FortySouth

The Nation figures the Government is slowly getting cornered between a rock (loss of political capital, amid talk of 2012) and a hard place (bad press locally and internationally).

I tend to think it’s more the latter. Many internationally syndicated columnists simply drank the Kool-Aid of media-muzzling wrought by some disingenuous local reporters, before doing some fact-checking, hence the bad rap the Government has got for championing the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act 2008. The Information Minister Poghisio and his PS Ndemo seemed genuinely surprised at the push back on the Act, like they’d been hit by a bus and now wondering what just happened. The Government Spokesman is peeved.

The Act has gone through the last stage in the legislative process, date of Commencement – January 2nd, 2009, but it has not yet been gazetted according to the latest release. The AG & Co. are asking for another memorandum from the Media Owners Association & Co. on what’s itching them on the two Acts.

What I’m wondering is what was contained in the original memo handed to Kibaki on MOA’s behalf by the Prime Minister sometime in December before he assented to the Bill?

According to this article from AllAfrica.com, President Kibaki has relented on his inclination to immediately implement the Kenya Communication (Amendment) Act 2008, and has directed the Information Minister to delay its gazetting.

The Attorney General Amos Wako and the Minister Samuel Poghisio, with input from the Media Owner’s Association,  will review the Kenya Communiation Act 1998 and the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act 2008, to address possibly additional amendments.

There’s no ETA mentioned for how long this process will take but with the pressure to review Sections 88 – 92 of the 1998 Act piled sky high right now, the turn-around time may be fast.

What should be amended?

• The authority granted in Section 88 (2)  of the 1998 Act to the incumbent Internal Security Minister to unilaterally declare a public emergency by signing “a certificate” should be rescinded. That authority should be vested either in the President by executive order (the buck stops here) or by majority vote in the National Assembly.
• For the Internal Security Minister to perform any punitive action against a rogue broadcasting or telecommunications establishment “in the interest of public safety and tranquility”, it should be sanctioned by a Court of Law.  While the Minister may have the mandate to determine when this interest occurs because of sensitive intelligence he may be privy to by virtue of his portfolio, an injunction should be sought for cease-and-desist orders etc., just as warrants are needed for search and entry of premises.
• Section 46H of the Amendment Act conferring on the Communications Commission of Kenya power to prescribe programming code should also be reviewed. The Commission perhaps should have authority to review malfeasance or malpractice in aired content rather than (rigidly) determine programming code.

Your two-cents?

What do you think? Specifically what Sections do you think should be reviewed and what should be instituted instead?

Since December 11th, 2008 sections of the media and some human rights groups have been very vocal about how press freedoms will be curtailed by the passing of the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008 in the House. After January 2nd 2009 when the Bill was enacted, the story has been pinned as front page news by virtually all media houses.

The BBC had this to say of the Bill recently signed into Law:

The law gives the Kenyan authorities the power to raid media offices, tap phones and control broadcast content on grounds of national security.

Really?

There’s more…