Tanzanian government often gets a good pat on the back from donors and debtors for what they consider to be transparency, while underplaying public discontent and disgruntlement. In the international arena Tanzania is thus portrayed as home to good governance.

It was not unpredicted, therefore, when, during his one-day flying visit to Tanzania in July this year, US President Barack Obama extolled Tanzania for its ‘commitment to transparency and democracy’. He praised the country for ‘its efforts to strengthen democracy.”

Obama also had some nice words to say about the country’s journalists for ‘doing their part to advance the good governance and transparency upon which democracy and prosperity depend.’

Yet the 2012 report of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has a different story regarding the state of the media in Tanzania. It talks of a rise in anti-press attacks against a background of ‘repressive legislations, and indefinite banning of the weekly MwanaHalisi given to investigative reporting.’

The result is fear and self-censorship among journalists in Tanzania, says a CPJ report that documents 10 serious anti-press attacks and threats since September 2012. It includes the killing of a TV cameraman, Daud Mwangosi, by a policeman while covering an opposition rally. No officer has so far been held accountable for the death.

Also the New Habari Corporation’s managing editor, Absalom Kibanda, was attacked and left seriously wounded, having lost one eye.

The CPJ report says there is too much insecurity and harassment among Tanzanian media to operate independently in the wake of ‘brutal and sometimes deadly attacks’ on journalists. It makes reporters increasingly fearful for their safety

And so the media now censors itself as a result of the attacks, constant harassment, banning orders and oppressive laws. The report highlights at least 17 repressive statutes that remain in place despite long-term talks to repeal them.

The government has pledged to reform the media laws and did in fact sign on to the Open Government Partnership Initiative, to promote transparency. Yet after years of negotiation, no legislation to that effect has been enacted and no steps have been taken to reform or repeal the restrictive statutes.

CPJ calls upon Tanzania authority to conduct a ‘thorough, effective, and transparent investigation’ into the attack on Kibanda, to apprehend all those responsible, including those who plotted the attack, and ‘successfully prosecute them’.

Government is asked to consult with journalists in developing a Media Services Bill for freedom of expression, to repeal the Newspaper Act, which allows banning of media outlets, as well as other repressive provisions in Tanzanian law.

CPJ also calls for official investigation into the killing of journalist Daud Mwangosi as well as criminal charges against the officers directly involved in the row that led to Mwangosi’s death.

Mwangosi, a TV cameraman, died in the hands of police last September while covering an opposition party rally that turned violent. A policeman has been charged with firing a gas canister at close range, ripping apart Mwangosi’s body and killing him instantly. Media stakeholders, however, called for a fresh investigation and prosecution of supervisory officers who issued the order to fire. That did not happen.

Inquiries were conducted both by the government and media institutions.
While the government report played down accusations of police brutality, findings by the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) took a swipe at police for ‘unprofessional conduct’.

MCT carried out its independent inquiry and issued a report with a video footage showing at least six officers who were involved in violent confrontation with Mwangosi prior to his killing. Not only no action was taken against them but their chief was promoted to deputy commissioner of police, according to reports.

As for the Tanzania Editors Forum’s chairman and managing editor of the New Habari newspaper chain, Absalom Kibanda was seriously wounded in March this year when two assailants attacked him outside his Dar es Salaam home. They chopped off his right ring finger, pierced his eye, knocked out several teeth and plucked his fingernails.

His mobile phone and identity card were taken, but his wallet and iPad were left behind, indicating that the assault was not motivated by robbery. After three months’ treatment in South Africa he is back home, but his assailants are still at large.

Police say they are still investigating, but journalist Deodatus Balile, who is leading an independent inquiry on behalf of local press associations, said police have not thought of making any arrests.

The CPJ report calls for ‘a thorough, effective, and transparent investigation’ into the attack on Kibanda and the arrest of those who planned and carried out the assault.

President Jakaya Kikwete’s office has yet to respond to CPJ’s request for comment, though he denounced the attack on Kibanda and visited him at the hospital. On the other hand he hardly condemned the police actions that led to the death of Mwangosi.

As for the indefinite suspension imposed on MwanaHalisi on 31 July 2012, its managing editor Saed Kubenea said the order is the result of the paper’s in-depth coverage of a crippling doctors’ strike, and the paper’s implication of a state intelligence officer in the kidnap and torture of the strike organizer, Dr Steven Ulimboka.

