HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 216433,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/216433/?format=api",
"text_counter": 245,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs",
"speaker": {
"id": 166,
"legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
"slug": "martha-karua"
},
"content": " Thank you, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of this very important Bill. It is to be remembered that this is a culmination of a long journey, searching for a statutory framework within which the Press can self-regulate. I recall that in 1990, which is almost 18 years ago, the Press itself, working with other Non- Governmental organisations (NGOs), had come up with a Media Bill, 1990. That Media Bill, which never saw the light of the day, was substantially the same as this Bill before the House. I am, therefore, at a loss as to what the Press has been complaining about, by claiming that the introduction of this Bill is intended to muzzle them. Can the Press be honest and tell us what they intended when they, themselves, came up with the Media Bill, 1990? Was it not the same thing that the Government is proposing today, that there be self-regulation within a statutory framework? Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have several professional societies, a majority of whom, I would say, regulate themselves but within a statutory framework. The very notable ones are the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which has a disciplinary committee, pursuant to the Law Society of Kenya Act. We have the Architects Board of Kenya, the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board, the Certified Public Accountants of Kenya and many other professional societies, all of which regulate themselves but within a statutory framework. Journalists are being called upon to regulate themselves, but within a statutory framework. It is not correct to claim that the Media Council of Kenya (MCK), as currently constituted, can be a mechanism for self-regulation of the Press. The MCK, working with the Press, were the ones responsible for the Bill that was drafted in 1990, the Media Bill, 1990, and the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya. One would have expected that if it is possible to have self-regulation outside a statutory framework, and since this code has been existent since the early 1990s, the Press would have been able to streamline their operations with this code of conduct. However, the truth of the matter is that even after the setting up of the MCK, it has remained a toothless bulldog. Even when you write complaints to it - I have personally written several letters to the MCK - they are not even courteous enough to respond to correspondence. Then, how can we compel them to adhere to their own code? We need a law that compels them to act! 2198 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 3, 2007 Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if there was a statutory framework, some of us would have gone to court for the writ of mandamus to compel the MCK to act. One cannot do that in the absence of the law. It is not only all complaints that need to be taken to court. However, there are some complaints that the MCK can solve. That can only happen if there is a statutory framework. I am, therefore, saying that we need this Media Bill like yesterday. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have heard envoys accredited to our country commenting on this law. What they fail to tell us is that all progressive countries of the world regulate, or have self-regulation of their media, pursuant to statute. I want to cite the United States of America (USA), where we recall that recently a journalist was jailed for failing to disclose the sources of her information. That means that in that country, there is not only self-regulation but also regulation by statute. I am not proposing that we adopt that very harsh legislation. However, let us, at least, have a law by which we can compel the media to abide by their own set standards of ethics. You will recall that in Great Britain, a year or two ago, when the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported on a manner not favourable to their country about Iraq, the BBC chief was forced to resign. True enough, the Board is independent, but the complainant was the Government. The course of action was the BBC chief being forced to relinquish his position. There is regulation of the media by statute in that country. I need not give a list of countries where the media is regulated, but in East Africa I can cite Tanzania and Uganda. In the Scandinavia, I know of several countries also. I am saying, let us approach the debate with honesty. Let us not pretend that by the Kenyan Parliament, or the Government tabling this Bill, it is an attempt to muzzle the media. On the contrary, it is a very spirited effort to improve the standards of our media. There must be freedom of the Press, but there must also be responsibility by those in the media. Freedom and responsibility go together. There is no absolute freedom! Where my freedom starts is where the beacons of your freedom are planted, and that is where it ends. That is why in our statutes books, we have laws even today, through which we can take the media to court. I must, upfront, say that I use those laws, as a complainant, because I am entitled to safeguard my rights. So, we must have a statutory framework that helps us to establish the boundaries of each others' freedoms. We uphold the freedom of the media, but so do we also uphold the rights of individuals. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am looking at the Third Schedule, which is attached to this Bill and it reproduces the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism. This, as I have said, is a code purely authored by the MCK. When some in the media are complaining about the Bill, I do not know what part of it they are complaining about, because it is themselves who have drafted this code, which, sadly, a majority of them have not been following. The code obligates them to maintain accuracy and fairness. It means that their stories have to be unbiased. They should obtain comments from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavourable context, which they rarely do. Where then can an ordinary citizen go to complain that: \"I am being cast in bad light, without being given a chance to explain\"? The media is a great tool for upholding democratic principles, and for fighting against corruption. The media can also be a very destructive tool, if not used responsibly. We all know what happened in Rwanda. They can perpetuate a hate campaign against individuals, groups and sections of society. After all, personalities in the media are human beings like any other. So, they too, need to know their boundaries. When I look at this Code, knowing that it has, so to say, been accepted by the media fraternity for almost a decade, yet they operate as though it does not exist, I am convinced - I am urging the House to be convinced - that we need self-regulation backed by statute. That is what we are here today, to legislate. It is okay for people in the media to complain and say that a certain section needs to be amended. It is right that they articulate their views as well. It is up to the hon. July 3, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2199 Members of this House to look at and weigh the various issues raised by the various sections of the society and those that have been raised within the Floor of this House so that we can style this Bill in a manner that is acceptable to all Kenyans. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am looking at the preamble to this Bill which says in part; \"An Act of Parliament to provide for the establishment of the Media Council of Kenya and the Media Advisory Board, for the conduct and discipline of journalists and the Media, for the self- regulation of the media and for connected purposes\". So, from the outset, the Bill is talking about self-regulation, and not regulation by the Government. It is self-regulation but anchored in a statute. It is also to ensure that there is discipline because those people who uphold standards of journalism are likely to be grouped together with quacks who do not uphold standards, if discipline is not being maintained. This Bill, in my view, will assist the journalists who operate above board and who adhere to the code, to be distinguished from quacks who do not follow the established guidelines. I need not go clause by clause. However, I want to say that this Bill is long overdue. It is time we not only debated but moved to enact it so that those in the media and also those of us in society may, finally, have a tool by which the beacons of our freedoms may be easily identifiable. The enactment of this law will also, in my view, reduce litigation in the courts. If the Media Council moves with speed to correct inaccuracies, then there will be no need to litigate in our courts. This Bill is going to improve the relationship between society and the media. It is going to promote better understanding. It is going to uphold the freedom of the Press, while respecting the rights of individuals. It is a well thought-out Bill but also, as I said, it is before the House to be strengthened and for us to take the genuine concerns that are expressed and which we find ought to be addressed. With those many remarks I, strongly, beg to support."
}