Power politics trample journalist safety in Uganda and Tanzania
Alex Atuhaire (in a mask), the Vice Chairman of the Uganda Editors Guild following the launch proceedings with other participants.
JESSE KWAYU reviews the state of journalists’ security and working conditions in East Africa, with a special focus on Uganda and Tanzania. Key incidents of press freedom violations in these countries and interviews with victims paint a worrying picture. Journalists and their editors have come under the grip of rich, powerful, and politically connected persons to do journalism that favors them, and failing to conform opens a host of risks.
For the purpose of this review, journalists’ security refers to the ability of reporters, editors, and associated media professionals to do their work freely without being coerced. The situation provides an opportunity for media professionals to seek, process, and disseminate information to the general public without fear or favor.
Crack the shell
The safety of journalists has been a major concern for the media fraternity across the world and in particular among societies envisaged as having functioning governments, responsible civil society, and generally functioning democracies. Press freedom violations have deterred journalists from performing their noble duties across all democracies. Among the major abuses are threats and intimidation, physical body harm, arrest and detention, abduction and disappearance, and charges or prosecutions.
While press freedom violations are intolerable in most developed democracies, the abuses, however, do exist in growing democracies. The recent incident in the US where the state apparatus had the guts to arrest, injure and even destroy the equipment of journalists as they covered demonstrations live on television has raised a red flag on the safety of journalists and the state of press freedom in recent times. Indeed, such brutality against journalists is a wake-up call for developing democracies like those in East Africa that the safety of journalists and their working environment could deteriorate even further.
Different countries in East Africa, however, have varying experiences of press freedom violations that manifest in journalists’ insecurity, with moderate levels of abuse in some and higher in others. The levels of abuse have changed as different countries see new administrations come into power. Such experiences show that the major determining factor for a country to either have respect for press freedom or slide back is not necessarily the existing media legal framework, but rather the whim of the occupier at the center of power.
Uganda experience
Of all the East African countries, Uganda has seen a prolonged administration since 1986. While other regional countries have experienced a different thrust ushered in by new leadership, Uganda is stuck with the same administration. This has not worked well for its media, as a downward trend in press freedom emerges. Available documentation suggests that in every election cycle, Ugandan media fall victim to attacks.
Press freedom in Uganda has deteriorated steadily since the ruling political party took power in 1986. “Uganda’s president for the past 34 years, Yoweri Museveni, tolerates no criticism and often uses hate speech in his references to the media, as in a 2018 press conference when he called journalists ‘parasites’ (1). The bitterness of the administration does not end with abusive language. It extends to charges being leveled against journalists. The 2020 World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) report ranked Uganda 125th out of 180 countries evaluated. The report emphasizes that Ugandan journalists have been intimidated and subjected to violence while performing their duties. “The security services, which are the leading press freedom violators, often target them and detain them arbitrarily, as was the case with several journalists investigating trafficking in fake medicines in 2019. (2)”
A critical analysis of WPFI reports since 2013 confirms that the more an administration hangs on to power, the more it becomes sensitive to criticism. It thus ends up using state resources to muzzle the media. While Uganda ranked 104th out of 180 countries evaluated on press freedom in 2013, by 2019 the situation had deteriorated and the country slid further to number 125.
Uganda Scores in WPFI 2013 - 2019
Source: World Press Freedom Index 2020
The 2018 press freedom index report shows a similar trend in Uganda. It contends that the situation is deteriorating as many threats are taking new forms to suck out even the little oxygen that existed in the media. Ugandan media, WPFI says, have witnessed the creeping in of new modes of press freedom violations in the form of unprecedented levels of self-censorship, fear of the state, and caution over how to report about big businesses in a time of reduced advertising revenue. In short, subtly, journalists and their editors have increasingly come under the grip of the “rich and the powerful, politically connected persons to do journalism that favours their interests.” Under such capture, the media cannot be expected to function without fear or favor. For the media to survive, whatever content they produce would be highly compromised to safeguard the interests of powerful actors. It is absurd to expect the media to play the role of public watchdog, as it has surrendered its social legitimacy to powerful influencers.
