Criminal libel, my foot!

Hon. Folks, Nelson Mandela once said: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy.”

Ironically, the so-called fragile democracies in Africa, including South Africa itself, tend to believe that free press—the lifeblood of democracy—is not a sufficient reason for decriminalising libel.  Somehow, their constitutions provide free press remaining silent on criminalising speech, a loophole their exploit to retain the latter in their statutes which date back to the colonial era.

Following the massacre of 800 000 people in Rwanda in 1994 which was blamed on hate speech published by the media, the general trend of thought among leaders on the continent is to retain  criminal libel for published news that incites violence or hatred.

Malawi government’s rejection of calls to decriminalise libel may have been informed by developments in South Africa where the High Court in Pretoria in 2013 ruled that criminal libel was in tandem with the country’s constitution.

But, going by the history of difficult relations between government and journalists, the use of hand-cuffs here—at least during the eras of Bingu was Mutharika (2004-2012) and Bakili Muluzi (1994-2004)–had nothing to do with hate speech, let alone inciting violence.

Arrests were one of the tools the two leaders used to intimidate journalists when the too much power they amassed for themselves started corrupting them absolutely. The other tool was banning government advertising in the detested publications.

At times, the two leaders would also use either the police (as was the case with journalists in Lilongwe who were covering July 20 2011 demonstrations) or party youth to beat up journalists who were passionate in exposing what these powerful people wanted hidden.

Worth noting is the fact that in virtually all cases where journalists were arrested for doing their job, there has been no conviction for the simple reason that government did not allow the cases to be heard in court.

They would make the arrest say in Blantyre on Thursday or Friday, drive the victim to Lilongwe where they would spend Saturday and Sunday in a police cell (probably without food if they do not have relatives or friends to feed them since the police do not serve meals to people on remand) and grant them bail on Monday. That would be the end of the criminal libel case!

In other words, criminal libel is very much a non-issue in Malawi. People in government want it in the statutes largely because it allows them to use or abuse agents of the State against a “critical, independent and investigative press.”

Intimidation indeed seems to be the motive in African countries where journalists have been incarcerated for doing their job. Right now Egypt has courted very bad global publicity for itself by jailing for three years Al Jazeera journalists Mohamed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed and Peter Greste.

Their crime? Reporting “false” news which is “damaging to national security.” They were also accused of aiding terrorists, apparently for their temerity to stick to ethics by giving Muslim Brotherhood—a banned organisation in Egypt—a chance to tell its side on its running battles with government.

Back to Malawi:  It would have been a first for the DPP-led government, had the APM administration followed global trends in good governance by saying no to criminal libel. Memories are indeed fresh of how the Bingu administration, between 2009 and 2012, had running battles with media houses and their umbrella organisations, over the amendment to Section 46 of the Penal Code and other bad laws intended to curtail further free press which, until now, does not have an enabling law.

Unfortunately, journalists are being intimidated now when there are pointers to the sad fact that some past presidents may be implicated in the massive looting of public funds which has left the Malawi nation poor, deprived and miserable.

We all know that government is looking into claims by some Cashgate convicts who allege they were merely used as a conduit for siphoning money by former president Joyce Banda. Reporting on that definitely won’t constitute criminal libel.

How about reporting in the massive looting that  auditors have established occurred between 2009 and 2012 when Bingu was President and the current President and most of the ministers were either in the Cabinet or in government—shall journalists be free to rake the mud and expose  whatever they find?

Is criminal libel meant to hush journalists who dare probe how some DPP leaders amassed billions? I’ll offer a suggestion: The best way to silence nosy journalists is to unleash on them death by firing squad. n