Response to article "Not on our watch" in first (June/July 2009) issue of "African.org" magazine

In the interest of accuracy, the Government of Botswana wishes to correct a few misconceptions about the recently enacted Media Practitioners Act that appear in the article "Not on our watch". The article, which was published in the launch edition of "the African.org" magazine, makes the following observation with reference to the Act:

"Just like Kenya, Botswana too has rushed to gazette a new media law, the Media Practitioners Act, last year. Lawmakers and civic groups had asked for amendments in response to public outcry by journalists. Parliamentary committees were denied the chance to fine tune the bill and the main outrage is over the requirement for journalists to register with Botswana's Media Council before practicing. The Media Council's decision making structure has got appointees who apparently are not in any way knowledgeable about the media industry."

The above characterisation is, in our view, quite inaccurate. In this respect we note the following:

Prior to its presentation as a Bill before Parliament, the Media Practitioners Act was the subject of stakeholder consultations lasting over a decade, which involved local media organisations as well as other members of the public.

The Bill was subsequently debated in Parliament from June through December 2008, during which time stakeholders were encouraged to suggest further amendments. In this respect the Bill did, in fact, pass through Committee stage where it was significantly amended. The apparent failure of some critics to bring forward any of their own proposals for amendment during the period was thus not due to any lack of opportunity.

There is no provision in the Act that requires "journalists to register with Botswana's Media Council before practicing." The act instead provides for the accreditation of media practitioners by an Executive Committee, elected by the Council's membership, in accordance with such regulations as made by the Committee itself.

There is, moreover, nothing in the Act that compels any individual to seek accreditation. Neither is there anything in it that bars those not accredited by the Council from contributing to any publications.

Also contrary to what is alleged in the article, the decision making bodies of the Council are made up of individuals who are involved in and/or knowledgeable of the media industry.

Finally we believe that any concern about the nature of the Media Council should be allayed by its core objectives, as listed under
section 5 of the Act, which are:

• to preserve media freedom [and]
• to uphold standards of professional conduct and promote good ethical standards and discipline among media practitioners.

We trust that the above helps to clarify matters.
Dr. Jeff Ramsay, Government Communications Coordinator
Republic of Botswana

Editor’s note: We believe the contents in the article is accurate. The comment on Botswana’s Media Practitioners Law stems from the ongoing controversy in Botswana concerning this law.

In May this year, a consortium of publishers in Botswana took the government to the High Court questioning the constitutionality of the new media law. They particularly question the registration of the journalists. The case is still before courts. In July, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) also distanced itself from the new media law at their annual general meeting held in Francistown.