By Isaac Mwanza

“If you put a key under the mat for the cops, a burglar can find it too. Criminals are using every technology tool at their disposal to hack into the people’s accounts. If they know there is a key hidden somewhere, they won’t stop until they find it” – Tim Cook

In Zambia, the questions of access to information (ATI), regulation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media have been a thorny generational issue which provoke personal, political and professional debates as well as resistance from those likely to be affected by such pieces of legislation.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA REGULATION

Speaking when he featured on Hot FM Radio’s breakfast show in January, 2023, Zambia’s Justice Minister Mulambo Haimbe, S.C. said Zambians should expect progress on the enactment of the Access to Information Bill once the media themselves, resolve the issue of self-regulation, a matter that didn’t sit well with some media houses.

The Minister’s proposition obviously raises the question as to whether there is any link between access to information and media regulation? During the said programme, the Justice Minister said:

“The Access to Information Bill gives a lot of freedom not only to the media but also the general public in terms of access to information. Building into that, it comes with responsibility intended to be managed through a self-regulatory process with regard to the media…The two go hand in hand… So perhaps we have to look at it as a shared responsibility rather than a responsibility of government alone.”

If enacted, the Access to Information law will give both the media and the general public access to information which is generated or held by the government. For the media, such information is not for storage but to provide content and context to the news and communicating information to the public.

The media would be expected to sort through the information and determine what should be safely communicated to the public as well as how it should be communicated, without causing harm either to government operations, to persons or groups or organisations or to the public itself. This, therefore, certainly comes with huge responsibility.

It would not be wise to state that there is no relationship between freedom of expression, the freedom to access governmental information and freedom of the media. These three freedoms are inter-related and all three, give rise to a duty. Kenya has all these three freedoms enshrined in their Constitution.

Rights and freedoms do not exist without corresponding duties and responsibilities. While it is true that to access information is a human right, responsibilities on the part of those who claim and exercise that right, especially the media and civil society, are a logical consequence of claiming that right.

In order to enjoy the right to information, which we now claim to be a human right, corresponding responsibilities are required on the part of the media, citizens and for the state itself.

Monitoring content, especially that which may be generated from information obtained through the proposed access to information law, plays an important role when considering the role and the place of media accountability in the wider relationship between media freedom and media responsibility in a democratic society.

Government and citizens generally share a direct reciprocal relationship in which citizens elect government officials and must then adhere to laws made by the government which they put in place.

We must acknowledge the basic fact that the power to elect and put a government in place, does not put citizens above that government and the laws it may pass. The laws apply equally to both government and citizens.

Equally, the relationship exist between the media and government in which government must and is under an obligation to create a conductive environment for media freedom and freedom of expression to thrive.

The enactment of access to information law, although beneficial to citizens generally, creates an addition relationship between government and the media as a front in accessing information held by government.

The government will be producing an additional legal framework within which the media will be expected to operate as they access information held by the government.

The media will scrutinise activities of government based on information they would have accessed and then report to citizens who, at present, have a rather limited capacity to hold the media accountable for their activities as there exist a weak relationship between citizens and the media.

This is where media accountability plays a role at the interface among the three freedoms: access to information, freedom of expression and media freedom, all of which impose a duty of care on the part of the media and all who access such information.

So yes, the Minister was right. We need to resolve this issue of accountability of the media, and all other key stakeholders such as NGOs who must access information as a matter of a right, through some form of self-regulation.

ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE NGOS
The first attempt to regulate NGOs was done by means of statutory regulation when Government presented the 2007 NGO Bill to Parliament which was later withdrawn after civil society protested against it on the grounds that it was a draconian piece of legislation that could not facilitate any meaningful growth of the NGOs in the country. NGOs had instead, opted for self-regulation.

Even though the media and NGO fraternity relentlessly fought tooth and nail to stop statutory regulation in preference to self-regulation, government managed to carry out its will and eventually passed the NGO law. A fully-fledged statutory piece of legislation to regulate NGOs was enacted in 2009. The general feeling among activists was that the NGO law was to make the NGO movement weaker, not better.

NGOs later regrouped and challenged this statutory regulation of their movement in court, but later withdrew the action after Government promised to attend to the issues which the NGOs had raised in their action before the courts.

It would appear that, after a lengthy delay, Government will soon be presenting the proposed new NGO Act drafted by the Zambia Law Development Commission (ZLDC) in this session of Parliament which, as far as this author is aware, has failed to respond to earlier demands by NGOs for self-regulation, or to give more voice and power to NGOs. It has even failed to provide for more seats for NGOs on the NGO Registration Board.

The new NGO Bill, if enacted into law, will strengthen statutory regulation of NGOs and has maintained government’s far-reaching powers to approve the area of work for NGOs, and places NGOs to work at the direction of a government minister who will have power to issue statutory instruments for purposes of dealing with any regulatory matter of NGOs, as the minister and his technocrats see fit.

The proposed Bill is as draconian as the 2009 NGO Act, leaving the NGOs in exactly the same place as they were in 2009, which brings into question the wisdom of their decision to discontinue their court action challenging the original NGO Act in 2009.