Available statistics from Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda (HRNJ-Uganda) show that press freedom violations increased from 133 in 2017 to 163 in 2018. Journalists have found themselves in a difficult environment that jeopardized their safety and working tools. Many of these abuses were recorded as journalists covered political events associated with warring parties. This situation forced many to adopt a compromised position so as to survive. For instance, in April 2019, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) issued a devastating order against NBS Television, demanding the immediate suspension of its three key staffers - a producer, the head of news, and the head of programs - for allegedly airing biased news reports covering opposition politician Robert Kyagulanyi. On the other hand, police were reported to have arrogated themselves the power to determine interviewees for the media. In the same month, police switched off three radio stations in Kabale, Jinja, and Mubende while they were hosting prominent opposition leader Kizza Besigye. The police act not only amounts to a denial of media access to opposition politicians across Uganda but is also a direct infringement on editorial independence.
“Journalists are not free to do their jobs. In most cases, they really have the information. They have done investigations, and have the documents, but then they sit on them. If it relates to [local government people] or a minister, even when they have the proof to pin down the person, the radio stations will sit on it, because they fear the consequences.” Although this situation was revealed by a radio journalist in Hoima district who was interviewed and mentioned in Uganda Human Rights reports some nine years ago, it persists today.
Going by the data above, it is self-evident that as the level of political antagonism between warring political parties vying for public office increased so did the level of abuses, thus exposing journalists to danger in Uganda. Such violations manifested in different types of abuses that included threats, death threats, suspension of license, shutdowns, summons, police charges, malicious damage of equipment, kidnapping, being forced to reveal sources, confiscation of equipment, blocked or denial of access, assaults, and arrests.
Comparative summary of violations and abuses in 2017 and 2018
Source: PFIR 2018
As the chart above shows, the level of press freedom violations worsened as years passed. That means state organs seem to enjoy the culture of impunity to frustrate journalists from doing their work. This assertion was well captured in PFIR 2018: “In January 2018, police in Kampala and UPDF soldiers in Soroti separately threatened to beat up journalists who were covering opposition rallies. The soldiers reportedly accused the journalists of preferring to report about opposition activities while ignoring government functions.” One would wonder why the police or army think it is their business to decide for journalists which rally to cover. It appears, therefore, that the state coercive apparatus feels it stands to gain by keeping the population in the dark about the accountability matters raised by the opposition. The level of abuse shows that the state machinery is all out to ensure journalists either turn into lame ducks or join glorious reportage in defense of the status quo and not be the mouthpiece of citizens.
Tanzania context
Gone are the days of vibrant journalism in Tanzania when newspapers used to compete for scoops and sometimes had to stop the presses to accommodate late-breaking news. On many occasions, one could see two editions of the same newspaper coming out on the same day. This is no longer the case. Although one would argue that the speed of the internet and social media to deal with breaking news has reduced significantly the ability of print media to accommodate such news, the fact that editors have to walk a tight rope to determine what to cover and how have thus had a chilling effect on their daily operations. Deciding what to cover nowadays needs a lot of consultation and compromise from centers of power, a situation that has erased editors’ ability to accommodate all types of stories. Simple dissections of content in Tanzanian media reveal a picture that suggests almost all newspapers belong to one publisher. The tone, angling, and narration of stories sound as if they have been directed from one command center.
The media legal framework had been a challenge ever since the enactment of the Newspapers Act No. 3 of 1976, which was regarded as a draconian law and lasted three decades before the adoption of the Media Services Act (2016). The Act brought about a nightmarish experience for editors, especially under the new law.
The multiplicity and diversity in media ownership and content that started to take root with multiparty politics in the early 1990s have run into headwinds as the current administration is hell-bent on building and instilling a sense of neo-nationalism in all spheres of life. Nationalism has been defined as “an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests,” and media and in particular editors have thus been caught up in this new normal. They can only survive if they keenly take cognizance of this phenomenon.
While nationalism can be viewed as both a positive and negative gain for a nation, press freedom and editorial independence have been squeezed to a suffocation point, pushing one to view it in the line of Dalia Gebrial, who asserts: “The idea that nationalism can be a neutral tool, used for good as well as bad, is a fantasy that has been tried and tested throughout history – and almost always ended catastrophically. (3)” It is this whim that has seriously set back the positive gains in press freedom that Tanzania witnessed since the early 1990s to what is seen today as the era of ‘glorification’.
The media terrain in Tanzania in recent years has seen a complex mirage on the path for active journalists. It is now the order of the day that journalists are constantly negotiating a balance between ethical and professional standards on one hand and the dictates of the new normal on the other. A tough operating environment coupled with tough laws and regulations has pushed many active journalists either to adopt a soft tone in their reportage or hang their boots altogether, expecting the future to change the situation.
