Govt must be accountable to the people's will - Prof Berger

Govt must be accountable to the people's will - Prof Berger
By Laura Mushaukwa and Jack Zimba
Monday April 28, 2008 [04:00]

VISITING South Africa's Rhodes University media lecturer Professor Guy Berger has observed that there is need to make the executive arm of government accountable to the will of the people. And Patriotic Front spokesperson Given Lubinda has accused the government of politicising his party president Michael Sata’s illness.

But former president Frederick Chiluba’s spokesperson Emmanuel Mwamba commended the government for quickly evacuating Sata to South Africa, saying Sata was not PF property but a national leader.

Giving a national lecture on imperatives of access to information law at Chrismar Hotel on Saturday during a public discussion organised by the World Press Freedom Day Organising Committee, Prof Berger - who drew a parallel between the Nigerian and Zambian experiences in the fight for freedom of information laws - stressed the need for freedom of information.

“The high-handed behaviour of the executive in Nigeria and Zambia is indicative of the arrogance of untrammeled power and decision making behind closed doors. It is exactly the purpose of freedom of information to introduce the light of day into such corridors of executive power, thereby exposing it to public scrutiny and accountability,” Prof Berger said.

He said the power of enduring public shame and anger as a countervailing power to the executive should not be underestimated.

“When executive behaviour has to occur in sunlight, its excesses are curbed, the foundation of this principle is that just as governments are elected and get their mandate only from the people, and just as civil servants are supposed to serve society as their name suggests, the information about the state is equally the property of the people,” Prof Berger said. “It belongs to the citizenry and not to the representative officials.”

He said those in authority were merely caretakers on behalf of the people.

“If information about and within the state is power, then it is for the purposes of empowering society and not meant to empower bureaucrats or politicians for their own glorification,” Prof Berger said.

He said the key to opening the door for an open state was freedom of information provision in a constitution and a law that elaborated on the right to information.

Prof Berger highlighted two subsidiary aspects to the right to freedom of information such as the right that covers all information including erroneous information and the right of habeas data, which referred to information about oneself in particular.

“In fact, one would be particularly interested to gain access to information that is flawed in order to point out that flaw. All these are important principles, which need to be agreed upon in a particular form within any freedom of information legislation.

The principles are of course one thing, making them practical is another,” Prof Berger said. He also talked about the need for defining things as comprehensively as possible in relation to freedom of information legislation.

At the same discussion, PF spokesperson Given Lubinda accused the government of politicising Sata’s illness to make an impression that they were doing favours for others. He said when President Mwanawasa was sick in London and former president Frederick Chiluba in South Africa in 2006, government took long to release information but was very quick to disclose Sata’s medical condition even before his own doctor signed the medical form.

Lubinda said the government quickly released information even telling the nation that Sata was evacuated under President Mwanawasa’s directives to make it look like they were being good to Sata despite their political differences.

On freedom of information, Lubinda implored the media to include all stakeholders in the crusade for the enactment of the freedom of information bill so that people knew that freedom of information was not just for the press but for society as a whole.

And Emmanuel Mwamba said Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) violated the law that formed their existence by not being fair and objective.

“ZNBC has only picked up one thing, they are getting our money, they are supposed to be fair and objective,” said Mwamba. “They are violating the very law of their existence, maybe we should take ZNBC to court, why should they let government control them when money is gotten from the public?”

At the same function, Post managing editor Amos Malupenga, in response to a question by Dr. Neo Simutanyi about some journalists being paid to cover or not cover certain people, said it was not possible for anyone to buy coverage in a well-established media institution.

Malupenga said if a news source wanted to buy coverage, he or she would have to pay or bribe the whole chain of editors that looked at stories gathered by journalists. He said when determining whether or not a story should be published, editors only looked at its newsworthiness.

“You can give money to a reporter today and the story is published tomorrow because of its newsworthiness but you will erroneously think that you have received that coverage because you paid for it,”
Malupenga said. “It doesn’t work that way because editors only look at the news value before any story is published. If you pay a reporter, and when I am looking at that story, I will look at it like any other story so that if it doesn’t meet the standards I will trash it.

But if you have paid for its publication, you will not only be risking but also wasting your money because no one is required to pay for coverage.”

And Press Association of Zambia vice-president Amos Chanda concurred with Malupenga, saying media organisations decided to publish or not to publish information based on their editorial policies. However, Chanda – who is also Zambia Daily Mail news editor - said there were a few instances when some unprofessional journalists asked for money from sources for coverage.

“When you come across such journalists, expose them because they are doing that just for their own pockets, not the institutions they represent,” said Chanda.