Most countries in the East and Horn of Africa have constitutions guaranteeing the freedom of the media. In real life, however, the same countries ignore or sidestep their own legislation. In addition, they have a frighteningly impressive repertoir of direct and discret, brutal or subtle means of repression. (06-JUNE-08)

Written by Niels Jacob Harbitz, HRH F’s Project Manager for Africa and Editor of www.humanrightshouse.org, this article was first published, in Norwegian, in the most recent issue of ‘Verdensmagasinet X,’ an independent bi-monthly magazine addressing people, ideas and perspectives from the global South, and efforts for solidarity, justice and independence. The article has been translated and prepared for publication here by HRH F / Harbitz.

East and Horn of Africa shall in this article include Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti. And the media situation in these countries is full of paradoxes. In Somalia, by far the most dangerous country in which to be a journalist, you find one of the region’s bravest multitude of free media, with several dozen independent newspapers, private radio stations and a strong journalist union. In Ethiopia, where many believed that whatever was left of media freedom disappeared with the arrests of numerous members of the opposition and human rights defenders, including many journalists, in November 2005, are instead most of them released, if only after intense international pressure. It should be noted as well that many other journalists are still in jail, and that self-censorship is common.

In Sudan, where civil war has ravaged large parts of the country almost continuously since independence more than fifty years ago, the now more than three years old peace treaty between Northern and Southern Sudan has caused significant improvements in journalists’ security and working conditions. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the improvements have been particularly evident in the war-torn south, not in the north, where the suppression is still severe. In Uganda, where many conditions suggest that journalists should have been more critical and the media more independent, neither self censorship nor subtle suppression, but exaggerated loyalty towards the authorities among the most important causes of Ugandan media’s high degree of uniformity, to the point of coming across as un-free. Last, but not least, in recent months, Kenyan media are experiencing setbacks to a situation one had hoped belonged to history by now. Following the nationwide post-election riots, the Kenyan media situation has been marked by death threats to numerous journalists, censorship of broadcast media and even a decree to cell phone service providers to communicate to their customers the authorities’ warning that everyone found to have sent or received messages with content ‘likely to cause unrest or be a threat to national security’ will be prosecuted.

An analysis of the seriously restricted media freedom situation in the East and Horn of Africa can depart from a distinction between internal and external factors. For all eight countries analysed here, internal factors are considered the most important. The emphasis in this article is therefore on the methods of suppression developed locally, by each individual country’s authorities. For the entire region, however, it also applies that external factors matter, and in many of the countries in ever more negative ways. Hence, free countries must accept criticism for not using their own freedom to put pressure on the countries in the East and Horn of Africa to consolidate and expand the media freedom there.

Internal factors
A common feature of the authorities’ handling of the media freedom situation in the East and Horn of Africa is the sovereign nonchalance with respect to observing their own legislation. Between what is in reality and what ought to be according to the laws, there are without exception great abysses. Albeit to different degrees, all the region’s regimes are guilty of this power arrogance. Constitutions are clearly considered no more than guidelines that one does not need to relate to for an ideal, yet illusionary situation. And in the half-hearted attempts to bridge the abyss between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought,’ another common feature appears; namely the numerous exceptions that have been introduced to the constitutions, either ‘only’ in practice and precedent, or established in writing as alternative, contradictory legislation.

Ethiopian authorities, for instance, has a broad spectre of such ‘extra laws’. But they are not alone. A high percentage of the charges against journalists for ‘defamation,’ ‘indecency’ or other ‘offences,’ ‘destructive distribution of rumours,’ ‘threats against national security’ or ‘encouraging unrest’ fall into this category; violations of laws or commonplaces that are in themselves in breach with the country’s constitution. At least as often, however, no charge is made. The threats and harassments, the persecution, arrests, detentions and disappearances that journalists experience all happen without any kind of legal support and leave no trace in the legislation either.

Persecution is at its most dangerous when it is arbitrary, following only the individual head of state’s mood of the moment. And there are still African president, Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir among them, who, according to Reporters Without Borders, consider the state their own, personal property and the country’s journalists as their servants. Within such mental frameworks, independent, critical journalism becomes a breach of trust. And disloyal servants only get what they deserve.

Of all the countries in the region, Eritrea has reached the furthest in eliminating the element of unpredictability. Here, all journalism is subject to total state control. All journalists, including the few correspondents for other countries’ media or international bureaus still working inside Eritrea have to report directly to the country’s Minister of Information Ali Abdu, who do not think twice about withdrawing work permits. Meanwhile, interviewees risk no less that the death penalty for what they are quoted to have said. No wonder few are willing to speak. Journalists who wish to enter Eritrea first have to prove their good intentions to the nearest Eritrean Embassy, then wait for several months for the permission to enter into the country. And as soon as you are there, one false move, one wrong word is enough to be deported with a persona non grata stamp in your passport – for life. Many journalists have been killed in recent years, other have ‘only’ disappeared. The most fortunate have managed to escape. As of today, there is no media freedom left in Eritrea. For that reason, last year the country for the first time was placed at the very bottom of Reporters Without Borders’ world ranking.

