Media freedom in Botswana has steadily been eroded over the last decade or so. The controversial Media Practitioners Act, passed in 2008, calls for all media practitioners to register with the press council, while simultaneously defining a media practitioner as anyone who transmits information. Civil society groups have filed a law suit against the state, but it has yet to have its day in court. By THAPELO NDLOVU.

The Media Practitioners Act of 2008 evolved over ten years under three presidents until the current President of Botswana Seretse Khama Ian Khama, eventually pushed it through. A draft version of the law, then called the Mass Communication Bill, was first proposed in 1997. The government relented and shelved it, only to resuscitate it in the 2000s in a watered-down version. Sensing the looming danger, the media provided an alternative in the form of the self-regulated Press Council of Botswana in 2002. The then minister responsible for the media, Boyce Sebetela, publicly declared he would give the PCB a chance.

While the outspoken Sebetela was viewed as being too intrusive, especially regarding his alleged editorial interference in the state media, he was nothing compared with his successor, Pelonomi Venson Moitoi. She emerged as the most vicious protagonist in the fight between the state and the media. Moitoi traversed the country to counter lobbying against the proposed media law by the independent media, while at the same time stifling any debate in the state media.

In the ensuing fight for public opinion, the playing field changed completely when Khama came to power in April 2008. In his first public pronouncement as president, Khama could not hide his disdain for the media, which he lumped together with other social ills that beguiled the populace. True to his attitude, the MPA was enacted a few months later, in December 2008, and Khama signed it into law a few days later.

The road to the legislation being passed was characterised by a fierce campaign by the media, who were outdone by the arm-twisting tactics of the ruling Botswana Democratic Party. Noticing that a number of MPs, including some from the BDP  had joined ranks with the media, the law was rushed through.

The clauses the media find particularly offensive include the registration of media practitioners by the media council, which interestingly enough is to be made up of media publishers themselves. The definition of a media practitioner, which includes everyone who transmits information, is also problematic. This is the clause that spurred civil society action, as ordinary citizens would also be directly affected by the law.

The law empowers the minister to appoint the complaints committee, as well as participate in the appointment of the appeals committee. This political involvement could not escape the attention of opposition and liberal politicians, especially in a country where the political interference in state media by the ruling party occurs unashamedly. In fact, during one of the televised debates around the law, the director of broadcasting, Mogomotsi Kaboeamodimo, who at one point had read a ruling party statement on radio and television, could not understand the resulting hullabaloo. In his understanding, the government and the ruling party were one and the same – perhaps unsurprisingly, if inexcusably, considering that the BDP has been in power for the past 40 years.

Kaboeamodimo's comments – together with the contents of a court affidavit by an aggrieved broadcasting employee, who revealed how they were not allowed to broadcast the activities of the opposition parties – cast doubt on political fairness in a country that used to be a leading democracy in Africa.

The argument by opponents of the MPA is that the government is interested in bringing the private media under its command to add to its control of the state media. Under the MPA there will not be any avenue for independent thinking in the media – especially given even community radio is currently not provided for. The government’s dilly-dallying on a policy to introduce community radio stations is seen by some observers as part of a grand plan to dissuade independent thought.

People linked to the government were swift to try to use the new law to their advantage.  In 2009 President Khama instructed his lawyers, Collins Newman and Company, to file a law suit against the Sunday Standard newspaper for defamation of character. This followed a report by the newspaper linking the president to the  extrajudicial execution of one John Kalafatis, allegedly by members of state security. The paper countered with its own suit, questioning Khama’s legitimacy as president, as well as raising a number of other issues. Among these were allegations of nepotism and corruption, particularly at the army barracks during his tenure as the commander. Khama quickly retreated and withdrew the threat.

The matter, however, did not die immediately. Soon after the president announced his withdrawal, his elder sister, Jacqueline Khama, who was also mentioned in the offending article, registered a complaint with the state media complaints committee under the newly enacted MPA. In a letter dated 16 June 2009, she called for de-registration of the newspaper’s editor, Outsa Mokone, as well as the reporter who had written the story, Reuben Pitse.

Unfortunately for her, the matter could only recede into silence because the MPA, although of legal standing, was not yet empowered. This was largely owing to its boycott by the media publishers and the Law Society of Botswana through the facilitation of Media Institute of Southern Africa (Botswana chapter). As Mokone subsequently noted, in fact the two journalists were not registered in the first place.

Apart from the potential for political interference, the one clause of the MPA that really touches raw nerves is the very one that Jacqueline Khama tried to use to remove media practitioners from practice; the one that states all media practitioners must be registered. Under the MPA, publishers who refuse to join the media council face a jail threat of three months and/or a 5,000 pula fine. And the fear of being banned from practising their craft could drive journalists and the public (in view of the wide definition of media practitioner) to self-censorship.

Had the MPA assisted Jacqueline Khama, the country would have faced its first media clampdown casualty under the controversial law. Now the MPA will only be subject to further legal scrutiny should the long-awaited case of the media versus the state become a reality. Led by the PCB as the first applicant, several media houses and civil society organisations have sought to challenge a number of clauses in the law, hoping this would lead to its repeal. The case was filed in August 2010, but technical delays have meant it has not yet been heard in court.

Jacqueline Khama’s attempt to crack down on the media vindicated the opponents of the law, who have argued it would give the state and other powerful figures in society leeway to harass and suppress the media. They ask why she did not use the available defamation laws. Her failed attempt entrenched the argument that the powerful are not necessarily interested in regulating the media for the better; instead they seek to control it and intimidate journalists to prevent them from demanding accountability.

This is not helped by the government’s continued refusal to establish a public declaration of assets and liabilities by the national leaders, especially the executive. The secrecy around the wealth of the “big guys” and how it was accumulated has made the journalists’ job of unearthing practices of corruption very difficult. Scant exposure of incidences of corruption involving top politicians is evidence that not all is right. The reluctance to bring about the Freedom of Information Act has added to the fear that some individuals in government, including the presidency, could be hiding something.

The fear is not exclusive to the media. The African Media Barometer of 2009, revealed that there is a general fear to speak freely, especially since Khama became president. After the 2009 elections, Khama mutilated the ministry of communication, science and technology, by removing the media section and incorporated it under the presidency. In conjunction with the enactment of the MPA, this move has exacerbated the fear of censorship, as well as the danger of self-censorship. FAM

Photo: President of the Republic of Botswana, Ian Khama, looks on during a news conference in Pretoria October 5, 2010. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko