WHEN the two–day media conference held at Pamodzi Hotel ended with the adoption of a Code of Ethics and Constitution, architects of the few months’ process congratulated themselves for a milestone achievement.
But the celebrations were misplaced because the Zambia Media Council (ZAMEC) they had created was toothless, impotent, and could not in any way pass for a media regulator.
In fact, the prophecy that predicted doom came to pass. ZAMEC places no sanctions of any kind for individuals and media houses that will flout or breach ethics and its practices or be guilty of professional misconduct.
It also has no deterrent mechanism for media houses carrying out irresponsible reporting, breaking the code, or refusing to submit to its authority.
ZAMEC was intended to be a watchdog of media ethics but has sadly turned out to be a lapdog for future offenders of media ethics.
The prominent offenders of media ethics with vile editorials, stories that offend ethical practices, obscene pictures and lewd pictures, are probably the chief beneficiaries of this sterile outcome.
[pullquote]In fact, the prophecy that predicted doom came to pass. ZAMEC places no sanctions of any kind for individuals and media houses that will flout or breach ethics and its practices or be guilty of professional misconduct.[/pullquote]
In fact many contend that the media in Zambia largely does not need much regulation as it has acted relatively above board and carried out function with mature restraint.
Therefore if any regulation was required, it was for the section that has turned freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of expression into hate speech and hate campaigns against its helpless victims.
Why ZAMEC?
There has been a rallying call that the media in Zambia ought to be regulated.
The flagrant abuse of these institutions for political purposes has angered both foes and friends of the media. Many were frustrated by the failure for the self regulated Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) to exercise its authority on its members and over institutions that refused to submit to it or be members.
In exasperation, Government began in 2009, to draft a process that would lead to a statutory media regulation body. The media associations then started a parallel process to create a self-regulatory mechanism forgetting that MECOZ exists!
MECOZ was quickly shelved and the new process was hailed as historic since the Press Freedom Committee of The Post were members!
Although the Media Liaison Committee (MLC) chose to abolish MECOZ, it was marginally effective and its Council sat to hear cases. Compliance of its decisions was quite high especially by Times of Zambia and Daily Mail. There were isolated cases when media organisations failed to publish retraction
But the biggest failure was the non-participation of The Post who were subject of numerous complaints which could not be processed.
Even in cases where MECOZ issued activist statements in its capacity as a regulator condemning The Post for its derogatory and insulting language in its editorials, it issued further editorials ridiculing council.
But Times of Zambia totally complied as in the case of the Chipata Council Vs Times of Zambia, in which MECOZ cleared the newspaper of any misconduct.
The Fringilla Consensus
The road leading up to the Pamodzi Hotel meeting was carefully crafted. Although attempts were made to achieve broad consensus especially among respected media organizations such as the Times of Zambia, Zambia Daily Mail and ZNBC, the outcome was inevitably doomed.
Because The Post Freedom Committee housed the Media Liaison Committee and acted as its secretariat, It has been seen as having, not only helped source funds for most of the activities leading up to the establishment of this process, but also driving the agenda.
On one hand, stakeholders were happy that The Post were active members but secretly feared the outcome of the process would betray the consensus thus far achieved.
Signatories to the Fringilla Consensus therefore participated with bated breath and promptly sent senior staff to the Media Conference to attempt to give it legitimacy and influence the outcome.
But the meeting at Pamodzi Hotel was skewed. It was skillfully designed to achieve exactly what ZAMEC turned out to be. The gathering appeared preselected and heavily populated by a posse of Catholics who came through their radio stations and the Catholic Media Services.
This small meeting alone had over five catholic priests and three nuns led by Father Paul Samasumo (ZEC spokesperson) of Catholic Media Services. Other priests came from their radio stations that included Father Wilbroad Mwape from Radio Icengelo, Father Freebog Kibombwe of Radio Liseli and sisters led by Rose Nyondo.
Conspicuously missing were many known senior and prominent journalists, media practitioners and other media personalities. Although a few senior journalists such as Jeff Sitali and Swithen Haangala could be spotted, they came to the Conference in their capacity as media owners. The conference therefore failed to live up to its billed theme of ‘’Stakeholders Conference’’.
The work at Pamodzi was preceded by earlier work done through an exclusive process done at Fringilla (a B and B facility) in Chisamba by leaders of the media association gathered together under the umbrella of the Media Liaison Committee (MLC) and came as draft for the Conference.
The donors fearing an ‘’undemocratic’’ statutory media regulatory mechanism had quickly supported the process by media associations and hoped that the success of this process would fend off government intentions to regulate the media and help it establish a credible self-regulatory mechanism.
They too must be disappointed with the out-come as ZAMEC, other than the concerns of its ineffective tools, is likely to spur government to proceed and set-up a statutory regulatory mechanism. The investment in time and financial resources so far appear wasted.
But the so called Fringilla Consensus was a shameful piece of work. The drafts (Code of Ethics and Draft Constitution) provided for Gay Rights, reduced media regulation to voluntary participation and submission, provided ZAMEC with clipped powers to regulate or promote ethical practices rendering it toothless and useless.
The drafts also limited Jurisdiction of ZAMEC to listed members only whose participation is voluntary! Everyone has agreed that Media Regulation is a must and totally relevant to the survival and growth of a decent media landscape. The debate therefore has only been whether Zambia needed a statutory or self media regulation. It never made regulation optional.
Government abandoned its quest to enact a statutory regulatory framework and gave the media latitude to come up with its own decent and acceptable self regulatory one.
But the media chose to squander this opportunity to make amends for its intransigences. It was therefore strange that self regulation was reduced to VOLUNTARY self-regulation! An exit strategy was even and deftly provided for, for individuals and media houses to withdraw from ZAMEC or reject its authority!
The code of ethics
The Code itself as adopted was a brilliant document containing progressive provisions heavily borrowed from South Africa, Australia and United Kingdom Press Councils.
The Code promotes objective and responsible reporting. It bans obscene, indecent and pornographic material to be published or broadcast.
The Code also promotes reporting that respects culture and moral values of Zambia. It also encourages individual practitioners to abide by ethics and conduct themselves in a professional manner.
It also provided for other media related services such as advertising and artistry work to be regulated and submit to ethical practices.
The Code has potential to promote good and responsible journalism in Zambia.
The constitution
The mischief is on the Constitution that creates ZAMEC. The Constitution provides for voluntary membership. It also provides for exit clauses. It reduces ZAMEC Jurisdiction to listed members only. It provides for an 11-member Governing Council appointed and/or elected from Lawyers, Civil Society, Women’s groups and Churches. It sets up an Ethics Committee comprising Lawyers and Journalists. It also provides for an appeals panel headed by a lawyer qualified to be employed as a High Court Judge.
The Ethics Committee and its Appeals Committee have been given absolute powers to handle public complaints and banned any court process in the event that a dissatisfied or aggrieved party who participated in the proceedings emerges. The decisions of these internal courts are final!
This provisions fly in the face of the Republican Constitution that guarantees citizens fundamental rights to sue and appeal up-to the Supreme Court.
The Courts created under ZAMEC are mere tribunals and the provision of a waiver does not in any way take away the fundamental right by citizens to reserve the right to go to judicial court as so provided for in the country’s constitution.
Key provisions on voluntary membership and the clear lack of any deterring mechanisms or failure to make provisions for any minimum sanctions renders filed complaints, achieve academic outcomes.
The lack of any sanctions or any punitive measures even to repeated or serial offenders renders the whole process useless despite its robust provisions on composition. The complaints when laid would not inspire or give faith to members of the public as the outcome can only be a public reprimand in worst case scenarios.
Realising that the Conference had been manipulated and the media stood at the verge of missing a great opportunity, Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Lieutenant-General Ronnie Shikapwasha promptly wrote a letter to Henry Kabwe, chairperson of the Media Liason Committee.
Gen Shikapwasha urged the members to the Conference to adopt the Kenyan model that would guarantee compulsory compliance but regulated by the media itself.Gen Shikapwasha recognized that as adopted, ZAMEC falls short of a meaningful regulatory mechanism. He informed the Conference that ZAMEC was doomed to be toothless and media regulation would be rendered unenforceable as created so far. He urged the Conference to adopt the Kenyan Model that would strike a realistic balance between government concerns and media rights and freedoms.
Conclusion
Naturally, the debate by media organizations should be dwelling on the need to expand and enhance freedoms of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press and not the debate to curtail such rights. It is clear that certain sections of the media have acted so irresponsibly that there is an urgent need to promote objective and responsible reporting through regulatory mechanisms.
The failure by media stakeholders to establish a respectful media ethics council gives government and all doomsayers an opportunity, as feared, to impose a regulatory mechanism on the media.
This is the only process that had attempted to achieve broad consensus among stakeholders and the failure to establish a proper regulatory framework is genuinely regrettable.
The debate will revert to a shouting match between government and the media associations leaving government with the chance to impose statutory regulation.
[Times of Zambia]
