Media stakeholders report

THE KEY CONCEPTS GOVERNING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:

(DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA SERVICES LAWS)

Introduction

This presentation is divided into four parts; First part is on the media history in Tanzania, Second is on the laws governing right to Information in Tanzania, third part will be on reasons to separate the right to Information law and Media Services Law. Third part will be on the Stakeholders intervention to proposed laws and final part on the best practices from other countries and recommendation.

1. Media history

The media industry in Tanzania has gone through four major phases, the first phase was during German rule (1890-1916). During this era media intended to serve communication interest and needs of the German administration. Some of the newspapers published during this era included; “Mtenga Watu” (the Converter), (1890) and “ Msimulizi“ in 1888, published by University Mission to Central Africa (UMCA). One weekly newspaper, which was published in the German language called Deutsc-Ostafrikanische Zeitung or “DOAZ” (1899), was ostensibly the mouth piece of the German Planters and farmers.

During the German era, there were about 18 different newspapers and magazines in Tanganyika.

In this era, the law governing media or rather press was the Germany East Africa Newspaper Decree, which came into effect in 1912. The major aim of this law was to control newspaper industry. The most controversial point in the Decree was for the journalist on the events, to be prosecuted as criminals if falling to prove their absence or rather participation on events, which caused violation of colonial laws.

1.1 The second phase was British administration (1916-1961)
During this era press was a propaganda tool to support the colonial regime. The first newspaper to be printed was the “Morogoro News”, which confined itself to the military situation in British Tanganyika. Other newspapers were the “Tanganyika Review” (1930) and “The Planters”, which was for the interest of Coffee, Sisal and farming industries in East Africa. A total of 19, newspapers, newsletter and journals were in circulation during this era.

In addition, during the British era, around the 1950’s, a nationalist press emerged with a major aim to struggle for the independence of Tanganyika. Newspapers like “Sauti ya TANU”, published by the Tanganyika National Union (TANU) and “Baragumu” published by United Tanganyika Party (UTP), were advocating for political independence of Tanganyika. Total of 158 daily and weekly newspapers were published.

In this era, media was controlled by section 63 of the Penal Code 1920. This law made an offence to publish false statements, which were likely to cause fear and alarm to the public. Thereafter it was followed by the Newspaper Ordinance 1928, which had similar offences.


1.2 From Independence to Liberalisation (1961- 1996)
One of the first decisions of Mwalimu Nyerere, was to nationalize media industry after the independence. Mwalimu wanted to utilise the media to foster the unity and the development of the country. However the fact is that all dailies (Mwafrika, Tanganyika, The Standard and Ngurumo and Daily Nation) were owned by private enterprises. Tanzania Broadcasting Cooperation (TBC) was the only radio station, owned by the government, which was later named Radio Tanzania Dar es Salaam (RTD), after dissolution of TBC in 1965.

Later in 1970, the government nationalized The Standard and Sunday News papers, which were owned by the LONRHO Group. He named Frene Ginwala, its first Managing Editor. In 1972 Daily News, replaced The Standard ,and later Mzalendo news paper was established as the Sunday edition of Uhuru newspaper owned by TANU party.

1.3 From liberalization 1992 on wards
The Government monopoly of the media continued until 1992. After re- introduction of multiparty the media was also fully liberalized and many newspapers, radio and TV stations were started. In 1992 there were 180 registered publications, the number increased to 251 in 1994 and in 1996; Tanzania Information Services had registered 323 newspapers and magazine. Thereafter, private TV and Radio stations were introduced. TV station like Independent Television (ITV), Radio One, Radio Tumaini, Radio Free Africa, Radio Maria etc, came in from 1994 on words.




2. Laws Relating to Right to Information in Tanzania

The Right to information is first derived from international treaties, which have included such right in the freedom of expression concept.

