By Bruck Shewareged, The Reporter
The House of Peoples’ Representatives last week discussed the newly drafted press law. The government believes that the bill will be instrumental in creating and developing a “responsible” press. But to the opposition parties, the bill constitutes a tool which the government can use to suppress freedom of expression.
Five years ago, the government introduced a draft press law which many in the country and abroad described as a “draconian” law. Following an outcry by the private press, and an appeal by some of the western embassies here, the government stopped short of putting it into law.
Now, it has come up with a new one that appears to be less “draconian”, albeit a very restrictive law, as some see it. Some parliamentarians argue that there is no way that the law guarantees access to information.
Some of the MPs spoke out against what they called “restrictive” provisions in the draft press law. Temesgen Zewdie, an opposition MP, said that the draft law severely curbs freedom of expression, and is directed at people’s freedom. The draft, according to him, violates the freedom of expression stipulated in Article 29 of the Ethiopia Constitution.
Ownership of the media is another issue which some MPs raised their concerns about. The draft law prohibits multiple ownership of print and electronic media. It prevents an owner of a media outlet from owning another outlet, or having effective control over other outlets.
The new law also forces owners to divulge their sources of capital, and that any source outside the country is completely prohibited. Temesgen argues that the law is intended to curb the right of citizens from setting up press outlets. He added that Ethiopians in the Diaspora, those who adopted other citizenships, will also be barred from investing their money in the media due to the draft law. “Just because government anticipates challenges from the private press, such shameful proclamation cannot be written into law,” he stressed.
The right of access to information as provided in the draft proclamation is another point of controversy for the parliamentarians. According to Article 14 of the proclamation, the possibility of getting information from government institutions heavily relies on the goodwill of the public relations officer of the institution. Article 14.3 stipulates that the public relations officer has thirty working days to respond to the request by the person seeking a specific information. On top of that, he can refuse to give that information if he deems it necessary.
The public relations officer is also empowered to extend the thirty-day period to sixty days, “if many other similar requests are made by others, if compiling the information requires obtaining the information from branch offices or if it becomes necessary for the officer to consult with other government organizations,” as written in Article 14.8. Temesgen raised his concern about getting timely information from government institutions if such provisions are included in the press law.
Tesfaye Fufa of the Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement (OFDM) opposes the inclusion of articles which by nature belong to the criminal code rather the press law. He said that his party believes that the press law must be re-drafted by an independent board whose members represent different sectors of the society.
The preamble of the proclamation has it that it has become necessary to replace the existing press law i.e., proclamation 34/92 with a more advanced law. Unlike what opposition parties argue about, the preamble stresses that the proposed law guarantees freedom of expression and ensures transparency in government institutions.
Compared to the existing law, the draft proclamation levies heavy fines on press outlets that transgress the law. A media organization can be fined up to 100,000 birr for defamation. This amount of fine has not been stipulated in the previous law.
A federal or regional prosecutor can bar publications from being distributed if he is convinced that irreparable damage could be done once the publications reach the public.
The prosecutor is also empowered to bar the distribution without seeking a court order, if he doesn’t have “enough” time to secure one. After that he has to notify the court of his decision within 48 hours. The court will have 24 hours to approve or disapprove the prosecutor’s decision after it receives notification from the prosecutor.
After the debate in parliament, it was decided to refer the draft press law to the parliamentary standing committees for Legal and Administrative Affairs and the Information and Cultural Affairs. 302 MPs voted in favor and 34 against it.
One could ask what will happen to the several government owned media outlets such as Ethiopian Television, Radio Ethiopia, and the several newspapers if the law is put into effect. Since multiple ownership will be prohibited if the proclamation is voted into law, what will happen to these government owned media organizations? Will they be privatized? Or will the law only apply to private ownership? If that is the case, can the government be above the law?