The Odinga family versus the Ambalas, or how the right of reply was treated

On June 25, I wrote about the right of reply, which gives every person an opportunity to correct erroneous information published about them in the media.

Oduor Ambala doubts the right of reply exists at NMG. “I really was very surprised because I thought you were writing about a different newspaper other than the Nation,” he wrote on July 7.

Two years ago, the Sunday Nation serialised Raila Odinga’s autobiography, The Flames of Freedom, which contained an extensive account of his late father, Otieno Aggrey Ambala, a former MP for Gem (1979-1983).

Oduor Ambala said the account was “deceitful and unfair” and he, therefore, sought the opportunity to set the record straight.

“I was rudely surprised that your editors insisted on editing the article. What they eventually proposed to publish read like a praise song for Raila Odinga. I obviously did the only thing I could do, that is, withdraw the article altogether.”

Can the right of reply be edited? The reply, if edited, it must retain the core of its meaning. The purpose of a reply is to set the record right.

However, it must be strictly relevant to the inaccuracies. If its length exceeds what is necessary to correct the facts then the editor can trim it. The editor may also edit offensive matter that unreasonably affects or injures the rights of others.

LEGAL ADVICE

I don’t know whether Mr Ambala was justified in rejecting the edited reply, or whether Sunday Nation Managing Editor Eric Obino was justified in editing the reply. I’ve not seen the reply or the edited version, but I’ve seen the email exchanges between Mr Ambala and Mr Obino.

On October 10, 2013, Mr Ambala requested Mr Obino to publish his reply “without any alterations”. But Mr Obino edited the reply and told him the reply was “a reaction to the book and not a right of reply”. Mr Ambala then insisted that if the reply cannot be published as “we have written it then we don’t want any of it printed.”

Mr Obino had sought legal advice. The NMG lawyer told him: “I am apprehensive about what publishing this reply from the Ambala family will unleash. They seem to think that they have a right of reply in law. There isn’t any. The only person who may have had one is the late Otieno Ambala, who is deceased and therefore has no legally recognised reputation. The children or larger family for that matter have no such right in law.

“Secondly, the contents of the reply just show us that there are extremely raw emotions between the Odinga family and the Ambalas. The Ambalas feel that the Odingas have had a free bite with the newspaper and they want their turn with this so-called reply. There is a risk that Raila or some other person in his family will want to publish a rejoinder to this.

“Thirdly, the reply has gone into several irrelevant and in some cases clearly defamatory claims such as the references to Beryl Odinga and Edgar Tekere over issues we would not be able to prove, if we were sued. I would not publish this but if we must, then I would suggest that we edit it.”

The law on the right of reply is open to different interpretations. My interpretation is that Mr Ambala had standing to demand a right of reply. Article 5 of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism simply says a fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies should be given to “individuals or organisations when reasonably called for.”

Upon refusal, Mr Ambala could have gone to the Complaints Commission of the Media Council. But it is too late now. The Limitation of Actions Act prescribes periods within which a cause of action should be brought.

While there is no specific provision for the right of reply in the Act, it most likely falls under the category of libel and slander, which may not be brought after one year.

Whatever the case, the right of reply ought to be exercised within a reasonable period of time. A two-year wait would be seen to be reasonable.

Send your complaints to public [email protected]. Call 3288000, mobile 0721989264