The Post appears before Parliamentary committee

The Post appears before Parliamentary committee
Written by George Chellah
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:03:36 PM

THE Post yesterday appeared before the parliamentary committee on information and broadcasting for the first time to make a submission on the role of the media in national stability. The Post, which was represented by deputy editor-in-chief and deputy managing director Sam Mujuda, managing
Below is the verbatim of the submission and interaction:

Muteteka welcomes everyone and asks the committee members Mwansa Kapeya [Mpika Central], Godfrey Beene [Itezhi tezhi], Claver Silavwe [Nakonde], Guy Scott [Lusaka Central] and Davies Mwila [Chipili] to introduce themselves.

[Sinazongwe member of parliament Raphael Muyanda is not present]. Muteteka then asks The Post delegation, journalists and National Assembly staff to introduce themselves. He then asks The Post to make its submission.

Malupenga: Thank you very much Mr Chair. You asked us to explain the extent to which the media, in general, can contribute to the political stability and economic development or otherwise of the nation;

In the widest sense of the word, the media is concerned largely with the production and distribution of information/knowledge to heterogeneous audiences for varying reasons/purposes.

It is for this reason that the role of the media to the nation's political stability and economic development should be discerned from a broader definition or perspective.

First, the media can be viewed as a window on events and experience. This means that the media extends our vision, so that the media enables us to ‘see’ whatever is going on in society without interference or hindrance from others.

Second, the media is a mirror to society in the sense that it reflects events of society and the world view in general.

Third, and most importantly, the media can be defined as a forum and platform for the presentation of information/knowledge/ideas to audiences, with internalised mechanisms for response and feedback between the media institution on one hand and the particular audiences on the other.

In terms of the role of the media in political stability of the nation, the answer lies in the media's ability to support and promote the values of society such that this role leads to the following:

a) Integration of society

b) Increased co-operation within society

c) Order, control and stability

d) Management of tension and

e) Continuity of culture and values

As for the role of the media in economic development, the contribution of the media in this sphere can take various forms which include, but not limited to the media's ability to aid society in terms of literacy, education, health, population control, spreading democracy (mobilising voters during elections), promoting consumer demand, encouraging both societal and individual change/mobility as well as the media's ability to disseminate information that relates to technical know-how that helps societies and individuals improve the shape of their lives.

In a nutshell, the media's role in political stability and economic development to the nation should be viewed from the media's (especially independent media) ability to liberate, unite and promote positive social change in society.

i) What has been the posture of the media before, during and after elections?

First of all, democracy requires that the instruments of information and communication, the media in this case, are accessible to all and as freely and independently as possible. Because of this requirement by democracy, the posture of the media before, during and after elections has largely remained that of ensuring a free flow of information and communication. What the media has continually been struggling to maintain is to preserve and protect the free flow of information, to guarantee democratic access and participation to its various platforms by citizens and to ensure that they are accessible and open to broader views and opinions in order to ultimately continue promoting, rather than, restricting the growth and development of a culture of democracy and tolerance in the country.

ii) What lessons can be learnt from what has transpired elsewhere in the region?

Media landscapes vary from nation to nation, from region to region. Therefore, the barometers of the levels of media freedom may not necessarily be applicable in a straight jacket format from one place onto another. The only shared common canons of the media which can be learned from one another are the values to do with professional standards. These include fairness, truthfulness, objectivity and accuracy. As long as these professional values are shared in other countries of the region, then there is scope to learn from one another insofar as the degree or extent to which these are existent or non-existent. But even this still has to be taken into the context of the media landscape of each country in the region. For instance, it will be futile to compare the level of independence of media between a constitutional democracy such as Zambia or South Africa to that of an absolute monarch like Swaziland or indeed a constitutional monarch such as Lesotho.

iii) What should be done to enhance the positive contribution of the media to national stability and economic development?

What should be of paramount importance for the country is to transform the media - via progressive policy measures - so that media institutions are used more not as tools of suppression or oppression but rather as tools for enlightenment and social progress. This therefore places a burden on the government, through its legislative wing (National Assembly), to start creating a more conducive environment that empowers citizens with the means of using tools of information and communication, without hindrance or interference whatsoever. Furthermore, this means that there should be a deliberate approach on the part of the government to increase, and not restrict media activism as this could in the final analysis significantly enhance democracy and therefore make it possible for the proliferation of dissenting voices, allowing those voices that would have been otherwise silenced or marginalised to speak freely and openly.

In short, what should be strived for is the continued promotion of democratic values - via democratic debating by citizens through various media platforms so that more and more voices and ideas are allowed to become part of the overall democratic culture of the nation.

iv) The extent to which the Media Council of Zambia has promoted professionalism by enforcing journalism ethics;

This is not an easy question to answer. Perhaps the question should have been rephrased to say whether or not MECOZ is enforcing journalism ethics. Without passing an open judgment on MECOZ, what should be clearly said is that there seems to be a confusion of purpose by this body in the sense that it would appear that a punitive approach has been taken instead of a corrective approach with regards to its stated objective of promoting professionalism in the media. The purpose of media ethics councils the world-over is not to 'punish' the media or journalists but to promote media accountability and responsibility, without prejudices or preconceptions whatsoever.

v) The extent to which the Media Council of Zambia has promoted understanding between the media and the public;

With a prejudiced, biased and pre-conceived mode of operation, MECOZ has done very little to achieve an understanding between the media and the public. If anything, MECOZ has since its inception created more acrimony in the media. Yes, it is argued that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. And the media are very much alive to this fact. On the other hand, it is a danger to press freedom to create institutions/bodies whose aim is to stifle the proliferation of views simply because they are considered to be ‘offensive’ or 'obnoxious' to other segments of societies.