The available reports from 2015 to 2020 show that the current administration has censured several media outlets - electronic and print alike - on various alleged offenses. Such offenses include violations of the Media Services Act 2016 (MSA) and the Electronic and Postal Communications Act 2014 (EPOCA). All penalties imposed on media outlets were executed in a kangaroo court, since the complainants were also the judges of their own cases. The judgment by the Fair Competition Tribunal (FCT) issued in May 2020 on the matters pertaining to Watetezi Online TV against the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) is self-evident on this matter. The FCT ruling concluded that the Content Committee working on behalf of the TCRA was not a competent organ to adjudicate the issues of violation of the conditions of license and hence its penalty on Watetezi was null and void. Watetezi was required to pay Tanzania Shillings TSh5,000,000 (about $2,000), a penalty also imposed on another online TV channel - Ayo TV - while Kwanza Online TV’s license was suspended for six months. The punishment forced the entire labor force of 15 people at Kwanza TV to live in very hard conditions.
Abiding by ethical standards is a noble calling for every journalist, but the experience has shown that almost all punishments imposed on media outlets are not meant to correct the ethical conduct of practicing journalists. Rather, they are a calculated approach aimed at muzzling the editorial independence of media organizations and in particular journalists and their editors.
The series of punishments against Hali Halisi Publishers Limited (HHPL) outlets tell a lot about this reprisal. HHPL has been in a constant battle with the establishment for more than a decade. All its titles, MwanaHalisi newspaper, Mseto, and Mawio, have been either indefinitely suspended or refused a license by the registrar of newspapers, contrary to the MSA 2016 condition. Despite numerous victories in courts allowing HHPL publications to bounce back to business, the government has deployed a hide-and-seek tactic, seeking to avoid respecting court decisions in order to ensure that such publications do not return to business.
The East African Court of Justice (EACJ), as recently as June 2, 2020, dismissed a notice of appeal from the Government of Tanzania in case number 3 of 2019 against Mseto. The notice was a government attempt to challenge the judgment of the case that saw Mseto triumph against a three-year ban order it was slapped with by the Tanzanian government since August 11, 2016. Despite this, the government has refused to allow Mseto to be published and circulated on Tanzanian territory. The axe on Mseto followed another order by the government against MwanaHalisi, the flagship of HHPL whose operation was banned for a year from July 30, 2012. Although the newspaper finished its suspension period a year later, the registrar of newspapers has still tactically refused to license it.
The founding director of HHPL, Saed Kubenea, who also serves as a Member of Parliament through the opposition party Chadema, in an interview said: "We have won all battles against the government in the legal passage. Mawio won the case before the High Court of Tanzania, MwanaHalisi won both in the High Court and Court of Appeal, and recently Mseto has won in the East African Court of Justice at Appellate Division. Despite all these victories, all our titles have been refused a license by the registrar of newspapers.”
He recalled that the staff of HHPL has been destitute; to survive, they have been forced to seek help from other media houses. “It is as if our rights to work have been curtailed apart from being an issue of press freedom violation,” he said.
Narrating his ordeal, Martine Malera, the acting Managing Editor of Tanzania Daima, a daily Swahili newspaper, said: “In fact, it is as if there are types of stories that whenever we publish, for certain we receive a sort of reprimand letter from the registrar of newspapers.” He even mentioned the names of personalities that covertly they have been warned not to cover. All seem to be critical of the current administration, ranging from clerics to outspoken politicians.
He emphasized that on average they receive one demand letter from the registrar every month. “Such letters really disorient us, sometimes you lose focus completely because you cannot tell whether the explanation you give would exonerate you from the ban.” Tanzania Daima had tasted bitter pills from the government when the minister for information in October 2017 slapped a 90-day ban on it, alleging the publication of a false story. From 2019 to June 2020 they received 20 show-cause letters from the government. Two days after an interview with the author of this article the government revoked the license of Tanzania Daima, alleging that it had repeatedly flouted national laws and journalism ethics in its reportage.
The managing editor of yet another media outlet, who preferred anonymity, said that there seems to be some kind of understanding between owners of media outlets and the government on the way journalists would cover issues concerning the state. “To me, this is the most pressing challenge because, unlike previous years, the owner is demanding to know the main headline before going to press. The kind of recommendation he made is absolutely making our job a non-starter.” He made these remarks to show that there seems to be an alliance between the administration and proprietors of media institutions that seriously erodes the editorial independence of presiding editors.
