Media Institute of Southern Africa : Promoting Media Diversity . Pluralism . Self-Sufficiency . Independence

It is apt to indicate that the drafting of this Bill was preceded by a consultative process that sought the views of several stakeholders, culminating in an agreement on principles that should underpin any law aimed at regulating the mass media in Botswana. Some of the agreed principles include:

To produce a more overarching media bill that covers all media;
To produce an enabling bill consistent with international best practice and the treaties Botswana has signed and ratified;
To give the Press Council legal recognition;
To promote self-regulation;
To promote access to official information;
To guarantee editorial independence;
To address the Minister’s role; and
To address right of reply

Our understanding of the result of the consultation process was that the envisaged law would provide the framework, and media practitioners would regulate themselves, independent of any political interference, real or perceived, which is essential in the functioning of a democratic state. This would not have been a new dispensation for media practitioners, as other professions are self regulated within a statutory framework, such as health professionals who are regulated under the Nurse and Midwives Act [Cap 61:03] and Botswana Health Professions Act [61:02]. The councils of these professional bodies are endowed with the power to appoint all committees, including the professional conduct and ethics committee. Further, the Legal Practitioners Act [Cap 61:01], that establishes the Law Society run by a Council elected by legal practitioners. The Council is empowered by the Act to appoint Committees, including the Disciplinary Committee that receives complaints from consumers of legal services on professional misconduct.

The Media Practitioners Bill as it is, falls short of the principles of independency, political non-interference, promotion of self regulation as agreed during the consultative process preceeding the drafting of the law and it also infringes on the right to freedom of expression as entrenched in the Constitution of Botswana under section 12, in the manner that follows;

(a) the Minister has arrogated to herself the power to appoint both the Complaints Committee and the Appeals Committee in terms of section 11 and 17 of the Media Practitioners Bill. This is a complete departure from how the legislation governing other professions has been crafted and further, to the principles agreed with the Minister to govern the formulation of the bill.
The expectation was that the minister would have drawn insight from existing Acts such as the Legal Practitioners Act and the Botswana Health Professions Act, and already existing structures regulating a section of the media in Botswana. The appointment of the National Broadcasting Board, which regulates the broadcast media is done without the direct involvement of the Minister in that the identification of persons to be appointed to the Board is done by an independent Committee in a democratic and transparent manner.
The Minister’s direct involvement in the appointment of committees of the envisaged Press Council in the Media Practitioners Bill raises serious doubts on the issue of their independence. To appoint the committees without the involvement or representation of media practitioners, the possibility of abuse by the Minister is highly probable such that the committees would exist under the whims and will of the Minister.

(b) there is an apparent contradiction in the provisions of the Media Practitioners Bill, Section 4 and 34 & 39. Section 4 pays lip service to the principles that the Council shall operate without any political or other bias or interference and shall be wholly independent and separate from the government, any political party or any other body. Section 34 & 39 empowers the minister (a political appointee) to dissolve the executive committee of a member driven organisation.

Read more