Should the Media law be appended?

Recently, the lower chamber of Parliament passed the law governing the media and the law governing Media High Council after accepting all amendments made by the ad hoc committee. After the event, various media practitioners expressed their reservations. Some were of the view that the bill is not balanced with critics saying it gives the government too much power and influence over what should be a free and independent press. During the monthly Presidential press conference, President Kagame, in response to a question paused by a journalist on the media law, said that the bill has not yet reached his office. He, however, also questioned the relevance of some articles in the bill. “Sometimes it is seen as restricting yourself when there is no reason or...,” he noted. The media law is expected to increase professionalism within Rwandan media. “The bill is good for it is going to end disorganisation in the profession. However, criminalising libel is the worst thing,” Willy Rukundo, Radio Rwanda Chief Editor, observed. “Journalists are likely to defame than ordinary people, and so MPs should not have insisted that journalists will be handled in the same way as other people. That is a challenge not only for journalists but for government as well,” remarked James Munyaneza, Vice President Rwanda Journalists Association. To be specific, in civil cases, you are fined with some cash while in criminal cases you are likely to be jailed. When the President of the Republic appends his signature on the bill, journalists are likely to visit jail in succession. “The requirement of a degree or certificate in journalism or communication training may simply not be practical. And, it is even funny that they (legislators) didn’t require it for foreigners which makes it very difficult to follow,” says Eugene Kwibuka, a practicing journalist with a Bachelors Degree (BA) in Journalism. Also on the case of revealing a source to court, Munyaneza sees it as contentious since analysts believe that Rwanda will be the first country to compel a journalist to reveal their source(s). Unfortunately, the law doesn’t define the type of court. This means Gacaca could also demand a journalist to reveal a source depending on your interpretation of the bill. “I believe in having a limit on some information about defence but not executive information, legislatives, cabinet deliberations….that’s locking the media out man,” a practicing journalist who preferred anonymity decried. In the normal procedures of bills, amendment and other progressive understandings the stakeholders are supposed to be involved in all stages from inception to implementation. That’s in order to achieve sustainability and build rapport, but on this case media practitioners were insufficiently involved and even some of the few opinions that were presented were not considered. Parliament’s failure to consider stakeholders’ views submitted by the Association of Rwandan Journalists (ARJ) during the discussion sessions is also taken by some as hard to chew. The day the lower chamber of deputies made the final endorsement on the media bill, MP Bernadette Kanzayire said that ARJ made their submission but did not make a follow-up. “ARJ brought the document and they did not put any effort or make a follow-up,” Kanzayire pointed out. According to ARJ President, Gaspari Safari, ARJ had proposed that the issues of capital and academic qualification for practicing journalism should be omitted. It wasn’t to be. “Defamation to be a crime is very bad. It will create a situation where everyone will wake up in the morning and indict a journalist on the grounds of defamation and be jailed,” Safari lamented. President Kagame during the Presidential conference told the press and his ministers that there was no need for tightening the law. Ends