The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 47

The 1995 Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda, and was produced following a highly participatory and consultative national exercise under the 1994 Consultative Assembly. To date, the Ugandan Constitution is hailed as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation on the African continent (ACHPR Report, 2009, p.68). With regard to the mass media, Article 29 (1) (a) guarantees media freedoms:

“Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media” (Uganda, 1995a).

46 Full report is available in February 2012 at URL:

http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf. See also Human Rights Watch (2010).

A Media Minefield: Increased Threats to Freedoms of Expression in Uganda.URL in August 2012 at http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/uganda0510webwcover.pdf

47 Uganda. (1995a). “Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995”. URL in February 2012 at http://ugandaembassy.com/Constitution_of_Uganda.pdf

In Article 41(1), those freedoms are enhanced by the guarantee of access to information, albeit with important qualifications:

“Every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency of the State except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person” (Ibid.).

In addition to the fact that it is only “citizens” who are guaranteed access to information in possession of the State and its agencies, the other qualifications relating to the security and sovereignty of the State as well as those related to the privacy of individuals have over the years been deployed by government functionaries to deny journalists crucial public-interest information under the cloak of "classified information". Actually, Article 41(2) added a qualification that was to become an issue of contention for years:

"Parliament shall make laws prescribing the classes of information referred to in clause (1) of this article and the procedure for obtaining access to that information" (Ibid.)

While the Access to Information Act was enacted in 2005 and finally made Article 41(2) operational, Sewanyana et al. (2007) observe that most government functionaries still ignore the new law as is discussed in sub-section 2.2.3 below. In addition to Article 41(1) above, however, Article 43 (1) stipulates further qualifications that:

“In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest” (Uganda, 1995a).

Whereas the Constitution does not define what public interest is, it gives what it is not.

Article 43(2) (a) (b) and (c) read:

"2) Public interest under this article shall not permit – a) political persecution; b) detention without trial; c) any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided in this Constitution" (Ibid.).

While Article 43 is a fair reminder that enjoyment of rights goes with an obligation to respect the rights of others, government functionaries often cite Article 43 to deny journalists information on government operations.

From the above articles, it is clear that the Constitutional guarantees to media freedoms are limited and as the sections below show, what it gives with one hand, other laws take away with another; causing significant frustration to journalists as they are often charged under various laws (FES, 2010, p.12). Although government has lost most cases brought against journalists on appeal, court appearances are costly and emotionally draining to journalists. Further, the numerous charges brought against journalists over time engender a culture of self-censorship and often lead to journalists abandoning the profession all together (Sewanyana et al. 2007, p.7, 19; HRW, 2010, p.3). More so, the enduring debates in Parliament on various Bills relating to the mass media create an atmosphere of journalism under siege and over time wears down journalistic morale and industry. In seven subsections below, I present and discuss the most salient of these media laws that present a huge challenge to journalism practice in the country, paying attention to how each of them has kept evolving.

2.2.2 The Press and Journalist Act, 1995 (Cap 105) Amendment 2000 ⁴⁸ [and The Press and Journalist Amendment Bill, 2010] ⁴⁹

While this is a study of the broadcast media, most print media houses in Uganda also own radio stations and the journalists often file for all outlets. When they are not charged in courts, they are summoned before the Media Council, which is a statutory body established under the Press and Journalist Act of 1995, amended in 2000 but without significant changes to the mother version. In all its versions, the main objective of the Law has remained the professionalising of journalism practice in Uganda by instituting minimum standards for editors and journalists as well as empowering the GoU to oversee the licensing and certification of journalists – print and broadcast (Sewanyana et al. 2007, p.20). Its most recent form is the Press and Journalist (Amendment) Bill 2010, which in the preamble captures its spirit:

“An Act to amend the Press and Journalist Act in order to provide for registration of newspapers; to require that the editor of a newspaper shall ensure that what is published is not prejudicial to national security; to rationalize the composition of the media council; to provide for licensing of newspapers; to increase the membership of the disciplinary committee; to provide for expeditious disposal of complaints before the disciplinary committee; to provide for offences and penalties and to provide for other related matters” (Uganda, 2010).

A significant addition to the previous Act is the amount of powers to the Media Council to determine, for example, what amounts to “material that is prejudicial to national security, stability and unity” (FES 2010, p.12). A closer look at the 2010 Bill clearly

48 Uganda. (1995b). “The Press and Journalist Act 1995”. URL in February 2012 at http://www.ulii.org/ug/legis/consol_act/paja1995238/

49 Uganda. (2010). “The Press and Journalist Amendment Bill 2010.” URL in February 2012 at http://www.hrnjuganda.org/press_ammendment.pdf

shows that the spirit is to make operational the previous versions of the Press and Journalist Act without making any effort to address the concerns raised over the years. In this regard, the contentious sections of the previous Acts ought to be analysed from the mother laws. What has remained a point of contention for years with the national and international journalism fraternity is Part IV, Sections 13-20 which established the National Institute of Journalists of Uganda (NIJU) designed “to establish and maintain professional standards for Journalists”, which standards include being a holder of a university degree in journalism or equivalent qualifications. As Sewanyana et al. (2007) point out, several media houses in Uganda employ people without the minimum requirements in the law and many of these people have done tremendous work in the media industry and have received international awards for their work (p.21). For instance, a survey conducted by the Human Rights Network of Journalists (HRNJ) in late 2005 established that 65% of practicing journalists had a diploma or certificate and only 15%

had a degree (Ibid.). The study further established that “as many as 20% have no formal training at all but have gained on the job experience” (Ibid.).