An examination of the proposed new NGO Bill shows that there are provisions in the proposed statute which give a semblance of self-regulation by blurring the prominence of persons or entities which are being regulated.

The proposed new Act also obfuscates and mixes up certain roles, resulting in confusion among role players and presents what is essentially a false picture of self-regulation when in fact the power to regulate, is vested in the office of the minister, to be exercised by government officials.

The author has not yet seen the final version of the Bill as completed by the Ministry of Justice but NGOs are advised to be on the look out for it, once it is made public. Self-regulation of NGOs which is binding by statute is the way to go but not in a manner it was resolved through the ZLDC-led consultations. What came out from those consultations is far from self-regulation by NGOs.

[To be continued tomorrow]

Published by the Zambian Daily Nation, Feb. 2023

By Fred M’membe, President of the Socialist Party

Over the past week, I have read many opinions or arguments concerning the three stars of a Lieutenant General’s put on the Inspector General of Police’s official motor vehicle. I have no intention or desire to prolong this debate. If anything, I would like it to come to a close.

But before I do this, I want to make it very clear that there is no profession that is not important. A soldier or military officer is no more important than a policeman (woman) or officer. But their roles are different – they are different professions with different traditions, customs and values.

Let’s leave military traditions, customs and values to the Army, Zambia Air Force and Zambia National Service – military institutions. And let the Police be Police – a civilian institution with its own traditions, customs and values.
My plea is to the President of the Republic of Zambia, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of all our armed forces, to order the Inspector General of Police to remove those three stars and revert to the usual police tradition of ZP1.

Allowing the three stars is to condone anarchy with no end or limits. This is not a contest between the Police (civilian) and the Army, Air Force and ZNS (military). It’s just a matter of doing things the right way. And let’s do them the right way, even if it calls for our greatest efforts.

I also urge the Commander-in-Chief to elevate the Army Commander from the rank of Lt Gen to General. It will smoothen the command structure of our armed forces. And in future, we should consider making the ZNS Commandant a Maj Gen, and not Lt Gen. The ZAF Commander can remain a Lt Gen.

Military life is highly based on traditions, customs and values. Some of these are customs and courtesies. But, what are customs and courtesies? Customs are established practices, and courtesies could be defined as good manners and politeness. Every civilised army should have a regulation – “Salutes, Honours and Courtesy” that “provides general policies and procedures for the rendition of salutes, honours, ceremonies, customs, and visits of courtesy”. For example, the mandatory hand salute between officers and enlisted personnel of the armed forces.

What were the origins of the hand salute? Actually, we don’t know. There are some theories for this action. Some say that Roman Empire soldiers used to slap their chest and raise their right hand as a symbol of respect and to show that they were unarmed. Another theory points to the Middle Ages, when knights raised the cover of their helmets to identify themselves as friendly. In the 1600s, the British started to salute with their hats, raising them to show respect to officials. Although these are some theories, there is no exact date for the birth of the hand salute.

However, armed forces adopted the salute as a necessary requirement for soldiers. Although, some of the ranks, ceremonies and personnel do not demand a hand salute, a soldier must always display good manners. These are some of the customs and traditions armed forces all over the world have adopted:

(i) Never offer excuses.
(ii) Never go over your superiors, use your chain of command.
(iii) Never turn and walk away to avoid giving the hand salute, among others.

Customs and courtesies are key for a cohesive relationship in the armed forces. Furthermore, all of these beliefs have a set of values that cement the course of action that a soldier takes in the course of his daily life. The hand salute is more than a simple “greeting”, it is a symbol of respect, honour and integrity.

When a soldier salutes a high-ranking officer, he or she is not saluting the individual but showing respect to the rank. On the other hand, the Army has a set of ranks and positions that do not require a hand salute, but proper manners and courtesies are highly recommended. For example, the non-commissioned officer (NCO) does not require a hand salute, but proper courtesies are always expected.

Without a doubt, our armed forces have a very strict mission and vision for the new soldier. They need to have professionals in all their departments and above all, soldiers with values. When soldiers salute or greet their comrades, they are living up to the general military core values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honour, integrity and personal courage. Values define who you are as a military person, they go hand in hand with the customs and courtesies of the military.

Without a doubt, leadership is very important to the implementation of customs and courtesies in the military. Being a leader is a dynamic process. More than words, it is to take action. Leaders have to set an example and be proactive with their soldiers so they can be educated and moulded to their customs and courtesies. The military has a set of values that are not negotiable and cannot be broken. These are the foundations to continue their customs and courtesies.
Therefore, leadership should be the foundation and example to apply all the customs and courtesies of our military. We have to build them up, not crash them down.

What should our leaders – political, military and otherwise – do as leaders to apply these customs and courtesies as a good culture in our military? Our leaders must have patience, trust and respect with our military personnel. This goes all the way from the top to the bottom, so we can get in line.

Let’s not act based on emotions, but as effective stewards of the profession. Military customs and courtesies are the foundation of our military. There’s a general decline in adherence to military traditions and customs, and this comes out clearly at military parades, state funerals and other military ceremonies.

I urge our military leaders, both officers and NCOs, to pay greater attention to this decay or erosion, and reverse it.