Apart from the fact that it lacks a clear structural-functional backbone, one of the greatest challenges facing MECOZ is that it has failed to realise the need for it to stand apart from particular or special interests so that it can independently represent the real interests of the public it purports to stand for instead of being a mouthpiece for some special interests. The current MECOZ has demonstrated a great deal of bias against certain sections of media in the country - which renders the ethics council irrelevant to the real and practical needs of professionalism in the media.

vi) The extent to which, and with how much success the Media Council of Zambia has arbitrated complaints between the public and the media;

For the reasons alluded to above, there is very little, if anything, that MECOZ has achieved since its inception.

vii) What needs to be done in order for the Media Council to carry out its mandate?

If MECOZ will have any meaning to the growth and effective functioning of the media, it needs a complete structural-functional overhaul. This means that the whole project of MECOZ must be taken back to the drawing board so that the following areas are critically reviewed:

a) Structure: This should be reviewed so that such as council is not only representative of various media, but more so that it is REFLECTIVE of the present media landscape in Zambia. The present structure of the MECOZ board is not representative and does not reflect the current landscape of Zambian media, which takes us to the next point.



b) Membership: The quality of members of the MECOZ board is the only guarantee for its independence, impartiality and effectiveness. Therefore, the composition of MECOZ membership should be reviewed so that individuals with proven media expertise, independence and integrity are taken on board. Subscription to MECOZ should also remain voluntary.

c) Clear mandate and powers: These should be clearly spelt out - but agreed by membership so that an ethics body does not construct arbitrary 'judgements' against members considered to be erring. Further, such an ethics body must adopt a more corrective rather than punitive approach. Its mandate and powers should therefore be limited only to corrective measures aimed at instilling accountability and responsibility in the media and not to stifle the fundamental freedom of expression and that of the press. This should be reflected in its decisions. Regrettably, this is not being reflected at present.

d) Accountability: Currently, MECOZ is not accountable to any other body. However independent MECOZ may claim to be, process requires it is also held accountable because it is only through this requirement that a body like MECOZ will become more impartial, independent and therefore efficient. In the absence of accountability on its part, MECOZ will continue coming up with biased and unfair decisions/rulings on its members.

viii) What should be done to ensure that all media houses and practitioners subscribe to the Media Council of Zambia?

In the first place, the question should not be about making all media houses and practitioners subscribe to MECOZ. Consistent with the structure of MECOZ, membership to this body should remain on a voluntary basis. There are various reasons why this should be so, including the fact that media institutions cannot just be lumped together as they represent a variety of value systems, some of which may not be compatible with those of other media institutions.

In any case, self-regulation can be defined at two distinct levels.

First, a regulatory framework can comprise membership of an entire media industry without the coercion or interference of government, which is supposed to be the format of MECOZ. Second, there is also a regulatory framework at the level of individual media institutions. This is done through individual media institutions' internalised systems which ensure that professional and ethical standards are adhered to in the line of duty. One example is that of the Ombudsman who acts as the mediator between a particular media institution and the public. Furthermore, the gate-keeping standards set out by individual media institutions also help to regulate media content so that it is in conformity with the minimum professional and ethic standards of journalism.

It is for this reason that calls for all media organisations to belong to MECOZ should be rendered useless. The fundamental nature of freedom of expression and that of the press underpins the argument why media institutions should retain and reserve the right of choice of freedom in terms of which professional body they should belong to, whether or not such professional bodies are specialised in matters of ethics or any other specialised interest. It should also not be forgotten that the media reflects the plurality of society which consists of a number of competing interests, values and different viewpoints which cannot be fairly assessed or judged through the 'ethics' prism of a single entity such as MECOZ.

May I at this juncture thank you for according us this opportunity to present our views. I think this is just the beginning. I hope more issues will come from the interaction.

Muteteka then asks for additional submissions from the Post delegates.

Mujuda: The Post has been involved in self-regulation for some time now and I think some of our major political parties which I would like to believe are well-represented here will attest to that fact that for instance one of the fields where we regulate ourselves is even in the type of advertising that we receive. I think you will be interested to learn that we have actually turned back some advertising which we feel is not right and where possible we have actually suggested to them to make sure that that advertising conforms to certain things not as to injure society. I think there are a lot of things that we do. For instance we make amends, we correct things even before being asked to do that. For us we feel that is the highest form of self-regulation, regulation where you are not pushed to say this is the issue. Of course there are things where you may not realise that there is a problem there and if a person comes to you that we need to correct this impression we have not defended things just for the sake of defending things. And where we have felt that yes here we made an error we have with humility corrected tried to correct that misimpression. And like Mr Malupenga has put it we strongly feel that self-regulation should just mean exactly self-regulation and no more. We feel that the media in Zambia is currently regulated. It is regulated under common law, it is regulated under the law of equity, the media is regulated under the Penal Code and through the Constitution. So the media as it stands in Zambia is highly regulated and through this committee we would implore this committee to really look at that. Instead of actually trying to squeeze up the media it is high time we enhanced the freedom of expression of our society.

Muteteka then invites questions from members of the committee.

Kapeya: Thank you very much Mr chairman. From the time when the committee started sitting last week, the committee has been informed that there are two scenarios of our media. There is a public media and we were informed that this public media is pro-government. So whether government is in the wrong, government will be supported. And then there is a private media. Again we were informed that the private media is in support of the opposition parties in Zambia, whether the opposition are doing wrong they will be defended by the private media. Now I would like to get it from you The Post newspaper. Do you think it is a normal practise in your own opinion? Would you say it's a normal situation for a young democracy like Zambia especially in relation to political stability and economic development? Is that fair in a country like ours?