As early as 1946, the United Nations General Assembly recognized this right by adopting, in its first session, Resolution 59(1) which stated:
“Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the UN is consecrated.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, an instrument carrying on internationally agreed customary norms to be adopted by all countries members of the United Nations extended the Resolution 59(1) by including Article XIX in its declarations, which provides:
“Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Similar provision was also included in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
The African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights Article 9 also supports these basic rights. It states that
1 Every individual shall have the right to receive information.
2. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law

The united Republic of Tanzania is a party to all the above- mentioned international instruments and it has to adhere to them.


Back to the national context, the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as amended in 2005) is a supreme guiding document on the subject.

In its Article 9(f), the Constitution directs all government authorities to consider, whenever making any policies or in execution of their functions, that human rights are respected in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Besides, Part three of the Constitution provides for the Basic rights and Duties. Such rights and duties recognized in Part three are enforced by courts in accordance to the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994

Article 18 of the Constitution, which falls in Part three as amended in 2005, provides that:
“18. Every person –
(a) has the freedom of opinion and expression in his ideas;
(b) has a right to seek, receive and, or disseminate information regardless of national boundaries;
(c) has the freedom to communicate and a freedom with protection from interference from his communication; and
(d) has a right to be informed at all times of various important events of life and activities of the people and also of issues of importance to the society.”

Being the mother law of the land, the Constitution has to be adhered to by all other written laws. Any provision of law that curtails the constitutional provision is subject to annulment by a court order declaring the same to be unconstitutional. The procedure for such annulment and its impact on a respective law is provided for by the Constitution and the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994 .


3. WHY WE NEED TO SEPARATE BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION LAW AND MEDIA SERVICES LAW

3.1 Introduction
The need for different laws between the Right to Information and Media Services was the result of a long time efforts and interest that has been shown by the Government and other stakeholders. In February 2005, the United Republic of Tanzania Constitution, 1977, was amended for the 14th time. Part of the amendments was the deletion of the clawback clause and introduces a new section of Article 18 that provides for full rights to access to and dissemination of information of everybody notwithstanding border limitations. The Constitutional changes in Article 18 were a culmination of dialogue and pressure from media and other human rights groups, especially those who were involved in the Media Laws Review Project.

In this project about 80 percent of the stakeholder’s recommendations, proposed an independent media council. This is the body, which would self regulate media activities in the country. Others recommendation were; to remove ownership of government on the mass media like newspapers and radio, in order to limit the ownership of mass media. Cross ownership and monopoly be regulated by law to prevent one owner from monopolizing the media and also to encourage plurality and diversity of the media.

Despite all efforts by the stakeholders of the media review project, government decided to publish on its website a draft Bill for the Freedom of Information, in October 2006. This Bill was received with different views by the right to information stakeholders as it contains issues which contradict the fundamental principles of the freedom of information.

Some of these issues include that of Sections 9 (4) and 21(1) in the Government Bill, which allow a public authority to remove exempt information from a document and issue the rest of the document containing information that is not exempt for public consumption. Media stakeholders doubted the wisdom of such permission because the public will be fed with altered information that may be false, imprecise, incorrect or misleading.

Other issue in the Bill which brought some contradiction was the proposed Media Standards Board which would undermine the functions of a long existing and Media Council of Tanzania. The nature of such Board is to control the freedom of media in undertaking their activities without government interference.

Some sections in the Government draft bill were reproduced from the Newspapers Act 1976, which were perceived as one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in Tanzania that need to be scrapped.

That many provisions of the Government draft bill would, to a greater extent, prohibit freedom of information rather than promoting it. Important provisions for promotion of freedom of information were missing and those included have not been adequately constructed to promote freedom of information in Tanzania as guaranteed by the Constitution.

All the above contradicting provision and many others in the Bill is that which forced media stakeholders to propose separating the bill into two laws which is the Right to Information and Media Services. Together with separation some of the new provisions were proposed by the stakeholders in the proposed Bills.