Officially, Tanzania recorded the first death of a journalist in the line of duty on September 2, 2012, when police deliberately fired a tear-gas canister at TV reporter Daudi Mwangosi at close range. His body was blown up into pieces. This incident has been acknowledged as a turning point for the suffering of journalists while on duty in Tanzania. Since then many incidents of torture, harassment, intimidation, and arrest have been the order of the day for practicing journalists.
The scanty records available show that from 2015 to date, many journalists have experienced some sort of harassment, torture, arrest, intimidation, and charges in courts of law in cases that seem to evoke in them a sense of fear, despair, and disillusionment with the purpose of jolting them into silence.
Azory Gwanda, a freelance journalist with Mwananchi Communications Limited (MCL), was reported missing on November 21, 2017, in his working area in the Coast Region. Despite the media fraternity’s efforts to push for police to investigate this matter, nothing worthy has come from security organs apart from constant intimidation against anyone who tries to probe his whereabouts. This is what happened to two staffers of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Angela Quintal and Muthoki Mumo, when they visited Tanzania on November 8, 2018, on a mission to find out what really happened to Azory. The duo was detained by state organs, purporting it to be an immigration matter, but the fact was that state authorities seemed to be determined to silence anyone investigating Azory’s whereabouts.
Although MCL tried to put pressure on the relevant authorities by pushing for an investigation into the disappearance of Azory, a source privy to the organization’s efforts confided to the media that their campaign faced a lot of hurdles as people close to power covertly kept threatening them. After keeping up the pressure for a while, MCL bowed down and ended the campaign by removing from the front pages of its titles a picture of Azory that had appeared for almost 100 days with no report from the police on his disappearance.
It was even more disturbing when two cabinet ministers issued contradictory statements on the whereabouts of Azory. Addressing parliament in April 2019 the minister for information, Harrison Mwakyembe, castigated those who were probing Azory’s whereabouts. He said: "I am surprised by the concerns raised on the whereabouts of Azory.” The minister seemed to insinuate that in the crisis that engulfed Rufiji district in the Coast region, many had disappeared and may be dead, not only Azory, and thus rubbished all campaigns on the fate of Azory as wasteful.
A similar contradictory and unclear statement was uttered by the minister for foreign affairs, Professor Paramagamba Kabudi, in an interview with the BBC’s “Focus on Africa” program in London in July 2019, when he said: “Azory disappeared and died.” Following a media outcry demanding clarification on his statement, Professor Kabudi eventually retracted his position, alleging that he was quoted out of context, and insisted that Azory had disappeared and it was not known whether he was alive or dead.
Nearly three years since Azory disappeared, no information is available from the state security machinery about his whereabouts, and public officials who are supposed to give updates on his case are offended when asked about his fate. The tone of the two ministers, Professor Kabudi and Dr. Mwakyembe, and the stand of numerous police officers on this matter, again attest to this.
The number of journalists subjected to arrest, torture, and harassment and who are denied access to information, and whose work equipment is confiscated and destroyed is a great concern, as a recent press freedom violations report by the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) indicates. The report covers incidents reported directly to MCT in a one-year period. From October 2018 to November 2019, some 74 different types of abuses were recorded and verified.
Tanzania one-year picture of press freedom violation
PRESS FREEDOM ABUSES OCT. 2018 - NOV. 2019
Source: MCT 2019
The chart shows that denial of access to information was abuse number one in the press freedom violations, contributing 23 incidents, followed closely by arrest and detention with 21 while direct threats were third with 19. In some instances, denial of access also involved confiscation of and damage to equipment. Comparatively, the period between October 2018 and November 2019 seems to have fewer cases of press freedom violations compared to those captured by an MCT report on the state of the media between 2017 and 2018. The report states that 2017 alone constituted about 83 recorded cases, and the period from January to June 2018 had recorded 30 cases of different abuses, ranging from deliberate denial of access to information, mainly by coercive state organs like police and other public officials, to kidnappings, direct threats and intimidation to journalists, arbitrary confiscation and damage of equipment, and arrests.
Tanzania does not fare well in the World Press Freedom Index, as several of its annual reports show. Available reports since 2013 paint a gloomy picture, as the general trend indicates a deteriorating situation year by year. While Tanzania ranked 70th out of 180 countries in the WPFI report on the adherence to press freedom, in 2019 it had fallen to 118th.
