Kenya/South Africa: Lessons for the media from Nairobi [opinion]

As SA’s journalists continue to oppose the proposed Protection of Information Bill and an ANC proposal for a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal, they might look to the Kenyan media for lessons. Journalism.co.za correspondent Dennis Itumbi helped coordinate protests in that country, and writes that Kenyan media had to take to the streets twice before the government withdrew repressive legislation from the floor of parliament.

Organizing street protests was not simple for Kenya’s media. At first different media houses opposed the plan, fearing a backlash from government – the biggest advertiser in the country.

 

However, a group of journalists from all media houses came together and formed what was known as the “Freedom Cabinet” in August 2007. Each media house was represented in the body. Nation Media Group’s Sammy Mbau and I were chosen as the protest co-coordinators.

 

The body’s first task was to ask the Editors Guild – a body representing all editors in the country - to run joint editorials criticizing the government’s moves and offering alternatives to a proposed Media Bill, whose aim was to force journalists to disclose their sources and a statutory Media Council, whose function would be controlled by government and other agencies outside of the journalism industry.

 

The editors were reluctant to assist because of the competitive nature of Kenyan media, but later agreed not only to have joint editorials on the proposals, but also to have the issue as the top story in all dailies the next day.

 

In a landmark move, they even asked one senior editor to draft the joint editorial which would then set the tone for systematic pressure on the state to withdraw the bill.

 

When the papers hit the streets the next day, they caused a sensation across the country, amongst the public, professionals and politicians.

 

We agreed as protest organizers that before moving on to the next step of protest, we would wait for public reaction. On the day after the joint editorials, the public reaction did the job for us.

 

Every reporter across the different departments - politics, business and sports – was tasked with asking newsmakers to comment on the proposed law with a view of sustaining the pressure.

 

The next idea was suggested by radio reporters, who planned a promotional advert on our protest.

 

All radio stations agreed to start primetime news broadcasts with one minute of silence, followed by the advert urging the public to press their members of parliament to publicly denounce the bill. Only then would the news be read.

 

The advert pointed out to the public that the state was actually planning to silence the media and that such news broadcasts would be impossible since the media would be forced to reveal sources.

 

Still the state insisted on pushing ahead with the bill. We decided to unleash a TV strategy.

 

First we turned TV reporters into newsmakers. All TV stations called their reporters on duty and demonstrated in dramatic footage how the proposed move by the state would affect them and their job.

 

Then, editors surprised our team with yet another move, crafted by the Editor’s Guild. All reporters were told that any legislator who supported the passage of the bill during the debate in Parliament would be blacked out and would not be covered by any media house – the argument by the editors was, “if they voted to silence the public, they should also be silenced.”

 

The state continued to play hardball. They were unmoved, the bill was passed for the third and final reading in Parliament and it now awaited Presidential assent.

 

Left with no other option, we took the most difficult decision: to demonstrate in the streets. When we approached police to notify them of the demonstrations they predictably denied us permission on unspecified security grounds, but the law had since been revised and all we were required to do was notify police and not get a permit. On the advice of a renowned constitutional lawyer we decided to take to the streets.

 

The legal advice by constitutional lawyer and senior counsel Paul Muite was candid. “The law simply requires that you notify the police, if they object they have to issue clear reasons in writing and if it is a security threat they have to inform the high court,” he advised. “They haven’t done any of that, therefore your demonstrations are legal.” We informed the police bosses of this, but they would hear none of it.

 

So we decided we would continue, even though that resolution almost divided the organizers. First, the Nation Media Group, which had so far played a lead role in terms of supplying a venue for meetings, pulled out its reporters, including my co-convener Sammy Mbau.

 

I was left as the sole chair and after discussion with the rest of the team we decided it was too late to pull out, given that the President was under pressure to sign the bill into law. If we sat back he would go ahead and ratify it.

 

We decided to be creative and unique in our demonstrations. We agreed we would supply masking tape to every reporter who turned up so that they would cover their mouths in a symbolic move to indicate that the media and the public would be silenced as the government advanced its ills through corruption and unchallenged policies.

 

Close to midnight, hours before the demo, Mbau told me his bosses had changed their minds and endorsed the demo and that they would be joining the media fraternity the next day. As a security measure and fearing for our lives we both did not spend the night in our homes, Mbau chose a friend’s place, while I took a hotel in town.

 

Radio stations played a key role in the success of the demonstrations urging the public to cover their mouths as they headed to work and to have a silent day, a call which drew extensive support.

 

But the government was clearly not listening to the radio, watching television or reading the newspapers, they maintained their stand.

 

On the day the bill was discussed in Parliament, we all picked a black cloth and mask, gagged our mouths to signify the silencing and held a silent demonstration at the gates of parliament.

 

Police used teargas to disperse the demonstration, which included the entire corps of Kenyan media personalities, who had now been joined by civil society groups and members of the public. It was a big group that covered almost the entire central business district of the city of Nairobi.

 

At the office of the President, where we were to present the petition, a popular anchor read out the petition before handing it in.

 

The next day we met and agreed that we would have blank pages for all the newspapers to protest the bill that had by then been passed by parliament, as politicians continued to ignore us.

 

That evening, immediately after receiving the bill, President Mwai Kibaki reacted and referred the bill back to parliament, a sign that our pressure had worked.

 

In his notes he urged for a restart of the process to include consultations and compromise with players in the media industry.

 

Two months later, the whole campaign had to be repeated, this time on the Communications Amendment Bill, which was to be amended to allow the government to clear stories before publication.

 

Censorship was not going to be taken lightly and our group - the “Freedom Cabinet”,   which organized the initial demonstrations, was once again urged to take the lead in organizing opposition. Since it was not a new bill but an amendment, we had to act with speed and so we quickly organized a demonstration.

 

The next day, as journalists got ready to take to the streets; anti-riot policemen lobbed teargas and arrested several journalists. We quickly set up a fund to bail them out.

 

The Attorney General later withdrew charges against them and the President ordered fresh negotiations between the cabinet and editors which eventually led to a revision of the clause.

 

We were making it clear that freedom is not a negotiable commodity; it’s an inherent right which should not be left to the state.

 

Perhaps the South African media will need to recognize that using the newsroom and the studio may not stop a ruling party wanting to stifle the voice of the media. Perhaps they will be brave enough to take the battle outside.

 

-September 27, 2010 by Dennis Itumbi

……………..

Source:www.journalism.co.za/index.php (accessed on 27.09.10)