It is almost three weeks since Parliament rescinded permission that allows Nation Media Group Uganda (NMG-U) journalists to cover events at Parliament.
This follows other restrictions, imposed by State House months ago, also barring the same media group from attending events where the President is present because NMG-U was ‘misreporting on him.’ Understandably, it gets quite exhausting when a person makes it a habit to twist and misquote the words you say, especially when they go on to relay those words onto unsuspecting members of the public.
It is also true that leaders, especially those who hold office by virtue of universal suffrage, remain answerable to the public for their actions while in exercise of their official functions. The public should be aware of all developments conducted by officials in public office. If the President asked NMG-U to desist from reporting about his private life, he would be well within his rights. However, attention is drawn towards any developments where the President is involved because they are of particular concern to all people of Uganda and they should be reported without any inaccuracies.
The same holds true for Parliament and its hierarchy.
Our leaders are the best of us and are expected to have a ‘thick skin’. Ideally, they are supposed to be tolerant and receptive of public criticism or any divergent opinions that emanate from the Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Undeniably, it could be true that NMG-U’s reporting appears skewed in a way that seems unfavourable towards Parliament. At the same time, there is no dispute over whether the news that NMG-U reports from Parliament is factual and accurate. Should they opt to ignore reporting such, then the millions of viewers, listeners and readers will then turn away from NMG-U, as well and look for alternatives.
Those now emboldened alternatives will be at liberty to peddle even much worse/better lies than what NMG-U was allegedly doing. Unlike the folks at 8th Street, who had access to Parliament and a variety of verification methods, together with professional standards to uphold, new sources of ‘news’ will only care about engagement. It is not uncommon for faceless accounts to share grossly misleading information online. In the last few years, several individuals have been prosecuted for making and publishing harmful content about notable personalities in the country. Facebook itself was blocked in Uganda because it provided a platform on which a harmful and divisive rhetoric was reportedly advanced, contrary to the principles of national unity.
NMG-UG, on the other hand, maintains the ability to carry out due diligence and exercise professional restraint. This is because it is recognised as a corporate entity, to which laws of Uganda and subsequent regulations apply, laying down a variety of avenues that can be pursued to bring them back in line when they go wayward in the conduct of their duty. If there is an issue that needs to be resolved, Parliament can reach out to the management of NMG-U and amicably resolve the ongoing impasse. When the Deputy Speaker stated that there was an ongoing investigation regarding the conduct of individuals affiliated with NMG-U, it did not imply that the whole company should be banned from accessing Parliament.
It is impossible to completely block public discourse on a particular topic. Perhaps what Parliament can do is offer an alternative perspective to the facts in dispute and allow the public to judge both sides of the story and reach an informed conclusion on their own. The public has a right to receive information and Parliament cannot decide on how this should be done. The media themselves have a duty to share that same information. Media freedom itself is a key tenet of any thriving democracy, one to which all Members of Parliament subject themselves.
Society is infinitely imperfect, and it is our duty to constantly aim at improving it. Constructive criticism is one of the ways this can be done. The measures that have been taken by Parliament to restrict a Constitutionally guaranteed right, seem rather excessive and are not addressing the problem, whatever it may be.