Miano Njoka’s Blog

Over the past few weeks, the media has been emphatic in its criticism of the Communications Amendment Bill passed by Parliament and that had been awaiting President Kibaki’s assent into law. Unfortunately, media coverage of the bill has been hugely biased with the media presenting only its side of the story and none of the opposing views.

From what I understand (I’m not a lawyer, I’m just a literate mwananchi , the contentious sections of the bill in a nutshell are

1. Section 46 – The Minister (for Information and Communication) may, in consultation with the (Communication) Commission (of Kenya), make regulations generally with respect to all broadcasting services and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, with respect to-” ….  “(c) mandating the carriage of content, in keeping with public interest obligations, across licensed broadcasting services”…
2. Section 88 – On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for Internal Security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in that behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya

The media has argued that Section 46 infringes on its right to free speech but one only needs to listen to the shows on our FM stations or to watch TV to recognize the need for such a law. I’m as liberal as they come but I cannot for the life of me stomach the content carried by some of the radio and TV stations. Do FM radio shows need to discuss whether “size matters” or which “position” is best at 3pm in the afternoon? Seriously? Does “the beat” or “H2O” really have to show a video of a rapper pouring vodka on half naked girls? Content is regulated the world over and with good reason. The Kenyan Media shouldn’t think that they are special. What the Media should be talking about is how commissioners of the CCK are picked. Currently they are chosen solely and independently by the minister. They should however, be vetted by parliament.

With regard to Section 88, the telecommunications and postal sectors have always had a section dealing with public emergencies since independence.  I’m more than a bit queasy at that much power being wielded by the Minister and this section needs to be reviewed or struck out. However, Section 88 already exists in law (Kenya Communications Act of 1998) so a veto of this bill wouldn’t have achieved anything.

The Communications Amendment  Bill covers a lot more including electronic transfer of funds eg. M-Pesa, e-commerce, BPO, fiber optic cables etc but the media is treating it as a one issue bill. Other sectors covered by the bill shouldn’t have to stay without legislation for an extended period of time because of the issues with the 2 sections that have been raised.

Another issue I have with the media is their lack of respect for the law-making process. They successfully championed for the bill to be vetoed by the President in 2006 but instead of lobbying for their interests on its re-introduction in parliament, they waited until it had passed through several committee hearings and after it was voted on in Parliament before they started harping on about it.

While the bill does have its shortcomings, it is not the end of the world as the media would like us to believe, the two contentious sections may now be reviewed and amended as necessary.