The messenger may not have been killed, exactly, but (s)he has had a rough time of it over the past few days in Kenya.
Last week, the government threatened to disband the Media Council of Kenya (MCK) after the group announced that it would survey media conduct in the East African nation, including over the December 27 elections that have sparked widespread violence.
Government information and communication director Ezekiel Mutua was reported as indicating that the MCK was exceeding its mandate by doing so — a view roundly dismissed by members of the media — and as claiming that the council’s team would undermine government plans to establish a task force on media activity during the polls.
While the government has since backed down concerning the task force, its spat with the media has sounded alarm bells about official views on press freedom. The current MCK was established last year under the Media Act of 2007 as an independent body comprising representatives from across the media spectrum.
Kenya descended into chaos after opposition leader Raila Odinga disputed President Mwai Kibaki’s re-election in the December ballot. Certain sectors of the media stand accused of helping to stoke the violence, in which more than 1 000 people have died and up to 600 000 been displaced.
Kwamboka Oyaro spoke to Peter Mutie, chair of the MCK’s ethics and publicity subcommittee, about the events of the past week.
First we had talk of a government task force to investigate the media’s conduct during elections — now we hear that the government has only set up a committee to discuss such a task force, and even that the force may not have to be set up at all …What do you make of this apparent confusion?
If the government also wants to do a media audit, they can. Nobody will stop them. The director of information and communication gave a wrong picture implying that the council was trying to sabotage the government’s efforts — far from it. We are accomplishing our mandate.
The council is established by law; [this] states that the media council shall conduct an annual review of general public opinion of the media and publish the results thereof in at least two local media. We are obliged by law, and if we don’t media-audit, then we fail.
The government can investigate anyone, including the media, because they have that mandate. We had a small question, though. If the council is supposed to carry out a media audit, why is there need for the government one? The media fraternity has raised this issue as well.
Given the enormity of what has happened over recent weeks, won’t your team end up focusing largely on election events? Isn’t this effectively an examination of how the media performed before and after December 27?
No, our investigation is very broad. We are looking at media reports before, during and post-election. We have 12 terms of reference which we have proposed, giving a broad perspective for our investigation; we are looking at the environment in which journalists work, [and] media adherence to ethics as provided for in the Media Act. We are going beyond the elections coverage.
I understand the government wanted to look at the election period only. We want to invite stakeholders, too, to tell us the areas they want investigated.
Why didn’t you come to the fore earlier with setting up a team to look into media conduct over the election period, given the claims that journalists helped fan the post-poll violence?
You know, I am totally opposed to wanting to pin down the media as the main catalyst of the violence. Media as I know it reports as it happens … So, before we single out the media who were reporting what was happening or what the politicians were saying, what are we doing about the politicians themselves?
There were dangerous and inflammatory short text messages flying around … email pictures circulated were even more damning. These too must be audited, and not just the media.
The council is young, we are just beginning; indeed, this is our first activity, and I believe it is a good starting point as it will give us an overview of where our media is and how we fared during this trying period. Our findings may lead us to assist the government in drafting a code of conduct for governing the broadcast media, especially the vernacular stations.
How do you plan to carry out your investigation?
The council has established a committee of four, which I chair; we are all board members of the council. What I think we will do is to engage a competent media research firm to carry out the investigations based on the terms of reference that we shall develop. But this is yet to be agreed on by the council.
The council’s critics have accused it of being toothless. Do you have the power to implement, meaningfully, recommendations that might emerge from your probe of media conduct?
Yes, we do. The Act gives us powers equivalent to those of a court of law. It says in sub-section 33: ”The decision of the council against which no appeal has been preferred within 30 days from the day on which the decision was made shall be adopted and enforced as an order of court.”
Of course, even when you have teeth you don’t want to be biting all the time just for the sake of it … What we want is a fair deal so that we don’t make rulings that are likely to be adverse to some of our stakeholders.
Nevertheless, where complaints are brought to us and we arbitrate, I assure you we will ensure the decisions are enforced.
What is the ultimate sanction that the council could impose on a media organisation found to have acted irresponsibly?
I am not in a position at the moment to give the ultimate sanction, but I know there are laws in government that recommend severe punishment, such as taking a television station off air in case of emergency. The Constitution also has provision for severe punishment if the news organisation is violating people’s rights, or for security reasons.
Basically, the council is supposed to arbitrate disputes between government and media, the public and the media, and intra-media — and to promote freedom and independence of the media, among other things. We are a regulatory organisation. Switching off a station, for example, is beyond a regulatory body.
As you look back over recent weeks, do you have a sense that the media council could have acted differently, been more vocal, towards news organisations accused of stoking the violence — notably radio stations broadcasting in indigenous languages?
I think if we had been established earlier, we could have played a bigger role in regulating the media during the campaign, elections and post-election period. But our coming on board late did not give us ample time to do our role sufficiently.
Are you perturbed by the government’s threat to deregister the council if it goes ahead with its investigation?
I am not perturbed. We are not breaking any law. We are operating under the law which established us … The statements by the director of information were his personal views, because our subsequent deliberations with the minister and other officials did not reflect these views. The minister actually talked of council working with government. We will collaborate with any organisation as long as it is within our mandate; anything outside that we will not do.
Does the government have the power to deregister the council, or is this something Parliament would have to vote on?
Our creation is through an Act of Parliament and we are independent. Deregistration we leave to Parliament. — IPS