3.2 REASONS FOR SEPARATION
The reasons for separation will be presented in turn between the Right to Information laws and the Media Services law

3.2.1. The Right to Information law

The need to have Right to information legislation in Tanzania is derived from the best practices that have already taken place in various countries of the World. This need has also been supported by the provisions of the local and international instruments which were highlighted above. As it has been stipulated in various readings, Information is power, if people are well informed on various issues surrounding them they can easily develop. We also want the law because it would be beneficial to our country, for the growth of democracy and strengthening of good governance.


Principles Governing Freedom of Expression Legislation

In order to better understand the need for the Right to Information, various principles have to be considered. Some of these principles have been laid down by international treaties recognizing Freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. These principles have also been compiled together by Article XIX, an independent Freedom of Expression advocacy organization based in the United Kingdom. The key principles are explained below:

Maximum disclosure

The principle of maximum disclosure establishes a presumption that all information held by public bodies should be subjected to disclosure with minimum exemptions guaranteed by law. Public bodies have an obligation to disclose information and every member of the public has a corresponding right to receive information. The overriding goal of freedom of information legislation should be to implement maximum disclosure in practice.

Obligation to Publish

Freedom of information implies that public bodies should not only accede to information requests but also must publish and disseminate widely documents and information of significant public interest. The only limit is availability of resources and capacity. Public bodies should therefore be required to publish information about operations of the body, information on information requests, complaints or other direct actions, which members of the public may take in relation to the public body, guidance on processes by which members of the public may provide input into major policy or legislative proposals.

Others are information that the body holds and the form in which this information is held, and the content of any decision or policy affecting the public, along with reasons for the decision and background material of importance in framing the decision (emphasis mine).

Promotion of Open Government

Informing the public of their rights and promoting a culture of openness within government are essential in order to achieve the goals of freedom of information legislation. Adequate resources have to be devoted to promote the goals of the legislation. Major changes need to take place in civil services through public education on freedom of expression, tackling the culture of official secrecy amongst civil servants and promoting open governance.



Limited Scope of Exceptions

All exceptions should be clearly and narrowly drawn and subject to strict ‘harm’ and ‘public interest’ tests. These tests, popularly known as three – part tests, require that:
• The information must relate to a legitimate aim listed in the law;
• Disclosure must threaten to cause substantial harm to that aim; and
• The harm to the aim must be greater than the public interest in having the information.
The general rule is that no public bodies should be completely excluded from the ambit of the law, even if the majority of their functions fall within the zone of exceptions.


Processes to Facilitate Access

This principle requires that requests for information be processed rapidly and fairly and an independent review of any refusals is available. This requires at least three levels of decision making process on access to information. The law should also provide for strict time limits for the processing of requests and require that any refusals be accompanied by substantive written reasons. There should also be an internal appeals mechanism provided by each public body.

Costs

Individuals should not be deterred from making requests for information by excessive costs.



Open Meetings

The freedom of information law should establish a presumption that meetings of public bodies should be open to the public. The public has the right to know what the government is doing on its behalf and to participate in decision – making processes.

Meetings may be closed, but only in accordance with established procedures and where adequate reasons for closure exist. Any decision to close a meeting should itself be open to the public. Reasons for closure may, in appropriate circumstances, include public health and safety, law enforcement or investigation, employee or personnel matters, privacy, commercial matters and national defense and security matters.

Disclosure Takes Precedence
The law on freedom of information and expression should require compliance by other laws, which are inconsistent with its provisions. Where this is not possible, other legislation dealing with publicly – held information should be subject to the principles underlying the freedom of information legislation. The freedom of information law should have overriding effect vis-à-vis other conflicting legislation.

Protection of Whistleblowers
This principle requires that the law must guarantee protection of individuals who release information on wrongdoing against any legal, administrative or employment – related sanctions.

It is therefore important that a distinct piece of legislation be enacted with specific provisions targeting the already developed international principles. If the legislation does not concur with international principles, it will be said to offend the very purpose of freedom of information legislation and therefore a non compliant law. This is the main argument by the coalition that the government should enact a law that abides with the international standards set by various international treaties to govern freedom of information legislation.


