The ICT Act is a poisoned chalice for broadcast media

A lot of discussions have been going on about this Act with each side painting the other as dishonest and untruthful. This is not necessary as what the media are asking for is very specific.

However, before I go there, let me acknowledge upfront that the Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) Act on the whole is a great law that is in keeping with the modern technological times that we find ourselves in. It will make e-transactions easier and lawful and provide an overall legal framework in which to do business.

That said, some would wonder why the outcry? Media concerns have been two-fold:

1) Section 88 of the Act, which authorises the Minister for Internal Security to seize broadcasting equipment “in the interest of public tranquillity”. Two arguments have been advanced to show dishonesty on the part of the media:
(a) That the law has been in the statutes since 1998.
(b) In any case it’s not included in the amendments.

The truth is that it is broadcasting regulation that has been introduced into the ICT Act, which now locates broadcasting, as we know it, in this law. The 1998 law basically meant the frequencies were given out to police, security companies and the military. By amending the Act and including broadcasting here, we have basically, with a stroke of the pen, legalised State action such as the raid on the Standard Newspapers Group that happened not too long ago. This should not be allowed to happen if the media are expected to continue working for the common good.

2) The second and even more serious concern is that the regulator for broadcasting becomes the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK). The problem is that CCK board members are appointed wholly by the Minister of the day and have no security of tenure. They can be fired at the whim of the Minister. Clearly, he who pays the piper calls the tune!

We do not deny that the media need regulation. However, in the same breath, we must agree that the Government is only one of the stakeholders in this matter with the civil society, religious groups, journalists, media owners, editors and the general populace, forming a huge constituency of other stakeholders.

We are asking that the Government either establishes an independent broadcasting commission with other stakeholders (including Government) represented, or locates the broadcasting section in the Media Act where we have an independent Media Council that has only recently come into operation. We also agree that should the latter approach be adopted, there may be a need to strengthen the Media Council itself by giving it more teeth and, probably, changing its composition.

Somebody tell me, are we being dishonest?