MISA Swaziland Supports 'Times' editor

20 August 2007

This follows a recent article in which Mbingo criticized the Speaker of the House of Assembly for silencing MPs who wanted to question an alleged secret move by Cabinet and traditional committees to amend the country�s constitution without the knowledge of the nation.

MISA Swaziland was summoned to give evidence in the �hearing�. The following is a statement MISA Swaziland National Director, Comfort Mabuza, read before the Select Committee sitting at the Houses of Parliament in Lobamba, just outside Mbabane, the capital city:

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is not just freedom to communicate accurate, inoffensive information and ideas, but includes the right to ridicule and shock public officials in their undertaking of public duties. In democratic countries, it is accepted that politicians must be more open to public scrutiny and tolerate more comment and criticism than ordinary citizens. They have sought and attained public office, they use public money and they are supposed to be accountable to the public. In fact, the freedom to openly criticize and scrutinise public officials, be it accurate or inaccurate criticism, is a cornerstone of robust democracy.

The Constitution of Swaziland guarantees the right to freedom of expression and specifies limitations. The article in question does not breach the limits of freedom of expression/press freedom as provided by the Constitution. Section 24 (3) details the types of speech that may not be protected by freedom of expression. These include speech related to: national defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, protection of reputation, rights and freedom of other persons, private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining authority and independence of the courts.

At no point does the content of this article fall under the limitations on freedom of expression listed in the Constitution.

For media coverage of Parliament, it is critical that limitations on freedom of expression be narrowly defined. The very basis of any democracy is informed communication between citizens and their representatives. The media is the vehicle for this information and therefore need broad reign to truly be the eyes and ears for the public.

Defamation

Given that the article in question is criticizing the actions of public officials, it does not give reason to sue for defamation. Public officials should only pursue litigation in relation to matters that clearly belong in the private sphere. Suing for criticism of one�s public functions is an instrument to restrict the media�s reporting of politicians and limit public scrutiny.

If public officials want to correct inaccurate or offensive media content, they should exercise their right to reply.

Determining matters of defamation is the exclusive domain of the courts and Parliament should respect this separate role of the judiciary.

Contempt of Parliament

Contempt of Parliament strictly refers to any act wish obstructs parliamentary functions. The article did not in any way cause interference or obstruction to the House or its members in the discharge of their duties.

Times Sunday cannot be guilty of contempt of parliament, as the article does not breach any parliamentary privileges that are necessary for the execution of parliamentary functions.

Journalism Ethics & Media Regulation

It is not the role of a parliamentary select committee to judge journalism ethics, or indeed the code of conducts of any profession. It is the responsibility of the media, not parliament, to set and supervise their professional and ethical standards.

The fact that Parliament is investigating ethical compliance by a journalist demonstrates an attempt to exercise control over editorial content and the media. This contravenes the constitutional protection of media freedom that was endorsed by Parliament itself.

Training of Journalists

The profession of journalism is based on the right to freedom of expression. This bright belongs to all people and cannot be made contingent on specific education or training. It is the preserve of media owners and editors to employ the right people to work in a particular role.

Journalists can best be compared to politicians who also must be versatile enough to address a wide range of people�s concerns. Neither is obliged to obtain training or a licence to do their job.

With regard to specific training for parliamentary reporters, as with all journalism portfolios the world over, specialization usually occurs on the job.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Parliament should repeal standing order 195 and cease seeking to punish the media and others for offending the dignity of Parliament by criticizing the institution or its members.

Offensive and inaccurate reporting should be not considered contempt of Parliament. Contempt should be reserved for serious cases of interference with Parliament�s ability to perform its function.

Public officials should tolerate criticism and scrutiny of their public functions and not pursue litigation.

Eligibility of media access to Parliament should be determined by the media itself.

The professional standards and ethics of journalists should be set and judged by the media itself.

END/

Source:MISA