I think it is important to stress that the right to Information legislation is a framework legislation supported by clause 18 of the Constitution. It is a law, which provides rights to all citizens of URT irrespective of their profession, station in the society, gender, age etc. on the other hand, media services legislation is a sectoral law, interested only in the working and procedures of the media. Ransoming the rights of over 40m Tanzanians to a law, which is related to hardly 100,000 people is indeed very untenable.


3.1.2 Media Services Law

Media Services legislation is a separate set of principles and standards, which the government wishes to shape the dissemination of information by and to members of the public.

There are pertinent issues distinguished from freedom of information legislation, which need specific address by the law to be enacted. Such issues include, but are not limited to:




(a) Licensing of mass media for the purposes of practicing in the country;
(b) Contents management and control in order to protect the public morals and ethics and promote growth of a society;
(c) Protection and utilization of international resources such as telecommunication and frequencies to avoid interferences with each other.
(d) Academic credentials and qualifications of media practitioners
(e) Regulation of professional misconducts and or behavior of media practitioners
(f) Control of public access to media;
(g) Protection of human rights and personal integrity of individuals who are forming part of media sources of a subject of media coverage contents
(h) Protection of whistleblowers and confidential news sources for public interests.
(i) Investment policies and conducive business environment in relation to advertisements and consumer protection
(j) Labour relations and the protection of journalists and media practitioners at work

(k) Protection of media practitioners against unfair and illegal attacks from members of the public;

(l) Editorial independence

m) Media Pluralism, independence and diversity issues

n) Media ownership regulation

Legislation on media services has to incorporate a wide number of such issues addressed above in order to promote the enjoyment of diverse media contents to suit diverse interests of consumers. To have independent and professional media personnel any legislation to be enacted should not ignore the above issues

It is important to notice at this point that freedom of information legislation can easily be implemented where there are media services laws that adequately promote media freedom. In the absence of such relationship, the enjoyment of article 18 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania will remain a dream to be achieved.


4. STAKEHOLDERS COALITION PROCESS, 2006 - 2010

In October 2006, the Government made another historical step when published on its website a draft Bill for the Freedom of Information, 2006. This Bill was received by different outlook from media stakeholders who had an experience of 1993 when the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting, William Shija, made an attempt to regulate the activities of the private press by tabling the Media Professions Regulation Bill. The government draft Bill for the Freedom of Information has some draconian elements of the then rejected bill.

On December 16, 2006, the MCT organized a meeting of various media stakeholders to review and comment upon the Governments proposals contained in the Freedom of Information Bill.

The meeting resolved after in depth review and discussions of the governments’ proposals that there were unacceptable as there were deemed to contradict with fundamental principles of the freedom of information.

It was also seen that the Government’s proposals on freedom of information mixed together issues that are not necessarily related such as issues of media services, children’s protection and freedom of information.

The recommendations from the stakeholders was to split the proposed law, one to deal with issues of freedom of information that would be a framework legislation and the other on media services, which would be a sectoral legislation for media issues. Other issues were such as children should not be included unless absolutely related to access to information or protection from corruptive elements.

In their assessment, the stakeholders found out that, in the proposed freedom of information bill, access to information from public institutions regarding whistleblower protection, was seen as being downplayed and given blunt attention in that drafts Bill that also continued to place a lot of anonymity to a good number of information pieces for no reason

Since this draft Bill was seen as having a lot of deficiencies, stakeholders rejected the Bill and urged the government to give them some time to undertake public consultations, a request which was granted by the government.

The meeting recommended the formation of the coalition on the right to information, which initially comprised of MCT, TAMWA and MISATAN. It was later joined by other eight CSOs

The Freedom of Information Coalition, which comprises of eleven Civil Society institutions (two from outside Tanzania) organized and held meetings and public hearings countrywide in search for views on proposals for the freedom to information and media services legislation. All along, it emerged that the public was not only interested in the Freedom to access information but wanted this to be pronounced as a basic right – hence the notion of –right to Information in the discourse of the Coalition’s work.

