I have some slightly different views regarding section 88

Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years).

Why?

This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state.

Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace.

The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information.

In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK.

My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work.

Regards,

Brian


On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.

1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)

Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.

2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who  can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.

Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.

3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.

Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.

Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.

walu.






_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com



--
Brian Munyao Longwe
e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com
cell:  + 254 722 518 744
blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com
meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com