue between politicians and professional journalists the future of free press in Southern Sudan looks very bright indeed. Why does the regime in Khartoum not learn a lesson on press freedom from Juba? Why?
Relying heavily on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article XIX had earlier drafted a media policy framework for Southern Sudan in the belief that “media freedom is an essential component of peace building and democratic development that achieve the goals and aspirations of the people.”
Essentially the recommendations made to the Cabinet were also based on thorough examination of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which, among other things, views freedom of expression as a vital component of human rights as they are enshrined in the Interim Constitution.
The failure of many despotic regimes, which are not very far from Juba, to recognize free speech as a basic human right has often meant that the world has been blinded to shameful atrocities and human slaughter due to cruel muzzling of the Press. While communities have been wiped out in ethnic cleansing without the international community lifting a finger because no journalist from the affected areas has had the audacity to write the truth for fear of violating draconian laws that impose all sorts of censorship on the mass media.
No country in the world has succeeded to uplift human rights among its people without first respecting freedom of expression. Freedom of expression alone, however, has been found to be wanting without freedom of information. The delegation therefore pleaded with the Cabinet to look at an Article XIX drafted Freedom of Information Act (FOI) which, if passed, by the Juba Government soon, will make it sail in freer waters than even Kenya where the media is vibrant but FOI Act has yet to do through Parliament.
While examining the Article XIX recommendations the Juba Government will have to pay special attention to the National Press and Publication Act of 2004 which experts believe does not allow the development of a free Press in Southern Sudan.
Paradoxically the so-called National Press Council based in Khartoum does not open any door towards free and independent media in the South. Under normal circumstances a self regulating media council would champion the course of a free media where journalistic professionalism is guided by ethical principles formulated by practitioners themselves. In Khartoum it seems the Council is used to muzzle rather than to free the Press.
Ever since its invention, the radio has been used as the most effective instrument of despotism through which the voice of the dictator is the loudest and most dominant while that of the people is perpetually suppressed. While Article XIX recommended to the Juba regime to “provide for the establishment of an independent broadcast regulator, including the licensing of private broadcasters and allow for the development of true public service broadcasting,” the delegates were extremely encouraged to note that the Southern Government had indeed already liberalized the airwaves with important broadcasters such as the BBC playing a vital role of informing the people freely to the chagrin of Khartoum.
The dialogue between the delegates and the Southern Sudan Cabinet provided an invaluable opportunity to discuss a number of errors made in neighbouring countries especially Kenya where the liberalization of airwaves has given birth to the creation of media moguls who are currently establishing monopolies with cross media ownership and concentration of many radio stations in very few hands. It is obviously with this in mind that Article XIX recommended to the Government of Southern Sudan to put the Interim Constitutional provisions into effect through legal frameworks that need to be developed in such a manner as to “underpin” and establish true “freedom of expression, t free flow of information and ideas, media pluralism and diversity, and the transformation of State media into public service media.”
The recommendation suggested that legislation should also provide for the establishment of independent bodies to regulate the broadcasting sector fairly and in the public interest, and to ensure that broadcasting reflects a diversity of views broadly representing Southern Sudanese society. This recommendation is so vital that it would enable the Southern Sudanese people to engage in social, political and economic discourse in a manner almost alien in Khartoum and many other African capitals.
A major weakness of the liberalization of airwaves in Kenya, for example, is the fact that it has made those with strong financial resources to gain a new powerful voice when the marginalized communities remain voiceless. The voice of the people need not only be heard about their own affairs but their views should be freely made public on any other issue be they international or only concerning their villages.
The diversification of liberalized airwaves in Kenya has yet to be achieved and the mistakes experienced today ought to serve as an important lesson to be avoided in Southern Sudan where ethnicity is still playing a major role of identity. Community discourse through liberalized airwaves could play a significant role in avoiding the negative aspects of ethnic diversity of which Southern Sudanese have bitterly experienced.
The suggestion by Article XIX to the Southern Sudanese to “seek to build a just, prosperous and equitable society, enriched by its diversity and informed by its values, with its people able to interact as equals and to their mutual benefit with other citizens of the world,” therefore could also be useful in many parts of Africa including where freedom of expression is taken for granted such as in Kenya.