Tanzania Scores in WPFI 2013 - 2019
Source: World Press Freedom Index 2020
Divide and rule tactics
It has been observed that major media outlets are feeling the tough grip of the establishment. However, in Tanzania there is a proliferation of gutter publications that are all out to mudsling, defame or even pretend to be government mouthpieces on various issues. Such press has shown a daring audacity to publish with impunity anything from malign to soft pornography just to discredit any dissenting opinion against the administration. There is a clear double standard among law enforcers in dealing with such an open and deliberate unethical press.
The ministry of information has opted not to act on such unethical media outlets by directing any aggrieved persons to seek court redress, but this stand does not apply to mainstream media, which are portrayed as critical of the establishment. Many of the personalities who seem to hold dissenting opinions on the policies and performance of the government have been victims of the gutter press, but the registrar of newspapers, who also doubles as the regulator, has turned a blind eye to them.
Such experience has also been recorded in Uganda, with a 2010 HRW report saying the authorities use the laws with a political bias by creating obstacles for media proprietors and practicing journalists who dare to speak or publish issues regarded as “politically sensitive or controversial.” It further asserted that many government regulatory organs such as the Broadcasting Council, the Media Council, and the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) “wield broad, ill-defined, and unchecked powers to regulate the media. Many of the sanctions they levy has been determined to be in violation of freedom of expression by international experts.” The partisan approaches in dealing with the media create an environment of culpable and inculpable offenders within the same country with the same media laws.
The trend of press freedom violations in Tanzania and Uganda seems to mirror a general picture of the situation in East African countries. There are a number of contributing factors to this predicament, while the media legal framework could be acknowledged as a significant thrust, and the level of resilience of journalists accounts for the suffering. There is polarization within the media fraternity. Some enjoy the culture of impunity and are covertly favored by states, in terms of advertisement revenues, in return for publicity. There are those branded as defiant and incorrigible, whose business undertaking is dwindling as advertising and circulation revenues are eroded.
Recommendations
Unity seems to be lacking among journalists, with those regarding themselves as pro-establishment going uncensored by harsh laws while those trying to put the power of the day in check receive hefty punishments. In such a situation, it is impossible for the media to have a common front to demand a favorable working environment for the media fraternity that in return would put in check press violations. Some efforts must be taken to sensitize journalists and editors on the need and importance of forging a compact unity to fight for their space by challenging all cases of press freedom violations.
Although all East African countries experience some level of press freedom violations, some are better off while others are in a state of a nightmare. The situation in some countries is so clamorous that it is almost impossible to engage meaningfully with the establishment in improving the media working environment. Some efforts must engage regional bodies through networking and at international fora like the East African Community, and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information at the Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
There is a need to empower journalists so they can effectively face media challenges. This needs urgent attention, and thus it is important to foresee more opportunities for training on matters of safety, responsibility, and accountability journalism across the region. Sharing experiences through visitation and media attachment across the region can offer a helping hand. The training and retraining of journalists on media laws, and how to navigate in a contemporary media hostile environment is a major concern now than ever before.
Despite the difficulties facing the media, it is imperative to devote time and space to informing the public about perpetrators of press freedom violations, as well as actively exposing cases that infringe such media rights. Such discussions can be championed by the editors’ forum of respective countries.
Bad laws can be changed through amendments; editors should try to form a coalition of the willing with media sympathizers and lobby parliaments and governments to amend laws that restrain the enjoyment of press freedom in their respective countries. The efforts also should engage other stakeholders like civil societies and non-governmental organizations to form a solid front in lobbying for changes to media laws.
Since police have been mentioned as ringleader perpetrators of press freedom violations, media stakeholders should find a way of enlightening them about the need to be professional in exercising their duties. Such engagement could be in the form of seminars, lobbying, advocacy, and subtle campaigns through media platforms.
Revenues for media outlets across East Africa are dwindling in both the advertisement and circulation segments, and it is now imperative to carry out research for readership and viewers’ follow-up patterns and market segmentation in order to devise appropriate business models to follow in accordance with the new normal. Such measures would help media outlets survive the financial turbulence that has forced some to take various cost-cutting measures including laying off staff or closing up shop altogether.
————————————————————————————
(1) The 2020 World Press Freedom Index (WPFI)
(2) Press Freedom Index Report (PFIR) 2018
(3) Press violation report by Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) 2019
(4) https://newint.org/debate/2018/10/10/nationalism-ever-force-good