Stakeholder recommendations on a Bill for the Right to Information Act were then prepared and officially submitted to the government in August 2007, with copies of the same distributed to all members of Parliament and the cabinet, various government institutions and agencies as well as non state actors.

Such recommendations factored in broader national interests including the need for a transparent framework in which a citizen can demand for the right to particular pieces of information held in government offices. Around 7,000 copies of the recommendation booklets both in English and Kiswahili languages were disseminated to the public receiving a lot of public attention following publication of its content by numerous newspapers in the form of pullouts, feature articles, analyzes and editorials.

Additionally, issues relating to Media Services were discussed and debated, in accordance with the principles established by the media profession. As was advised, media services became a separate realm leading to a separate set of recommendations for a draft Media services Bill prepared by the Coalition and submitted to the government officially in October 2008. Again, copies of such recommendation booklets were disseminated widely to all Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers and key government institutions and agencies as well as non-state actors.

Furthermore, the Coalition conducted several meetings with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Development under the leadership of Hon. Jenista Mhagama, MP, whose contribution and cooperation has all along been immensely sound. The Committee has proved to be active and in true defense of national interests, judging from active contributions in improving the stakeholder recommendations.

However, there has not been sufficient cooperation and response from the government in working towards the enactment of good information and media services Laws. For instance, there has never been an official response to all the developments made throughout the stakeholder consultation processes leading to the drafting of the recommendations despite the Coalitions attempts in keeping the government informed all the time.

It is not known to date whether the government rejected or accepted the stakeholder recommendations. Even attempts by the Coalition to seek audience and have joint meetings with government experts to strike a common position proved futile. The Coalition wrote three times to Hon. Minister for Information, Culture and Sports, George Huruma Mkuchika on 2nd February 2009; on 8th September 2009 and 30th November 2010 last year in request for such a joint meeting. The three letters notwithstanding, there has never been a response from the Minister or his Ministry, not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the communications from the Coalition!

In a joint session between the Parliamentary Standing Committee, and the Coalition held on 20th January 2010, the Deputy Minister for Information, Culture and Sports, Hon. Joel Nkaya Bendera emphasized that the process towards the enactment of a Media Services and Control Act was underway and that the next stage was to write a certificate for tabling to the cabinet, a statement that has also been repeated by Minister Mkuchika. In spite of all this, none of the two has explanation over the Right to Information Act process.

The right to information is a basic right for every human being as guaranteed and protected in the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and a number of international and regional instruments for the protection of human rights, most of which Tanzania is actually a signatory.

The coming of a Law that guarantees the right to information will facilitate the speedy progressing of Tanzania as a recognized development destination in the international sky. It is also in line with the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, which Tanzania vehemently promises to be a champion, including eradicating poverty and eliminating criminal acts and Corruption and embezzlement in public offices. This is the sure way to promote Socio-economic and political development in the country.

The Coalition was impressed and encouraged by the fact that a good number of Tanzanians across the country participated in the preparation of the recommendation that have been submitted to the government demanding that there be the Right to Information and Media Services Bills to enact into Laws. Beyond the Bills, the Coalition has already prepared recommendations for regulations to guide the smooth implementation of the two Laws as soon as they have been enacted by Parliament.

And in order for the two Laws not to contradict with other statutes, the stakeholder’s recommendations also included proposals to review a number of existing Laws that will be in contradiction with the coming two Laws. Therefore, it is being proposed that some Laws and sections of Laws be repealed as a way of permitting the smooth implementation of the Laws to be enacted. The proposed repealed laws including; Newspapers No. 229, 1976, National Security Act No. 20 1981, Penal Code Cap 16 especially on section 89(1a), which criminalises defamation and insult, The Public Services Act 2002, The Public Leadership Code of Ethic Act, 1995, The Films and Stage Plays Act 1976, National Labours and the National Immigration laws.