The government called a press conference to announce the closure, without summoning and notifying Kubenea himself. The suspension order cites no specific violation, apart from vague claim that three editions were ‘seditious and could instigate public fear’.

The paper appealed against the ban but the authorities delayed the hearings three times. Even under the draconian Newspaper Act 1976, authorities are required to allow defendants the right of reply.

When CPJ inquired with the Director of Information, he replied, ‘They must apologize first before any consideration of lifting the ban,’ although such apology does not have any basis in the law.

Kubenea forwarded his appeal to President Kikwete but he received no response. Some individuals and foreign embassies have issued statements asking the government to lift the ban yet there was no reply

Meanwhile, few local media houses have covered MwanaHalisi’s suspension.

In fact there is a perceived self-censorship among Tanzanian journalists, especially those working in rural areas, arising from anti-press attacks and repressive media laws. Thus one hardly comes across stories covering public protests and unrest with resultant government repression in the southern region of Mtwara.

Problem started after local residents said President Kikwete went back on his campaign pledge to build a local refinery for gas reserves. Instead he launched a project to build a gas pipeline to transfer the reserves to a refinery in Dar es Salaam.

This triggered public protests resulting in police intervention and use of excessive force to suppress the demonstrations. All this has been under-reported, according to the Tanzanian chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA).

Many rural journalists resort to self-censorship for self-survival, one editor said. Frustrated local residents believed their voice was going unheard, so one reporter was attacked.

When the CPJ report was made public reporters sought official reactions, but the home affairs minister could not be contacted for comment as his mobile phone was switched off. His deputy said he had read the report, but as he was on leave he ‘could not comment’.

The ministry’s permanent secretary said he had not seen the report, adding that he would not comment on the phone even if he had.

The information minister could not be reached on her mobile phone, while her deputy did not answer the calls.

It is hardly surprising that the CPJ report thus calls into question the Tanzanian government's international image on its commitment to transparency and democracy.

Such sentiments are also expressed by the 2013 World Press Freedom Index, which says press freedom has shrunk considerably in Tanzania, with journalists and media houses finding it more difficult to do their work. The country’s ranking is now number 70 out of the 179 countries surveyed while last year it was in 34th position.

‘Tanzania sank more than 30 places because, in the space of four months, a journalist was killed while covering a demonstration and another was murdered,’ says the report compiled by Reporters Without Borders.

These findings are vindicated by the Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report on Tanzania released in Addis Ababa. It also found that press freedom has been curtailed in the country. The APRM report cited the banning of Mwanahalisi as evidence that the government was intolerant of the opposing views.

President Kikwete put up a determined defence of his country’s press freedom, saying, ‘In fact, there is a feeling in some quarters in the country that the freedom we give to the press is too much, as it infringes on the freedom and rights of individuals and other groups.’

He pointed to the large number of media outlets as proof of media freedom in the country. ‘Until June 2012, Tanzania had registered 763 newspapers and publications. This is the largest number in Africa. We also have 85 radio stations and 26 TV stations. Up to 90 per cent of these are owned by private individuals and non-governmental organisations,’ he contended.

A veteran journalist, Jenerali Ulimwengu, retorted by saying: ‘Having a big number of television stations, newspapers, and radio stations does not constitute freedom of expression. What is needed is the right to access and disseminate information without government restrictions - subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity and sedition.’

Such argument sounds plausible in a country where the government instructs its police force to beat up people who defy their ‘lawful’ order. Thus, in response to public outcry against police brutality, Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda told the Parliament that the government is tired of ‘stubborn people’.

He went on to endorse violent police suppression. ‘I am saying beat them up … because there is no option … we are tired of them,’ the premier announced, to the consternation of many human right activists. They have in fact taken the matter to the court.

It is in such a political atmosphere that the media operates in Tanzania. Many a time the problem is characterised as state against private media, the former seeking to suppress press freedom, while the later defends free press.

Yet just like political pluralism or a multi-party system does not automatically mean popular democracy, so having a plethora of newspapers or radio broadcasts in itself doesn’t mean free speech or free flow of information for the people.

It all depends on who owns the media, for what purpose, for whose benefit and whose interest it serves.

What media stake holders in Africa have to keep in mind is that media is not free just because it is privately owned. In fact, private media very often represents the commercial interest of its corporate owners rather than reflecting people’s aspirations.

This is true in Tanzania as it is in Africa. This is why Tanzania’s prominent academic and activist, Professor Issa Shivji, has challenged media practitioners to strive for editorial and media freedom, while expecting strong pressures from three areas, namely the rulers, media owners and donors.

