Zambia: Freedom of Expression

LUSAKA, 14 September (IRIN) - The start of criminal proceedings against two
Zambian journalists and two political figures on charges of defaming
President Frederick Chiluba has triggered off a heated debate on the role of
the media in societies undergoing transition.

Both local and international media watchers agree that the media has an
advocacy role to play in the world's emerging democracies, but are divided
as to the lengths to which it can go in correcting what it perceives as
societal wrongs.

Journalists Fred M'membe and Bivan Saluseki of 'The Post', a privately-owned
daily, and two leaders of the opposition Forum for Democracy and Development
(FDD) could each face up to three-years imprisonment for calling Chiluba a
thief. The charges against them stem from reports in the newspaper quoting
the FDD leaders, Edith Nawakwi and Dipak Patel, as accusing the president of
misappropriating US $4 million the government had earmarked for emergency
food imports several years ago.

A court hearing was on Friday deferred to 15 October.

Both M'membe and the two politicians have defiantly repeated the purported
defamation several times since they were charged last month, and have
convinced over 2,000 people in the capital, Lusaka, to sign a petition that
echoes the allegation. Among those who have put their names to the list are
opposition leaders Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika, Dean Mun'gomba, and
Emily Sikazwe, the head of the umbrella Non-Governmental Organisations
Co-ordinating Committee.

M'membe, the managing editor of 'The Post', told IRIN on Friday that the
newspaper's actions were intended to demonstrate society's rejection of the
law of criminal libel, which he claimed was intended to help the head of
state cover up his alleged excesses.

"Our view is that journalism exists to improve the lives of the people, and
anything that restricts the lives of the people must be opposed," M'membe
said. "If a law is suppressive, we will fight it, and that is what we are
doing."

This is not the first time that 'The Post' had deliberately challenged a law
by breaking it. Eight years ago, the newspaper scored a landmark legal
victory when it convinced the Supreme Court to scrap the Public Order Act, a
dreaded law inherited from the colonial era which allowed the police to stop
public meetings and demonstrations.

However, the Chiluba government reintroduced the law, which is widely seen
as being intended to stifle opposition activity, through a new act of
parliament soon after the court nullified it. The law has been used several
times over the past two years to ban or disrupt opposition rallies.

Some media watchers support 'The Post's efforts to expand the freedoms of
expression and association. However, some fear that the newspaper sometimes
goes too far in advocating for what is sees as worthwhile causes.

"The media everywhere can and does take positions on political and social
issues. In fact, the media has a responsibility to stand up and oppose
unjust laws," Peter Prichard, the president of the US-based Freedom
Foundation told IRIN. Prichard, in Zambia to attend a conference on media
rights, however, conceded that the media in emerging democracies sometimes
transcended universally accepted professional norms to push its agenda.

"We are not in favour of deliberate defamation to put across a point. It is
possible for the media to oppose unjust laws without breaking the law - by
editorialising their concerns, for example, or by lobbying parliamentarians
to effect legislative reforms," Prichard said.

Not all observers think that Zambia's private media goes beyond acceptable
norms in pushing for societal change, however. Some are of the view that old
journalistic norms which demanded objectivity of journalists are out of
place in today's world.

"There is a new kind of journalism in the world, civic journalism, which
believes that journalists, as part of civil society, have a crucial role to
play in advocating for good social change," said Fackson Banda, director of
the developmental NGO, the Panos Institute of Southern Africa. "If
journalists, or any other members of civil society are faced with
suppressive laws, the right thing to do is to break them," he added.

Some media watchers, on the other hand, fear that, by insisting on the right
to shape society, the media may be in danger of losing its primary role as
an untainted mirror of society. "You can not be a journalist and an advocate
at the same time, just as you can not be both the judge and the accused in
the courtroom," a government journalist said.

[ENDS]