Scott: I was interested in the second witness' remarks which have been backed up by PAZA and so forth that there is a lot of existing legislation which actually regulates the press in common law. In fact there is a dozen items especially if you include the code of conduct for elections and everything else. There is a lot of existing legislation. However, I am interested to know whether one can see a situation in which this because prosecution depends upon the prosecutor, that the prosecutor is deciding to initiate prosecution. If there are also the owners of government media, first of all is the rule of law being applied to these newspaper to make them more fair, more legitimate as media and added to that my own experience with The Post particularly, has been that there is a lot of non-criminal, non-legal procedures that you do apply like offering right of reply. I think whenever we have demanded it as PF we have been given to say you are talking nonsense in your editorial, we want to answer and you say go ahead. I think that's policy. I just want assurance on this that right of reply, apologies, when out of place and also comments on libel legislation because in most countries what protects most individuals from the media is the very high cost of libel awards but here we tend to get the impression that a libel case can take ten years or twenty years and end up in a few hundred pin. Do you feel anything can be stemmed from there and overall what kind of independent body is it, imaginable, that the independence can be such that it can slap the wrists of government media, as well as slap the wrists of private media in an objective and fair way? Is it possible in this country to get a neutral organisation that can help in this search for media ethics? I thank you Mr chairman.

Davies Mwila: Just a follow-up on that. Honourable Mwansa Kapeya talked about the biased reporting especially referred to Times of Zambia, Zambia Daily Mail and ZNBC and I will give an example of the headline which came out in the Times of Zambia that ‘Siliya cleared’. But if you go down she was not cleared. If you read The Post she was not cleared. What is your comment on that?

Malupenga: I think that is the correct scenario as we see it and referring to Hon Mwansa Kapeya's statement that we have two types of media in the country, private and public. The role of the public is to defend the government and the role of the private is to defend and promote the opposition. That is not how we see it. As far as we are concerned, there is only one type of journalism that has to be practised whether you are coming from the private sector or public sector. In our view the only difference is ownership, that is all. In short what we are saying is that whether one is operating from the private sector in this case private media or public media, there is only one set of rules that has to be adhered to professionally. And so there is nothing like because I am from the ZNBC, I am from Times of Zambia, I am from Daily Mail I am going to say Siliya has been cleared even when she has not been cleared. I think the guiding factor is the truth. We are all expected to say the truth and if that truth is in favour of the opposition so be it and again if that truth is in favour of the government it shall be so. If the government is on the positive side, that has to be reflected whether you are reading The Post or any of the government newspapers but of course we lapses time and again and probably because of the way we have operated we cannot blame those who are making conclusions. But speaking for The Post we have tried at all cost to balance where, in fact not even balancing, we can safely say we give all sides of the story whether it is positive or negative. We give as it is to the public to judge. Of course we also reserve our right to judge to comment on that and you see editorial comments on that particular issue. But you see people mixing the editorial comment, which is an opinion of the newspaper, with the actual coverage of the event. You will find that both parties are adequately covered at the end of the day there is an editorial comment which editorial comment might be strong or against because the fact that you have said you have not stolen we will say that that is what you have said. We are obliged to report it that way but if we think that you have stolen we also have the right to express our view in the editorial opinion and say that even if this person has said he has not stolen what we know is that he has stolen. And I think that is where sometimes we mix things. The guiding factor really there should be no journalism practised by the public media and journalism practised by the private media. We are al practising the same journalism with the same rules. Last year when Honourable Mulongoti was still minister of information and chief government spokesperson he said it is not the duty of the government to criticise government, that is the duty of The Post and he is on record. And therefore we can easily trace where the confusion is coming from. That is what I can say... The kind of headlines can come up. You may recall that during the tribunal sittings there were a number of, well at least two or three applications, from lawyers from both sides raising issues with the media and in one ruling the tribunal chairman judge Chirwa had stated that they had observed that each media house seemed to have an interest to protect or an agenda that they were trying to push. And therefore, from the headline we can clearly see what the interests were. If they are saying that she has been cleared, if that is case, we can clearly conclude their interest going by the statement from the tribunal chairman. So it is a question of what agenda this media institution is pushing and of course the headlines will speak for themselves, they will tell us what agenda each one of us is pushing.

Mujuda: May I just want to make a...

Muteteka: I just want to say that let's not comment on people who are not present to defend themselves and also let's not comment on matters in court. You can comment.

Mujuda: It is very unfortunate for first of all for such a scenario to arise where if you look at the Daily Mail and Times of Zambia and maybe the other public media or is it government owed media, one question one would ask is that does it mean or maybe I would just go to the 18 years that The Post has been practicing journalism. Does it mean not a single thing, the government has never made a single thing that calls for criticism from the media or to say this was wrong? This thing should have been done if you just look from the letters, from the opinions. I think that is one of the things that we really should look at. I think on our part we don't claim to be without fault, we make mistakes and where we have made mistakes we have tried, we have not hesitated to correct such things. I think the position, the best answer you would get like from the problem that the government media is experiencing and I think it came from a very honest presentation by one of my colleagues from Daily Mail I think, is it last week, Mr Morgan Chonya. I thought that was a very honest response from Mr Chonya and I think the issue here is that these two media organisations are not allowed to play a professional game. Otherwise these are well-qualified journalists, very respectable in their own rights but I think it is because they are not allowed to play a professional game. Honourable Scott mentioned on the guarantee on the right to reply. I think that is guaranteed in The Post. If anything we will try to strengthen that and make sure that when the public raises questions we will give it priority to make sure that while the rod is still hot we respond to that and give them the necessary opportunity to clarify the issues that have been raised.

