Broadcasting
legislation enters Swazi parliament – good news or bad?
Media
Institute of Southern Africa - Swaziland
Alert
– Media Analysis, 7 March 2013
Swaziland’s minister
of information, communication and technology has tabled two broadcasting-related
Bills in the Senate, according to the Swaziland Senate running sheet dated
Wednesday 6 March 2013
Minister Winnie
Magagula tabled the Swaziland Broadcasting Bill 2013 and the Swaziland Broadcasting
Corporation Bill 2013.
It is now expected the
Bills will be discussed by various parliamentary committees who, it is
understood, will seek consultation from anyone interested in the future of
Swaziland’s television and radio. No dates or information are yet forthcoming
on the government’s public consultation process.
The Bills appear in
the Swaziland Government Gazette of Friday 15 February 2013, vol. LI, No.
19.
The Swaziland
Broadcasting Bill aims to:
·
provide
for the regulation of sound and television broadcasting services in Swaziland
·
provide
for the maximum availability of broadcasting to the people through the three
tier system of public, commercial and community broadcasting services
·
provide
for freedom of expression through broadcasting
·
provide
for broadcasting to contribute to the socio-economic development of the society,
nation building, provision of education and the strengthening of the spiritual
and moral fibre
·
provide
for matters incidental to broadcasting.
The Bill is broken
into seven parts, covering topics such as “types of licenses and licensing
procedure”, “programming, scheduling and advertising”, and “complaints”.
The Swaziland chapter
of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-Swaziland) welcomes any move to
free up the country’s broadcasting sector. We also welcome any opportunity to
engage with the minister of information, communication and technology on
matters of broadcasting and media freedom. On the face of it, the Broadcasting
Bill – when it speaks to the “maximum availability of broadcasting to the
people” and providing for “public, commercial and community broadcasting
services” – is an encouraging sign.
However, on further
consideration of the Bill, MISA-Swaziland would call for clarification on
several points.
Firstly, we would like
an explanation of how the broadcaster will strengthen the “spiritual and moral
fibre” of the nation? Moreover, we would appreciate a more precise definition
of “spiritual and moral fibre” because on first reading it is not altogether
clear what this means.
MISA is concerned that
the “spiritual and moral firbe” objective might in reality clash with the
“freedom of expression through broadcasting” objective. In other words, MISA is
concerned that “spiritual and moral fibre” may be used to suppress legitimate
questioning and criticism of the nation’s rich and powerful.
We call for either the
removal of the “spiritual and moral fibre” objective from the Bill, or
alternatively, we call for a precise definition that runs in spirit with
universal notions of freedom of expression, namely, that all citizens are free
to speak their mind on all forms of broadcasting.
Further,
MISA-Swaziland requires clarification in regard to Part III, 27 (1)(a) of the
Broadcasting Bill, under “Programming, Scheduling and Advertising”. The Bill here
stipulates that anyone or any organisation who holds a broadcasting license
must broadcast “nothing… that shall offend against good taste, morality or
decency or is likely to encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder, or be
offensive to public feeling, repugnant, or conducted in bad faith”.
MISA-Swaziland calls
on the ministry of information to clearly clarify the following terms and
expand on their meanings: “good taste”; “morality”; “decency”; “likely to
incite crime or lead to disorder”; “offensive to public feeling”; “repugnant”;
and “conducted in bad faith”.
These are loaded words
and terms with wide-ranging meanings. They could be used in the name of
goodness and media freedom just as much as they might be deployed in the name
of repression and censorship. Therefore, in the name of legal accountability
and openness, MISA-Swaziland calls on the government to define these words and terms
in a manner consistent with Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Swazi Constitution.
Article 23 provides
for “protection of conscience or religion”. Article 24 provides for “protection
of freedom of expression”, including “freedom of the press and other media”.
And Article 25 offers protection of “freedom of assembly and association”.
The words and terms in
question, if not removed from the Bill altogether, should also be defined in a
manner consistent with the Bill’s objective to “provide for the freedom of
expression through broadcasting”.
Finally, in regard to
the Swaziland Broadcasting Bill 2013, MISA calls for clarification on Part VII
(43), under the heading “General”. This Article is titled “Powers of the King
in a public emergency”.
In part, it reads: “Where
there is in force a proclamation of a state of public emergency or threatened
public emergency under the Constitution, the King may make an order authorising
any officer of any authority to – (a) take over all broadcasting stations or
any particular broadcasting station in Swaziland; and (b) control and direct
all broadcasting services from the broadcasting stations or broadcasting
station to which the provisions of paragraph (a) relate for so long as the King
considers it expedient.”
MISA-Swaziland is
concerned at the extent to which this Article gives the King absolute power to
take over all broadcasting in the nation. Common sense and safety would
acknowledge that in the event of a national disaster or violent conflict, the
trusted political leaders of a nation should have easier access to certain
broadcasting media.
However, to give one person
the opportunity to take unfettered control and direction over all broadcast
media seems somewhat extreme and, it might be said, counter-productive.
Moreover, MISA-Swaziland calls for a clear definition of ‘public emergency’ and
‘threatened public emergency’, as it is not clear what these terms mean. There
is a fear that these terms, and this Article, could be used to further entrench
the control and influence already wielded by the state-owned and controlled
broadcasters. Dictators in other parts of the world have used similar legal
provisions to abuse power and take over the media.
