Access to information and reporting corruption

Information allows the people to scrutinize activity and is the basis for proper informed debate on that activity. In this context, the contribution made by journalists is clear: by providing the public with timely and accurate information on the affairs of government, business and special interests, the media can shape the climate of democratic debate and help the establishment and maintenance of good governance. That the media must be able to access public information in order to play this role is today widely appreciated.

Freedom of the press, including free access to information, is fundamental to an open, democratic society. This view has found its way into international legal norms and, in numerous countries; the media’s rights are upheld and guaranteed in freedom of information legislation (Peters, 2003).

In spite of the international recognition of press freedom, journalists and media organizations throughout the world continue to face obstacles in reporting. Obstruction is reflected in presence of active censorship or restrictive regulations on journalistic work, limited or blocked access to official information, a legal landscape that inhibits the ability of journalists to inquire and report freely – such as the application of draconian defamation and sedition laws – and a censorious abuse of essential media services such as broadcasting, printing facilities and distribution systems. In addition, the lack of training, poor professional standards and a dearth of investment into investigative reporting make it difficult and sometimes impossible for journalists to access, impart or disseminate accurate information (Peters, ibid).

A difficult relationship between journalism and political power is a hallmark of democratic society. To that extent, a tendency to manipulate news and shape the agenda of public debate exists in all societies. In countries like Uganda where democratic culture is not well established, restrictions on media tend to be more explicit and profoundly damaging to debate or public engagement. Where the affairs of government or powerful groups are protected by secrecy, journalists face considerable obstacles – and physical risk – if they embark upon investigations that could lead to exposing corruption.

Apart from direct physical threats against journalists, the media in many countries face legislation that prevents them from gaining access to and imparting information.

Repressive defamation laws that put the burden of proof on journalists and grant special protection to public officials exist across many developing countries including Uganda.

Such laws – and the concomitant threat of prison sentences – create a climate of fear that discourages investigative reporting and the exposure of corruption (Peters, 2003:49).

The public can be an important check on the arbitrary exercise of power by government.

However this check can operate only if the government provides information on its actions. Citizens must have a convenient means of lodging complaints and be protected against possible reprisals. Of course, government officials must also find it in their interest to respond to complaints. A precondition for either type of complaint is information. Government must tell its people what it is doing by publishing consolidated budgets, revenue collections, statutes and rules and the proceedings of legislative bodies. Former colonies often adopt systems imposed by the colonizer which may deter access to information. Financial data should be audited and published by an independent body like General Accounting Office in the US, Audit Commission in UK (Rose-Ackerman, 1999:163). In Uganda, the office of the Auditor General is understood to be charged with a similar responsibility.

In many countries outside review is hampered because unaudited, secret funds are available to the chief executives and top ministers. These funds are an invitation to corruption. Sometimes, like the case is in Uganda, governments collect a great deal of information on their own operations but do not routinely make it public. In such cases, statutes like access to information laws which give citizens a right to gain access to this information can be an important precondition for effective oversight. These laws permit citizens to obtain government information without demonstrating a need to know. They may request the information as members of the public without showing that their personal situation will be affected. But a Freedom of Information Act has little value if government does not gather and avail much information. Countries must first put information systems in order, provide for the publication of most important documents and ensure public access to other unpublished material.

Even a government that keeps good records and makes them available to the public may operate with impunity if no one bothers to analyse the available information – or if analysts are afraid to raise their voices. For the aim of pressing government to act in public interest, the role of the media and organized groups is paramount. Also if government officials or their unofficial allies intimidate and harass those who speak out, formal structures of accountability will be meaningless (Ackerman, 1999:183).

Overall, none of the above proposals for combating corruption can independently fight corruption. A successful anti-corruption strategy therefore should be based on a multi-disciplinary approach just as the causes of corruption are multi-faceted. In the next chapter I present the methods that I applied to conduct this research.