On the issues of libel it is a pity that cases of libel take quite long and I think there is indeed need to make sure that people who are injured by the media they get fair treatment and I think you will realise that these cases end up getting caught up with our judicial system which one would say is quite slow and I think our courts are really congested and it is only our hope that our legal system would move fast so that cases like libel cases are disposed of quickly to make sure that people who are injured are attoned and compensated adequately so that at least the injury is minimised. And on our part we have been defamed by some media and like Mr Malupenga has put it and we have sued and certain cases which are in court, some years running, it is painful for the public and I think there is need and again to you the legislators the best answer could lie in your hands to make sure that we find ways of quickening up our judicial process so that cases of libel move quite fast. And we may not even need to cry over issues of self-regulation because most of the things that are being pushed for, are there are provisions in our laws but I think the problem is probably because a libel case will take so long. The case of the headline as Mr Malupenga has put it, what we have tried at The Post is to make sure that people are not left in doubt at a great cost. We have made sure that we carry come of the proceedings which we feel are quite important verbatim so that at the end of the day the readers, the public are able to judge on their own. We try by all means to take the readers, if it's in court, we take them in court and they read the proceedings and they read for themselves and I think although like in the previous tribunal case, it may have taken us long to publish some of the verbatim. But at the end of the day people were able to read on their own and see that this is what actually transpired. So we try by all means to make sure that even where on one day people have different headlines, at the end of the day people had a better understanding of what happened and it is probably the reason why certain people attach certain respect to certain media because at the end of the day they judge for themselves. The Zambian readers are really intelligent and able to make very good decisions.

Muteteka: I just want to ... that's my observation let's try to stick to the points so that we have a summarized type of a discussion unlike going round, round and round and round and then come back to the same issue. Now I also want to find out from you. Yes, I know that The Post has been quite influential in the bigger industry. Now, my observation is that you have done very little if any in bringing out the positives of what the government is doing. You have concentrated almost on the negatives. Yes, I agree with checks and balances approach I appreciate yes, sometimes you help the society to understand but you have brought out very little of what the government is doing in terms of development. Now, professionally, ethically, today you have seen your own employees are being clobbered by cadres because that's the way they perceive the approach you have taken against the government. Now, when you talk about national stability in terms of economic development, you are adding very little in terms of stabilising the country. You are perceived to be on the other side and as I’m speaking now you have very little peace with the government and that is why the cadres are beating your journalists. Why don't you support the government? Why don't you promote stability in the industry? For you information, even our own government media admires the way you handles your affairs. Why don't you partner in terms of development? Because we are talking about stabilizing the economy of this country and you are part of this. Why is it that you have taken that route?

Mwila: I think chair even last week we had talked about this issue, the chairman of MMD issued a statement that the party will continue harassing or beating the reporters from The Post and here we are talking about political stability and unity in the nation and no leader has come out to say that that “we cannot accept”. You have come here to help this committee, what is your comment? Then the second issue you talked about MECOZ that there is a confusion. Assuming that MECOZ is put in order, is it possible for you to join MECOZ? Then the other issue the last one, that is the Freedom of Information Bill, the IBA, ZNBC Act, for years these legislations have not been put in place. What is your comment or advice to this committee as I said you have to help this committee?

Beene: Thank you very much Mr chairman, Mr chairman what is arising from the witness is that they are not with the view that they should be regulated, they want self-regulation. First of all, the people who pass laws, the legislators of parliament are elected by the people and coming out from the submissions of a number of people who have come here for example, on the TV licenses we heard that government is not clear, it does not even have a policy and things like that. We heard from the radio stations, others want to have maybe cover the all country. Maybe Christian radio...things are in disarray government itself, we hear that there is no proper policy to guide the media houses. It has come out here that MECOZ it seems also it’s not in order. Now, in this country we have for example the Law Association of Zambia they have got a statutory body which tends to put them in order if lawyers have misbehaved they can be brought...what is this fear which is there which the media has, I want to hear it from you. There are others who where submitting that they can pass a law and then you start changing it like in Zimbabwe. We would like to hear it from you Mr Malupenga and your team what fear you have from our Members of Parliament or with the politician? Can we hear from that I thank you chair.

Malupenga: In the first place the chairman rightly observed that we are not at peace with the government and that's why we are being beaten because we are just concentrating on exposing the negative things we are not talking about the positive things. And this question was raised in the context of promoting political stability in the country. I think the simple answer is that if promoting political stability in the country means that sweeping dirty under the carpet, The Post will not be part of that process and I think basically that is why we are in trouble. It is nothing wrong that we have done. Our journalists are being sought after by the MMD cadres not because they have done something wrong but because they have brought the dirty which should have been ignored. They have brought it out that, that is the only reason. Now, assuming there are so many positive developments, which the government is doing, and we are turning a blind eye: we challenge the MMD cadres including the chairman those who think that there are a lot of positive developments which we are ignoring, they should come to us and say yes, you can talk about these negative things that you are writing but there is also this why are you not doing this. As it is we have not seen that if we saw it like I said we go for the truth, if the truth is in favour of the government we will not be shy to tell the truth and again the same principle will apply. Unfortunately, most of the time what is against the government seems to be in the majority and so we are seen to be concentrating on the negative side. But these negatives events we are exposing we are not creating them. The same people in government are the ones who are getting involved in these dubious deals that we are exposing. So the quickest way for those in government to address these issues in the interest of national political stability is to ensure that they put their house in order the same way Mr Chewe the MMD youth chairman is asking us to put our house in order. We can say our house is in order in the sense that we have not done anything wrong. The wrong thing in their view is to bring out these issues, which are seen to be negative. Assuming there are so many positive developments talking place and we have not seen them I will ask the chairman to lead the way in directing us into those areas where there are so many positive developments. I can assure you that tomorrow you will see it on page one of The Post.