The rulers, he said, normally are not too fond of transparency and treat their issues as secret, especially when there is malpractice. Hence, the government may attempt to weaken the media through what he terms the carrot approach, meaning offering prestigious positions to news people. In Tanzania this is very much in the vogue.

Another approach is through threats like the banning of the MwanaHalisi weekly, while the rich media owners can exert more pressure than the government to achieve their business and political agenda.

Shivji looks at the whole question of editorial independence, without which media practitioners cannot be free.

While media practitioners should have security of tenure that would ensure that they are not fired at will by media owners, at the same time they should not be swayed by donors. They should serve the interest of the public and not fulfil the needs of corporate capital, for, as Shivji says, “Business people cannot be professionals.”

It was towards this end that the Dar es Salaam Declaration on Editorial Freedom, Independence and Responsibility (DEFIR) was launched by the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) in March 2011. Media owners, practitioners and members of the public were invited to endorse it.

Its aim is to ‘promote values, standards and rights which would enhance the democratic life of our people’. It is not a declaration of rights but a declaration of obligations and responsibilities.

The declaration stands on the premise that the right of information and freedom of expression stipulated in many international conventions and treaties and entrenched in many African and other state constitutions belongs to the public as a collective and as individuals.

Secondly, DEFIR stipulates that those who take on the task of providing information and space for expression - private and public owners, media practitioners and others - have obligations and responsibilities to enable and ensure that the public fully enjoys its right to information and expression.

Media service, therefore, is a public good, and public interest overrides the profit motive and political interests of owners. Editorial freedom thus is not editors’ right; rather it is the necessary condition for the editors to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities so that the public may fully enjoy its fundamental rights.

The declaration appreciates the important role of private media, but it also cautions against private media monopolies which could, and do, pose as big a threat to editorial freedom as the state media.

It therefore calls upon all media actors and citizen groups to oppose the monopolisation and concentration of media outlets in a few hands, whether state or private. It calls for promotion of ‘cooperative forms of ownership and management by media operators and practitioners themselves.’

At the same time, the declaration identifies sources of latent threat to editorial freedom. These include the state, owners, shareholders and directors of media houses, advertisers, business and political allies of owners, politicians and state functionaries, and donor and diplomatic communities.

Thus while the state uses the stick of power, private owners use the power of the purse to curtail editorial freedom.

In countries such as Tanzania that are donor-dependent, donors and diplomats often push their agenda through the media. The declaration therefore asserts that ‘donors and diplomats must not usurp the right of nationals to make their own decisions.’

DEFIR also stresses that in the context of globalisation, with our continent being subjected to enormous pressure from conglomerates from the North supported by their governments, ‘it is extremely important that our media plays its central role to investigate, inform objectively and provide space for people's views and worries.’

This role can be severely compromised if media answers to the agenda of donors and diplomats, often subtly promoted through donor-funded projects. The declaration asks the donor/diplomatic community to ‘refrain from using their financial clout to substitute their own agenda for national agenda.’

DEFIR is applicable not only to Tanzania but has relevance to Africa as a whole. Albeit we do not have media moguls of the ilk of Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black and Ted Turner, who are households names across the world, Africa has produced some media tycoons who have amassed great power and wealth.

The founders and chairmen of some of the biggest African media conglomerates have the power to shape opinion across the continent through the mediums of print, television and radio. Tom Jackson takes a look at the ten most powerful media moguls currently operating in Africa [1].

It goes without saying that these African media moguls end up playing compradorial roles as a conduit for the foreign influence and agenda, especially in this age of corporate globalisation.

In the 1970s, much of the South mobilized through UNESCO to battle the cultural imperialism of the North. They developed plans for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) to address their concerns that the Northern domination over journalism and culture made it virtually impossible for newly independent nations to escape colonial status.

The NWICO campaign was part of a broader struggle at that time by the Southern nations to address formally the global economic inequality that was seen as a legacy of imperialism. Eventually these movements were spiked on the sword of neo-liberalism, wielded by the United States and its military industrial complex.

And so our media system becomes increasingly concentrated, commercialized and globalized. It is in such a context that African media persons have to come up with home-grown solutions such as DEFIR

* Nizar Visram, a Tanzanian freelance journalist and writer on political and socio-economic issues, has been in the media field for over 30 years.

ENDNOTES

[1] The 10 Most Powerful African Media Moguls -2012

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.