Ecuadorian president
Rafael Correa has tightened his grip on the media using a similar provision to
the one outlined in the Swaziland Broadcasting Bill. The Economist, a London-based news and international affairs
magazine, had this to say about Correa’s authoritarian tendencies in its
February 9, 2013 edition.
“The
president is intolerant of criticism. He has built a powerful government media
empire, including two television networks seized from corrupt bankers. Like [the
late Venezuelan leader] Mr Chávez and Argentina’s Cristina Fernández, he has
abused a provision, intended for national emergencies, in which all television
and radio stations are required to carry his broadcasts—no fewer than 1,365 of
them between January 2007 and August 2012, according to Fundamedios, a media
body. Freedom of expression is a “function of the state”, he claims. He has
pursued criminal libel cases against critics, and is pushing to curb the powers
of the media-freedom watchdog of the Organisation of American States.”
MISA
would warn Swaziland’s leaders and legislators from following the same dubious
path as some of these Latin American countries.
The other Bill tabled
in Swaziland’s Senate on 6 March 2013 is the Swaziland Broadcasting Corporation
Bill. This Bill aims to:
·
provide
for the establishment of the Swaziland Broadcasting Corporation, a national
public broadcaster for the Kingdom of Swaziland, by amalgamating the operations
and resources of Swazi Television Authority and the Swaziland Broadcasting and
Information Services
·
provide
for the licensing of the Corporation
·
provide
for the establishment of a Board of Directors to run the Corporation and the
procedure for the nomination of the members of the Board
·
provide
for the repeal of the Swaziland Television Authority Act 1983
·
provide
for matters incidental to public broadcasting.
In similar fashion to
the Broadcasting Bill, The Broadcasting Corporation Bill is broken into seven
parts, consisting of topics such as: “establishment and functions of the
corporation”, “establishment and function of the board”, “television license
and inspectors”, and “financial provisions”.
On initial inspection
it is thought that the Corporation Bill intends to establish a body not
dissimilar to the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), an organisation
that emerged from the ashes of Apartheid South Africa’s dangerous and racist
state broadcaster.
The SABC, which is
called a ‘public broadcaster’ and in many ways is a public broadcaster, is however
still grappling today (19 years after the fall of Apartheid) with the idea of
what a true public broadcaster is. Without going into the detail, but rarely a
week goes by without allegations of state censorship or ‘shelving’ of
inconvenient stories, or accusations of ‘orders from on high’ disallowing
criticism of certain people or certain organisations.
This is said only to
illustrate the challenges ahead for Swaziland: converting a state broadcaster
that is controlled by the government and other leaders into a broadcaster that
truly serves and reflects the interests and concerns of the people, is no easy
task. It is, however, an achievable task. MISA-Swaziland believes it is a task
well worth the effort.
In consideration of
the Swaziland Broadcasting Corporation Bill 2013, MISA calls on the ministry of
information to further define “public broadcaster” and “public broadcasting
service”.
As it stands, the Bill
defines “public broadcasting service” as “any broadcasting service by radio or
television which is provided by – the Swaziland Broadcasting Corporation; any
other statutory body; or a person who receives revenue from the State”. There
is seemingly no definition in the Bill for “public broadcaster” or for
“national public broadcaster”. This offers reason for concern, but there is
time for the ministry to seek consultation so that, before any vote, a fuller and
clearer Bill can be produced.
MISA understands that the
two Bills will now be discussed by various committees before going before a
vote in the Senate. No date has been set for a vote in the Senate. If passed,
it is understood the Bills will be taken to the House of Assembly where a
similar process is expected to take place. It is envisioned, judging by past
experience, that this committee, discussion and consulting phase will take some
time. Adding complication and possible delay to the procedure is the national
elections due to held round August 2013. It has been said that parliament will
be busy with budget related matters before moving into campaign mode.
Therefore, being realistic, it would appear that timing is not on the side of
passing good and fair broadcasting legislation.
MISA-Swaziland,
however, does look forward to engaging with the minister of information,
communication and technology in order to ensure the spirit of the Bills –
providing for freedom of expression through broadcasting – stands a serious
chance of becoming a reality.
In as far as how the
local media has been reporting on the tabling of the broadcasting Bills, it
would be fair to say the coverage has been lacking.
The Swazi Observer, a daily paper effectively
owned by King Mswati III, has, at least, been reporting on the progress of the Bills.
However the Times of Swaziland, a
privately owned daily, is seemingly silent on the story. Most coverage in the Observer has focused on how the
broadcasting Bills prohibit political parties from accessing community radio.
As it stands, political
parties are barred from contesting for power in Swaziland and there is no
community radio. There is one national radio station, coming under the
authority of the state-owned and controlled Swaziland Broadcasting and
Information Service (SBIS). It is heavily censored: citizens must seek approval
from their chiefs before speaking on radio, and dissenting or mildly
questioning voices are prohibited from airing their views. The one national
television station, Swazi TV, under the state-owned and controlled Swaziland
Television Authority (STVA), is just as censored as the radio. There is one
private radio station in Swaziland, Voice of the Church, speaking mostly to
conservative religious matters. And there is one private TV station, Channel S,
which panders to the government and ruling elite just as the the state
broadcasters do. The founder and former boss of Channel S is currently in jail
for corruption.
MISA-Swaziland
is a media watchdog that promotes freedom of speech and assists journalists to
carry out their work.