Guy Scott chips in suggesting that the chairman can be given a column in The Post.

Malupenga: MECOZ if all the issues that are complained about are addressed, will The Post join? I think what should be understood from the outset is that membership of MECOZ to MECOZ is voluntary. Even assuming that MECOZ's house is in order it should not be expected that every one including The Post should belong to MECOZ only if they so desire can they belong to MECOZ. And I think this is where a lot of people are getting it wrong. If people want all the media institutions to belong to MECOZ then let's change the constitution from the word go. The constitution of MECOZ, which I have here, is very clear. They are saying we here by establish a non-statutory, voluntary self-regulatory media council to adjudicate complaints as set forth in this constitution. So if membership to MECOZ is voluntary why then should there be insistence that everyone including The Post should belong to MECOZ? I think that is starting point. That is not to say there is no need for MECOZ to put its house in order. Yes, if that where the case we would be inspired and motivated to be part of MECOZ but that is not to say its automatic whenever that happens then automatically The Post will become MECOZ members no. There is need for MECOZ to put its house in order even then the underlining factor is that membership to MECOZ is voluntary and there is a perception, the other day I was watching a programme on MUVI-TV where they were saying that The Post always wants to stand alone they don't want to...that is not correct. The Post when it was established it was part of PAZA but things started to happen which clearly showed that our continued membership in PAZA was not in our interest and that is how MISA, now its MISA but it was started as ZIMA and that is how ZIMA was born. And The Post can say it was a pioneer of that creation and when things started happening ZIMA got more established we were still part of it. We were again forced out of ZIMA and that is again now the Press Freedom Committee of The Post was born it was after we ceased to be members of ZIMA. And again not as a result of our own will but the same people who are complaining that we want to stand alone are the same people who forced us out and so we left to leave the organisation for them to run and enjoy everything that goes with that. We came on our own formed the Press Freedom Committee of The Post, which operates almost on the same lines as the same institutions. So it's not correct to say all these things. Therefore, we are coming to the point raised by Honourable Beene that we seem to be fearing statutory regulation if the lawyers can be regulated why can't we. I think we are missing the point, there is no fear, it is the matter of principle and we have stated it before if those who strongly feel that the media should be regulated by law they can go ahead. But that will be challenged but I think those of you who have followed the trend of these press council or media council you would see that there is one underlining fact. I deliberately brought this book, I didn't want that to come from my mouth it would be seen to be...this is a book in media studies on page 172 of this book. The issue of self-regulation is being discussed, self-regulation and the press they are discussing the press complaints commission, this is an equivalent of MECOZ in the UK. Quote: "The press complaints commission was set up in 1991 to replace the press council which was introduced in 1951 as a means of curbing the power of press barons like Lord Beaverbrook. The press complaints commission like its predecessor is a self-regulatory organisation. In other words it has been set up by the newspaper industry itself and has no legal powers. It has a code of conduct that newspaper owners editors and reporters adhere to. This is the principle of the press councils all over the world so why should we insist that in the Zambian context the media should under go statutory regulation? So it is not the question of fear. If you look at the MECOZ constitution although I hear now it is under review and the document I circulated from The Post you will not see anything different it is basically the same. But when you have this council, press council you are merely trying to agree collectively as media practitioners to say can we agree to adhere to this code collectively. But again in this case like we are saying the Zambian case it is voluntary...membership is voluntary. They have said it MECOZ themselves have said it in their constitution. So why can't that be respected? So its not a question of fear, we have nothing to fear because we can only fear if we know that we are practicing bad journalism or journalism of telling lies without following the standards that I earlier alluded to earlier on of objectivity and so on. But I think you want to be informed that The Post as it is right now I think it is the biggest newspaper in the country. And if indeed The Post has not been operating professionally how then as it attracted such a huge huge following that is saying something about our operations. Although, Sister Nyondo from MECOZ would not want to admit that fact.

Mujuda: Maybe just a quick one. On issues of development I just want to point out that The Post has gone to great lengths again. For instance, we run publications like the Farmers Post, which devotes space to make sure that, even the remotest farmer is heard. We run the Education Post, we run the Business Post and these publications come on different days within The Post. Just to make sure that we give people enough space. We even have our editorial comments on theses various subjects and I think our contribution is immense. On the issue of MECOZ, I think what should be happening and I think with due respect to Honourable Beene I think he has been in the trade union some time back I think one of the things to entice a person to a grouping is the glamour, the integrity that goes with it. For instance, if MECOZ will be a short cut to say if we align ourselves with MECOZ it will be less costly for us, instead of a person suing us we will go to MECOZ and we will have a fair judgment, we will have a fair hearing. I think more and more publications will go to MECOZ if as long as it is operated with glamour with integrity. And I think that should be a core thing in Mr Malupenga's point he alluded to in his presentation. I think these are some of the things that will go towards strengthening MECOZ and in making sure that more and more media organizations...even where it is voluntary I can bet you that you will see a lot of media organizations rushing there because it will be cheaper, cost effective they will not have to go to court paying legal costs, these are some of the things that could be...because at the end of the day MECOZ may try to come in between and try to adjudicate. On the issue of LAZ, there was an example of LAZ and maybe journalists, I for one for instance I am a member of LAZ and I think there is need to make a distinction between the journalism profession as well as the profession like the medical profession or LAZ. And I think Professor Fackson Banda makes very interesting observations in one of the articles that I read where he points out that the media profession unlike other professions like LAZ, which will rely on confidentiality of information of its clients, the medical profession which will rely on confidentiality when it deals with its clients. The media profession to thrive it depends on openness of course there is one part where we say we will protect our sources but I think these are some of the things that we really need to look at in terms of the differences from these associations.