The other issue of contention has remained Sections 26-29 under Part IV of the Act on

“regulation of public practice” in which anyone who wishes to practice journalism in Uganda must obtain a practicing certificate that carries a fee and is renewable each year (Ibid.). According to Sewanyana et al. (2007), a survey of journalists in 2007 revealed that out of the hundreds of practicing journalists, there were only forty-six on the register, all of whom from the electronic media (p.22). He observes that human rights bodies are opposed to this practice because the requirements for registration and certification of media practice were not only unrealistic, but would curtail the ability of the mass media

as a free ground for exchange of opinions even among non-journalists (Ibid.). In Sections 8-12 of Part III, the Act established the Media Council as the primary regulatory body, whose many functions include exercising “disciplinary control over journalists, editors and publishers” as well as “censor films, videotapes, plays and other related apparatuses for public consumption” (Uganda, 1995b).

In Part VII of the Act, a disciplinary committee is set up to handle complaints that arise between journalists and their various publics (Ibid.). While the Council had since its establishment been inactive, Lugalambi et al (2010) observe that from 2008 to 2009 the State had referred to the council 53 cases that were filed by the police (p.32). He further points out that the Council had actually dismissed all the cases referred to them “on technical grounds” (Ibid.). Sewanyana et al. (2007) argue that the Media Council has no justifiable function except to suppress the media since it has never stepped in to influence the government not to prosecute a journalist (p.23). He, as well as Lugalambi et al.

(2010) concur that government, which typically has the most grievances against the mass media, still prefers prosecuting journalists to taking its cases for hearing by the Media Council. Since the Media Council is a government-controlled body whose role is to suppress critical media voices, Sewanyana et al. (2007) argue that it cannot play the role of an effective media regulator (Ibid.). Lugalambi et al (2010) argue for a non-statutory media regulator and hail the establishment of the Independent Media Council of Uganda (IMCU) (p.134).

However, in an opinion article, Mary Karooro Okurut, the Minister of Information and National Guidance faulted the quality of Ugandan journalism and defended the mandate of the various statutory media regulators as well as the obtaining laws:

“There are too many embarrassing errors of fact - erroneously referred to by the same media as ‘factual errors’- some of them on the front pages of otherwise reputable newspapers. These are usually caused by poor news gathering techniques, lack of tradition of rigorous cross-checking of facts and downright poor editing. It is interesting that in many news outlets, the editors, who ought to be the gatekeepers, ensuring quality control, are themselves either untrained in journalism or are novices in the profession so that they have no idea which street they are on” (Karooro, 2012).

She further faults the content in Ugandan media:

“Even the news itself has, in many instances, tended to be of low quality. There is often a huge disconnect between the content of press conferences and the coverage offered in the news bulletins thereafter. Journalists often choose the sensational rather than the important, showing a rather skewed and narrow appreciation of news value” (Ibid.).

With this kind of thinking from high government functionaries, it is no surprise that more regulatory arms of government keep cropping up. For instance in 2005, the NRM government established a Media Centre which seems to be in competition with the Media Council, particularly in the accreditation of foreign journalists (Sewanyana et al. 2007, p.14). The website of the Media Centre explains the background to its establishment thus:

“H.E. [His Excellency] the President decided to establish the Uganda Media Centre in September 2005. The main idea was to introduce professional management of government media relations. In order to achieve this, it was understood that this institution would exist and operate outside ordinary public service structures”.⁵⁰

50 Uganda Media Centre (2012). “About us.” URL in February 2012 at http://www.mediacentre.go.ug/details.php?catId=10

The twelve aims and objectives of the Centre are outlined and include to “provide professional media and communication services to government departments; standardize government communication; ensure that the government’s voice is given a fair hearing”

among others (Ibid.). The role of the Centre and its conflicting mandate with the statutory Media Council emerged in 2006 with the expulsion of Blake Lambert, a Canadian journalist corresponding for The Economist and The Christian Science Monitor.⁵¹ The BBC quoted Robert Kabushenga, then director of the Media Centre as having told Reuters News Agency that: "Lambert is generally an unwanted person here.

He consistently misrepresented and misreported the [Ugandan] situation" (Ibid.). In this particular case, Sewanyana et al. (2007) argue that the Media Centre usurped the powers of the statutory Media Council by refusing to renew the accreditation of Lambert (p.28).

In another move, the accreditation of BBC correspondent Will Ross was shortened from one year to four months (Ibid.).

In the newly enacted Press and Journalist (Amendment) Bill 2010, however, the role of the Media Council is re-asserted and revamped. The website of the Media Centre no longer flags its earlier role of assisting the Council in the accreditation of journalists.

Overall, however, the journalism fraternity remains resolute in promoting the voluntary Independent Media Council of Uganda (IMCU); even when GoU is not heeding calls to allow this self-regulation mechanism to override the statutory regulation mechanism led by bodies such as the Media Council and Broadcasting Council (Lugalambi et al. 2010, p.134).

51 BBC News. (10 March 2006). “Uganda expels Canadian journalist.” URL in February 2012 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4793500.stm

2.2.3 The Access to Information Act of 2005 (No.6) 52 [and Access to