What Article XIX is recommending to the Government of Southern Sudan amount to the establishment of a Fourth estate which plays its watchdog role professionally by making sure the Executive is Efficient, the Judiciary independent, and the Legislature supreme. The fact that the media in its embryonic stages in Southern Sudan has escaped the devastating censorship guidance of the Authority is evidenced by the pride in which the Cabinet talked of its determination to establish a mass media that will be both professionally and ethically exemplary in the entire continent.
Luckily the Southern Sudanese Interim Constitution does indeed guarantee respect for cultural, religious and ethnic diversity which makes the work of the Cabinet extremely easy as its will and determination was exhibited at the reception they accorded the visiting media personalities. No matter how good the intention of any Government is the need to regulate the mass media will always exist and no country in the world however free can claim to have no media regulations.
With this in mind Article XIX presented to the Government of Southern Sudan a number of legislations for its considerations and recommended that “no restrictions shall be imposed on freedom of expression and the media other than those that are set out in law, that are specifically and narrowly defined, and that are subject to tests of necessity, proportionality and pressing social needs, as required by international human rights law.”
An important recommendation by Article XIX suggests that journalists should not be forced to reveal the identity of sources of information. Whereas confidentiality will always rank high in journalistic integrity, attribution will likewise make the stories they write to be more authentic and easily believable.
If there is an apparent contradiction between the two, self regulation always provides a vital solution which is more often than not achieved through journalistic professionalism rather than the force of the law. Kenya could provide a healthy example for Southern Sudan to learn from. Three top editors were recently acquitted after the government entered a nolle prosequi after accusing them of publishing “facts” they could not substantiate because they refused to reveal their sources. The maturity of the Attorney General’s chambers in this case made them realize that the people have the right to know—an act that made the entire country proud and more democratic than it was at the beginning of the year when armed government hooligan invaded The Standard editorial offices to terrorize journalists because a government minister believed they had “rattled” a snake and deserved to be “bitten” by it.
Many dictatorial regimes repeat the mistake by the Kenyan Government through licensing of journalists in order to manipulate and silence them. Article XIX advised the Southern Sudanese Government to avoid such ridiculous mistakes by making sure “there should be no licensing or regulation requirement of newspapers, news agencies, magazines, periodicals or other print media, other than pursuant to general rules governing all bodies seeking to engage in commercial or non-profit activities.”
Even after liberalizing airwaves, many African Governments have been extremely reluctant to change Government radio and TV stations into public broadcasters without any interference from the rulers in formulating editorial principles. Indeed whenever there is a military coup in Africa the first government office the soldiers capture is the government radio and TV stations. On this sensitive issue Article XIX advice the Southern Sudanese Government to ensure editorial policy of former government controlled stations shall be controlled by an independent board of governors which will guarantee its independent editorial policy which will in turn ensure “accountability to the public, in accordance with the modern democratic standards.”
Many despotic governments have made use of laws and courts to muzzle the Press. One of the most abused laws in this aspect of free speech are libel laws which sometimes have very little respect for the truth journalists try to expose. In any democratic country the defence of justification is what protects journalists who believe in “publishing and being damned” for the sake of the truth. The Southern Sudanese government was to respect such defence. Hand in hand with the defence of justification, that of “fair comment” on
matters of public interest, is also taken seriously by many democratic countries of the world. Editorial independence and courage loses its meaning when journalists operate in ignorance of the nuts and bold of story gathering and writing due to incompetence. To avoid these anomalies the Southern Sudanese Government was advised to encourage journalists to establish their own professional organisations that will create their own code of ethics and training facilities.
Most of the recommendations made to the Southern Sudanese Government by Article XIX were in fact almost identical to those found in the Bill of Rights in the proposed Kenyan constitution which was rejected by the people in the referendum of 2005. Though Kenyans had all sorts of reasons for rejecting it, almost all of them agree eighty per cent of what they rejected was agreeable to everyone in the country. The Bill of Rights was part of that eighty per cent.
This knowledge made a number of Southern Sudanese Ministers wonder whether the issues that made Kenyan reject the so called Wako Constitution such as guaranteeing the rights of the gay community which, according to the Ministers, was repugnant to the African culture, were not being sneaked in Southern Sudan through the back door. An assurance from the delegates that that was not the case created an atmosphere of an open and free discussion. With this kind of open dialogue between politicians and professional journalists the future of free press in Southern Sudan looks very bright indeed. Why does the regime in Khartoum not learn a lesson on press freedom from Juba? Why?