Malupenga: Mr. chair with you indulgence I forgot to mention one point on regulation. I think what should be understood is that this regulation we are talking about we are saying MECOZ as they are proposing to license the journalists to practice it means that Dr Scott here who is a columnist in The Post can not write that column in The Post. This is where our issue is because we are saying that journalism is about press freedom, is about freedom of expression and freedom of expression does not only say that we should say only the things that Honourable Muteteka wants to hear. Freedom of expression means that you express yourself as you feel so as long as you don't injure or defame the other people that you are talking about. And freedom of expression means also a lot of things including expressing an opinion. Now, there are so many things that Dr Scott raises in his column and he has got his won following and he is making contribution to nation development now can he be stopped from sharing those views he has with the public, simply because he has not trained as a journalist? And these are the issues, when you regulate even people writing letters to the editor it will become difficult. You should be cleared for your name to appear in the newspaper because when your name appears in the newspaper it means you are practicing journalism. Dr Scott here practices journalism every Tuesday in the Business Post. Now with the law you are talking about it means that all those professionals engineers, doctors and other professionals will not contribute they will have to be cleared before they can contribute and that is where the problem is. So why should we regulate the way someone is thinking? It means now we will have a nation that will be thinking in one direction, in this case going by the example the chair gave it is expected that The Post is supposed to be reporting in a certain direction if it is not then it will not be given the license to practice. The same way the MMD are dealing with The Post journalists, if we are talking of regulation at that stage they will just say we are not going to give you the license to practice and that's it. Is that the nation will not be shy to tell the truth and again the same principle will apply. Unfortunately, most of the time what is against the government seems to be in the majority and so we are seen to be concentrating on the negative side. But these negative events we are exposing, we are not creating them. The same people in government are the ones who are getting involved in these dubious deals that we are exposing. So the quickest way for those in government to address these issues in the interest of national political stability is to ensure that they put their house in order the same way Mr Chewe the MMD youth chairman is asking us to put our house in order. We can say our house is in order in the sense that we have not done anything wrong. The wrong thing in their view is to bring out these issues, which are seen to be negative. Assuming there are so many positive developments taking place and we have not seen them, I will ask the chairman to lead the way in directing us into those areas where there are so many positive developments. I can assure you that tomorrow you will see it on page one of The Post.

Guy Scott chips in, suggesting that the chairman can be given a column in The Post.

Malupenga: MECOZ if all the issues that are complained about are addressed, will The Post join? I think what should be understood from the outset is that membership to MECOZ is voluntary. Even assuming that MECOZ's house is in order it should not be expected that everyone including The Post should belong to MECOZ; only if they so desire can they belong to MECOZ. And I think this is where a lot of people are getting it wrong. If people want all the media institutions to belong to MECOZ, then let's change the constitution from the word go. The constitution of MECOZ, which I have here, is very clear. They are saying ‘we hereby establish a non-statutory, voluntary self-regulatory media council to adjudicate complaints as set forth in this constitution. So if membership to MECOZ is voluntary, why then should there be insistence that everyone including The Post should belong to MECOZ? I think that is the starting point. That is not to say there is no need for MECOZ to put its house in order. Yes, if that were the case we would be inspired and motivated to be part of MECOZ but that is not to say it’s automatic whenever that happens then automatically The Post will become MECOZ members no. There is need for MECOZ to put its house in order. Even then the underlining factor is that membership to MECOZ is voluntary and there is a perception; the other day I was watching a programme on MUVI-TV where they were saying that The Post always wants to stand alone they don't want to...that is not correct. The Post when it was established it was part of PAZA but things started to happen which clearly showed that our continued membership in PAZA was not in our interest and that is how MISA, now its MISA but it was started as ZIMA and that is how ZIMA was born. And The Post can say it was a pioneer of that creation and when things started happening, ZIMA got more established we were still part of it. We were again forced out of ZIMA and that is again now the Press Freedom Committee of The Post was born. It was after we ceased to be members of ZIMA. And again not as a result of our own will but the same people who are complaining that we want to stand alone are the same people who forced us out and so we left to leave the organisation for them to run and enjoy everything that goes with that. We came on our own ,formed the Press Freedom Committee of The Post, which operates almost on the same lines as the same institutions. So it's not correct to say all these things. Therefore, we are coming to the point raised by Honourable Beene that we seem to be fearing statutory regulation if the lawyers can be regulated why can't we? I think we are missing the point, there is no fear. It is a matter of principle, and we have stated it before, those who strongly feel that the media should be regulated by law, they can go ahead. But that will be challenged, but I think those of you who have followed the trend of these press council or media council you would see that there is one underlining fact. I deliberately brought this book, I didn't want that to come from my mouth it would be seen to be...this is a book in media studies on page 172 of this book. The issue of self-regulation is being discussed, self-regulation and the press they are discussing the press complaints commission, this is an equivalent of MECOZ in the UK. Quote: "The press complaints commission was set up in 1991 to replace the press council which was introduced in 1951 as a means of curbing the power of press barons like Lord Beaverbrook. The press complaints commission like its predecessor is a self-regulatory organisation. In other words it has been set up by the newspaper industry itself and has no legal powers. It has a code of conduct that newspaper owners, editors and reporters adhere to. This is the principle of the press councils all over the world, so why should we insist that in the Zambian context the media should undergo statutory regulation? So it is not the question of fear. If you look at the MECOZ constitution although I hear now it is under review and the document I circulated from The Post you will not see anything different it is basically the same. But when you have this council, press council you are merely trying to agree collectively as media practitioners to say ‘can we agree to adhere to this code collectively?’ But again in this case like we are saying the Zambian case it is voluntary...membership is voluntary. They have said it; MECOZ themselves have said it in their constitution. So why can't that be respected? So it’s not a question of fear, we have nothing to fear because we can only fear if we know that we are practicing bad journalism or journalism of telling lies without following the standards that I earlier alluded to on of objectivity and so on. But I think you want to be informed that The Post as it is right now I think it is the biggest newspaper in the country. And if indeed The Post has not been operating professionally how then has it attracted such a huge huge following. That is saying something about our operations. Although, Sister Nyondo from MECOZ would not want to admit that fact.