The Stakeholders Coalition is led by the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) and includes in it – The Media Institute of Southern Africa, Tanzania Chapter (MISA – TAN); Tanzania Media Women Association (TAMWA); The Bar Association of Tanzania Mainland (TLS); Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC); Tanzania Network for Legal Education (TANLET); National Organization for Legal Assistance (nola); Media Owners Association (MOAT) and Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TNGP). Other Stakeholders in the Coalition who have offered inputs and technical expertise include the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) based in India and Article XIX based in London, UK.


5. LESSONS FROM BEST PRACTICE JURISDICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

The struggle for freedom of information legislation has been taking place in various countries of the world. Some states have included in their constitutions, statements of guarantee to public access to information and freedom of information.

5.1. Sweden has been enjoying the right to know since 1810. It was replaced in 1949 by a new Act which enjoyed the sanctity of being a part of the country’s Constitution itself. The principle is that every Swedish citizen should have access to virtually all documents kept by the state or municipal agencies.

5.2. In Australia, the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in December 1982. It gave citizens more access to the Federal Government’s documents. With this, manuals used for making decisions were also made available. But in Australia, the right is curtailed where an agency can establish that non-disclosure is necessary for protection of essential public interest and private and business affairs of a person about whom information is sought.

Back to African continent, only a few countries have been able to enact the best laws on freedom of information.

SOUTH AFRICA
(a) The Republic of South Africa, has in the year 2000 enacted what is called Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000. The Act aims to give effect to the constitutional right of access to any information held by the state and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

The exact provisions of the Act do not include media services. The Management and implementation of the Act vested into the Human Rights Commission, which is directly accountable to the South African National Assembly.

The implementation of the Act since its enactment in 2000 has been praised by various human rights activists as being one of the best regimes where access to public information is guaranteed without unnecessary curtailments. Access to public information held by private bodies by government is also possible under the Act.

KENYA
(b) Kenya our fellow East African community member has come out with the new Constitution, 2010, under the Bill of Right, apart from other basic rights like freedom of expression; it has provided specific sections, which has provided clearly impeccable freedom of the press. This section state clearly that;
34. (1) Freedom and independence of electronic, print and all other types of media is guaranteed, but does not extend to any expression specified in Article 33 (2). Which prohibit media freedom to be extended to (a) propaganda for war; (b) incitement to violence; (c) hate speech; or
(d) advocacy of hatred

(2) The State shall not
(a) exercise control over or interfere with any person engaged in
broadcasting, the production or circulation of any publication or
the dissemination of information by any medium; or
(b) penalise any person for any opinion or view or the content of any broadcast, publication or dissemination.
(3) Broadcasting and other electronic media have freedom of
establishment, subject only to licensing procedures that—
(a) are necessary to regulate the airwaves and other forms of signal
distribution; and
(b) are independent of control by government, political interests or
commercial interests.

(4) All State-owned media shall—
(a) be free to determine independently the editorial content of their
broadcasts or other communications;
(b) be impartial; and
(c) afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.

And for assurance of the Constitution has provided for the enactment of the law, which will guarantee these rights and to ensure that there is a body which is independent to foresee these rights.
Parliament shall enact legislation that provides for the establishment of a body, which shall—
(a) be independent of control by government, political interests or commercial interests;
(b) reflect the interests of all sections of the society; and
(c) set media standards and regulate and monitor compliance with those standards.

The Constitution also prohibit the state not to exercise control over or interference with any person engaged in broadcasting, the production or circulation of any publication or the dissemination of information by any medium; or penalize any person for an opinion or view or the content of any broadcast, publication or dissemination.

Apart from freedom of the media the Constitution also provide specific section on the right to access to information. This section states as follows;

35. (1) Every citizen has the right of access to—
(a) information held by the State; and
(b) information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom.
(2) Every person has the right to the correction or deletion of untrue or misleading information that affects the person.

Therefore it is our role as nation and especially at this point where we have constitution review process to consider inserting these fundamental rights, on access to information and media services in our new constitution.


