comments. I am sure you know that policy and legal frameworks are
products of stakeholders. The Commission or the Minister cannot wake up
and gazzetes regulations that have not been discussed by stakeholders.
legislations like the regulation code. We must have that window in the
law considering the fact that technology changes fast in this industry. I
will post the proposed code.
harmful material as it relates to public morality. Please read sec. 79 of
the consititution in terms of limitations of freedom.
As fo sec. 88. You know my views.
Ndemo.
Dr Ndemo,
Thanks for posting excerpts of the bill online (sections 46 and 88). We
should actually have the FULL version of the bill (as presented to
parliament) available online, although this would be accessible to the
privileged with Internet access how about the masses? What happened to
“our right to know”?
I’ve carefully read through these sections of the bill and have some
comments:
1. Apart from the gender Insensitivity of this clause “46Q b) that person
provides broadcasting services in an area for which HE is not licensed to
broadcast;”, I’ve some substantive comments here below:
2. Section “46K The Minister may, in consultation with the Commission,
make regulations generally with respect to all broadcasting services and
without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, with respect to- (c)
mandating the carriage of content, in keeping with public interest
obligations, across licensed broadcasting services; (d) prescribing
anything that may be prescribed under this Part.
Comment: I worry about the unspecified powers to prescribe content and
“anything that may be prescribed” by the Minister – given our past, what
are the implications?. who makes regulation? Minister or Regulator?
3. section “46H (1) The Commission shall have the power to set standards
for the manner, time, and type of programmes to be broadcast by licensees
under this Act.”
Comment – might this limit creativity and public opinion type programming
that allows free speech?
I’ve concerns about this section below:
4. Section “88.(1) On the declaration of any public emergency or in the
interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being
responsible for Internal Security may, by order in writing, direct any
officer duly authorized in that behalf, to take temporary possession of
any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or
apparatus within Kenya, and –
(b) in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya
from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject
shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in
the direction;
(c) in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or
description or postal article in the course of transmission by post within
Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any
officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as
the Minister may direct.”
Comment: what constitutes “interest of public safety and tranquillity” –
this is subject to abuse and personal discretion. It worries me that free
speech could be limited and privacy preached on any subject – e.g.
complaining about high fuel costs, food crisis, impunity etc etc. I do not
know about you, but the last ban on live coverage created a sense of
personal insecurity, isolation and denied persons their “right to know”
and the subsequent threats of prosecution did not make things any better.
What are the chances of abuse in this clause?
Lets remember that these laws will not only serve today but future
generations with different leaders.
Edith
----------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------
"easy access to the world"
believed to be clean.