Mujuda: Maybe just a quick one. On issues of development, I just want to point out that The Post has gone to great lengths again. For instance, we run publications like the Farmers Post, which devotes space to make sure that, even the remotest farmer is heard. We run the Education Post, we run the Business Post and these publications come on different days within The Post, just to make sure that we give people enough space. We even have our editorial comments on these various subjects and I think our contribution is immense. On the issue of MECOZ, I think what should be happening and I think with due respect to Honourable Beene I think he has been in the trade union sometime back I think one of the things to entice a person to a grouping is the glamour, the integrity that goes with it. For instance, if MECOZ will be a short cut to say if we align ourselves with MECOZ it will be less costly for us, instead of a person suing us we will go to MECOZ and we will have a fair judgment, we will have a fair hearing. I think more and more publications will go to MECOZ as long as it is operated with glamour with integrity. And I think that should be a core thing in Mr Malupenga's point he alluded to in his presentation. I think these are some of the things that will go towards strengthening MECOZ and in making sure that more and more media organisations...even where it is voluntary I can bet you that you will see a lot of media organisations rushing there because it will be cheaper, cost-effective they will not have to go to court paying legal costs, these are some of the things that could be...because at the end of the day MECOZ may try to come in between and try to adjudicate. On the issue of LAZ, there was an example of LAZ and maybe journalists, I for one for instance I am a member of LAZ and I think there is need to make a distinction between the journalism profession as well as the profession like the medical profession or LAZ. And I think Professor Fackson Banda makes very interesting observations in one of the articles that I read where he points out that the media profession unlike other professions like LAZ, which will rely on confidentiality of information of its clients, the medical profession which will rely on confidentiality when it deals with its clients. The media profession, to thrive it depends on openness. Of course there is one part where we say we will protect our sources but I think these are some of the things that we really need to look at in terms of the differences from these associations.

Malupenga: Mr Chair with you indulgence, I forgot to mention one point on regulation. I think what should be understood is that this regulation we are talking about we are saying MECOZ as they are proposing to license the journalists to practice, it means that Dr Scott here who is a columnist in The Post cannot write that column in The Post. This is where our issue is because we are saying that journalism is about press freedom, is about freedom of expression and freedom of expression does not only say that we should say only the things that Honourable Muteteka wants to hear. Freedom of expression means that you express yourself as you feel so as long as you don't injure or defame the other people that you are talking about. And freedom of expression means also a lot of things including expressing an opinion. Now, there are so many things that Dr Scott raises in his column and he has got his won following and he is making contribution to nation development now can he be stopped from sharing those views he has with the public, simply because he has not trained as a journalist? And these are the issues, when you regulate even people writing letters to the editor it will become difficult. You should be cleared for your name to appear in the newspaper because when your name appears in the newspaper it means you are practicing journalism. Dr Scott here practices journalism every Tuesday in the Business Post. Now with the law you are talking about it means that all those professionals engineers, doctors and other professionals will not contribute they will have to be cleared before they can contribute and that is where the problem is. So why should we regulate the way someone is thinking? It means now we will have a nation that will be thinking in one direction, in this case going by the example the Chair gave it is expected that The Post is supposed to be reporting in a certain direction, if it is not then it will not be given the license to practice. The same way the MMD are dealing with The Post journalists, if we are talking of regulation at that stage they will just say we are not going to give you the license to practice and that's it. Is that the national development or stability we are talking about? And so it should be understood from that context that this is about fundamental human rights, the right for one to express themselves and this is not just a right for the journalist, it is also the right for the citizens in general. Am glad that Dr Scott is part of this committee he will be making the decision to stop the column in The Post at least he will blame himself.