INDIA
(c) Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of India guarantees the fundamental rights to free speech and expression. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and information. The absence of authentic information on matters of public interest will only encourage wild rumors and speculations and avoidable allegations against individuals and institutions.

Therefore, the Right to Information becomes a constitutional right, being an aspect of the right to free speech and expression which includes the right to receive and collect information. This will also help the citizens perform their fundamental duties as set out in Article 51A of the Constitution. A fully informed citizen will certainly be better equipped for the performance of these duties. Thus, access to information would assist citizens in fulfilling these obligations.

Republic of India has advanced in the right of Information laws. In 2005 India enacted the Right to Information Act number 22. The Act aimed to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

This Act is working under the India Constitution in which Article 19 of the same provides for the right to Information. Chapter 2 of the Right to Information Act stipulates clearly the Right to Information and obligation of the public authorities. This chapter categorically state that Public authorities shall:
“maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated”

Section 4 (2) of the Act stress responsibility of the public authority to provide as much information suo motu, to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

The law stressed that all information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

The Act insist that information should reach people notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.

The Act provides for categories of rights available to every citizen. This includes the right to:
- Ask any questions from the Government or seek any information
- Take copies of any government documents
- Inspect any government documents
- Inspect any government works
- Take samples of materials of any Government work

6.0. Media Services in other countries

A study on media services has failed to come up with the best practice law that governs media freedom. A number of developed countries have no single piece of legislation to govern media services. This is the same situation for developing countries, especially countries, which are members of the commonwealth.

Media is normally regulated through a regulatory body that is a creation of parliamentary statute. The practice of media regulation through such statutory organs has been ineffectual in the sense that media freedom activists have perceived it as a biased and discriminatory process whereby state- owned media practitioners enjoy more rights than the private media practitioners.

A move has been initiated by regional and international organizations to promote respect and protection of media freedom through legislation. In this regard, an independent media regulator has been preferred whereby Tanzania has been taken as a lead example through the Media Council of Tanzania, which is an independent regulatory body for media practitioners.

The functions of independent media regulators in African countries, has been widened to include quasi – judicial functions whereby victims of media conducts are able to access justice and have their rights remedied through award of damages by impartial and independent arbitrators.

A mediation and arbitration process, which is found on independent regulators, has been commended as the immediate and effective mechanism to regulate media without one going through legal technicalities and spending so much time to access justice.

The African Charter on Broadcasting, 2003, that Tanzania has signed is one of the best guiding treaties governing media freedom. The Charter recognizes the co existence of three – tie media ownership in SADC countries i.e. Public, Private and community owned broadcasting.

The contents of the African Charter on Broadcasting have already been adopted by incorporation into the Tanzania Communications regulatory Authority ( TCRA) Act, No. 12 of 2003 ( as amended from time to time). Media ownership has also been addressed by TCRA Act together with the Electronic and Postal Communications Act, 2010.

The experience from other countries of Africa including Tanzania before the year 2003, was targeting the maximum control and regulation of media practice. Defamation and national security issues were the main target for media regulation while leaving the broader part of media legislation requirement unaddressed. Issues like protection of members of the public, editorial independence, media ownership and anti- competition and advertisement were not included in media laws before 2003 when the TCRA Act was enacted.

New developments in information, communication technology (ICT) has paved way to the need to enact a new law that would accommodate the new media technologies to allow media practitioners and consumers to sail together without unnecessary infringements of each other’ s rights.


7.0. Recommendations
Therefore it is our recommendation that the Government should send first into the Parliament, the Bill to enact the Right to Information law. This will ensure all people of Tanzania a right to access information, which is their Constitutional right.

Secondly, in order to ensure maximum delivery of information to the people, government should send into the Parliament the Media Services Bill as proposed by stakeholders. When this proposed Bill becomes a law it will assure media fraternity maximum security when exercising their duties. Media stakeholders are ready to join hand to make sure that the proposed laws are enacted in time and with expected quality.