Kabwela: Maybe just a comment on the issue that was raised on the IBA and ZNBC Act which haven't yet been operationalised from the time the case was disposed of in court and I think that is over two years ago. I think on that issue, it is a pity that those important pieces of legislation have continued to gather dust. I think if those acts had been operationalised, we could have made a lot of progress especially in the public media. But I’m glad to say that at last there will be some movement from the indications that we are getting on the part of government because even right now the licensing of radio stations has been suspended at the Ministry of Information. I think Honourable Shikapwasha is on record to say... he will be taking the Freedom of Information Bill to Parliament. Yes, we have taken what he has said but of course we are very, very cautious because we have been told that before and there has been no movement but we just hope that these pieces of legislation will be taken back. So that at least we can see a bit of progress in that area because they will really improve the...even some of the issues that we are talking about here, really, if these acts had been operationalised we shouldn't have been talking about some of the problems that are being raised right now. And then probably maybe just on the issue of self-regulation; I know my colleagues have already talked on that but I thought that maybe I should just emphasize really that I think as we talk about regulation we shouldn't really see it so much as regulating the media. I think it's regulating the public because at the end of the day when journalists go out there and gather information it's not for us, we don't keep it that information is for the public. So if we are not free in the way we are operating, it will mean the people out there will not be able to receive adequate information which they can use to make informed decisions. Talking about a democracy where people are supposed to be informed, where you are supposed to keep the government accountable, it becomes very, very difficult if you don't have proper access to information and it will be very impossible to grow with our democracy without a free press. And in terms of regulating the media the way say LAZ as a professional body...I think there is a problem there because the journalism profession hinges so much on freedom of expression, which is a constitutional right. So it becomes very difficult to approach it in the same way and I think as we talk about issues of media regulation I think we should be able to look at other countries in Africa where it has been tried and it hasn't worked well. Look at what is happening in Zimbabwe where they have the Media and Information Commission, which is an equivalent of MECOZ. The media there is as good as dead because it's just impossible to do anything under the current system that they have. You have pieces of legislation such as the Public Order and Act (POSA), AIPPA, which has made the practice of journalism in the country very, very difficult. You will find that the architects of those pieces of legislations...the former information minister in that country Professor Jonathan Moyo he was at the helm of the ministry of information when those pieces of legislation were being enacted but now that he is out of government he is no longer in government he is an independent member of parliament, he is affected by those pieces of legislation which he had put in place. And that is why we have always said that when we come up with legislation may it be for the good of the people such that whether you are on the left side or right side it will be favourable, as opposed to it being targeted to a particular institution or organisation. So for us really as The Post it's not a question of fearing to be regulated. We always regulate ourselves on a daily basis but what we are saying is can we have an enabling legal environment to ensure that journalists are able to practice. We have things like criminal libel, the secret Act, I think those are pieces of legislation that have continued to hinder the way we practice our journalism. Instead of looking at ways of gagging the media, can we find way of making environment more favourable and freer for journalists to carry out their operations of course bearing in mind that we have to be responsible in what we are doing.

Silavwe: Chair, thank you although I have been disadvantaged because when you speak at last you find that everything has been taken. I want to state that we have had a number of witnesses who have come to testify. It is very true that we have problems with... [He raises issues with The Post insisting on self-regulations. He clarifies that what people are calling for is regulation of the media as an industry as opposed to regulation by the individual organisations. Silavwe says if the media does not regulate itself as an industry then the government will move and do so on its behalf. He also raises concerns on the prominence attached to apologies or retractions in the newspaper compared to news stories].

Malupenga: ...By you insisting that all of us should fall under MECOZ otherwise government will move in and regulate, you are saying that membership has now become mandatory which is against the spirit of this same constitution of MECZO. And so first things first. Why are we not addressing, if you have an opportunity to interact with people from MECOZ, ask us if they have engaged us to persuade us or to convince us to be part of them. We have raised issues with MECOZ almost all the time in our editorial comments, when we have opportunities to interact like this. We have not hidden our feelings, we have explained why we think we cannot belong to MECOZ and the reasons are there and so if MECOZ feels or thinks that our reasons for not belonging to their body are without merit, they should have engaged us and say we have this problem or you claimed to have this issue but look at the reality. But because of their position they even have difficulty to confront us. I remember we only had one visitation when judge Kabazo Chanda was chairman. He came to the office and tried to engage us in some discussion. Now we have not refused to belong to MECOZ. It has to be understood clearly. We have chosen not to belong because when membership is voluntary. It is not a matter of refusing. It is a matter of choice. It is not first time this issue has been raised and lot of people have talked about why we use words like ‘liar’, ‘thieves’, ‘jackal’, ‘hyena’ and stuff like that. We believe that things have to be called by their names. And journalism is about saying the truth and if the truth is not desirable as in most cases, that is the only problem we have. If someone has lied and we say ‘this a shameless liar’, you are saying 'oh you are using strong language' they are not looking at the other side. Has this person told a lie or not? I think that is what has to be addressed. If it is established at the end of the day that this person who is being described as a liar has actually told a lie we have no problems. But if we are going to say that ‘this person is a pathological liar’, ‘is a shameless liar’, yet this person not had told a lie, there is a big problem there and the same way where someone has told the truth, he is very honest, we should not be criminalised for describing someone, that person has a high integrity. Why is it that when we describe such a person there is no problem? And we have said it because that is what it is. But when they do something to the contrary it will be said that way. Basically that is where the issue is. Of course there are sometimes, like I said, in most cases those words you meet them in the editorial comment and like I said earlier editorial comment is just basically an opinion of the newspaper. But of course that opinion is not from nowhere, it is an opinion based on facts. So again if we are challenged we can prove that. The short answer really is that sometimes the language might be seen to be undesirable, might be seen to be harsh but if that is what it is for us we will say it and of course it will attract a lot reactions and maybe we will be sought after and things like that. So we are mindful that we need to moderate in our language but again I stand to be corrected maybe by the chair. As an example, if we come across someone who has told stolen and maybe there are even perpetual thieves, how do we describe those people? Sometimes people tell lies even on the floor of the House in Parliament. The honourable members there don't take issues to follow up on those lies and say this is against our procedures and rules. But we take it upon ourselves and we can give examples if need be to expose that. But when we do the same people start complaining. No these people have got an agenda against me. Or I have refused to do, this and that for them and that is why they are attacking me but those who are complaining are not going to address, what is that this person did to earn himself or herself this kind of