Djibouti, the smallest country in the region, probably makes the most typical example of how the constitution is evaded. Citizens of Djibouti have a constitutional right to express and disseminate opinions ‘in speech, writing or images’. Even so, the media are subject to numerous restrictions. This happens directly, through prohibitions and sanctions against ‘false information,’ ‘defamation’ and ‘offensive / insulting reporting,’ and indirectly, for example through insurmountable bureaucratic hindrances against getting a broadcasting licence. And the suppression is not particularly subtle: Fines and confiscation of whole newspaper issues, harassment and threats, arrests and imprisonment are among the methods used by Djiboutian authorities to control the media. And once again: They are not alone.

A multitude of methods
Eastern African authorities’ suppression of the media takes other forms as well.

Among the newer is the use of bogus journalists to publish ‘disclosures’ about real journalists, and then let these ‘disclosures’ lead to the removal of the real journalists to outposts where they are likely to do less harm. Temporary or permanent dismissals, harassment and threats, detention and imprisonment because of such fabricated allegations, are also among the newer ‘tools’.

Another method is to put pressure on the service providers, like the printing press, the distributor, the outlets where the papers are sold, or the media’s very financial foundations, among them the biggest advertisers. In Uganda, the fortnightly magazine the Independent, is currently on the lookout for its own printing press, exactly because of the authorities’ sanctions against the printing press the magazine has used so far.

A third method, in particular to be found in Ethiopia, is the authorities’ efforts to dig up old ‘dirt’ to make journalists who have become a nuisance shut up. Last year, Abraham Reta was sentenced by the Ethiopian Supreme Court to one years’ imprisonment for allegations made in an article he wrote in 2002. It is also common to pass a ‘mild’ sentence, like three months’ imprisonment, first, before one really ‘goes for it’ with a much longer sentence. This happens for instance in case where the journalist refuses to name his or her sources or claim his or her innocence towards accusations presented during the first, shorter detention period. After being released, it is not uncommon for journalists to leave their profession altogether, be it out of fear, fatigue, disillusionment or any combination of the three.

A fourth method is to establish a culture of impunity towards violations against journalists and the media. As soon as such a culture is up and running – and up and running it is, in every country under scrutiny here – people can be hired, discreetly, to anything, from making anonymous threatening phone calls, to implementing the threats, quite simply by being the contract killer. The very violent attack in Tanzania in January this year, with the use of knives, machetes and acid on the tow editors Saed Kubenea and Ndimara Tegambwage of the weekly magazine Mwana Halisi may well have been arranged this way. The attack is seen as connected to Mwana Halisi’s publishing last year of a list accusing named politicians of helping themselves to money from the state coffin, in other words stealing public property.

Prior to the attack, Kubenea had received several death threats and also been subject to an arson attack. While Tegambwage had to stitch several machete cuts in his head, Kubenea was flown to India for surgery on his acid burnt eyes. As of today, no-one has been arrested or even suspected of the crime. Needless to say, such attacks – and the near consequent absence of legal repercussions – effectively prevent the emergence of free, independent, critical media.

Instead, a culture of fear, marked by a strong measure of self-censorship, emerges. Only the strongest survive, for a while. In the longer term, the media are left with a corps of journalists dominated by career hunters loyal to the regime. For even under circumstances like these, the journalist profession and the entire media sector carries a certain prestige.

The last and potentially most dangerous trend is cross-border cooperation as has been seen between Ethiopia and Kenya. The two regimes have for long exchanged information, particularly on security related issues. The border is open, and it is well known that Ethiopian surveillance operates inside Kenya, assisted by an easily bribed Kenyan police. Last November, four Ethiopian journalists, all previously imprisoned for their work and then forced to leave their country to live as refugees in the slums of Nairobi, were woken up by three masked, armed men. The leader of the three spoke Amharic, an Ethiopian language. The journalists had their arms tied behind their backs, and were dragged along on the ground. One of them was beaten. After 30-40 minutes, as neighbours became aware of what was going on and cried out for help, the attackers withdrew. A mobile phone and some little cash was all they took. The four journalists are not at all in doubt that the Ethiopian security services were behind the attack, and that they were attacked because they are journalists.

External factors
In addition to the internal factors come the individual country’s need to please its community of donors and diplomacy. This community makes demands in the areas of democratic standards, positive development of governance structures and procedures, and respect for human rights, measured among others in the quality of the legislation itself. In negotiations about aid, good laws are always a good card to play. Implementation of and respect for the same laws seem to be far less important, also for the donor- / diplomacy community.

In a part of the world as dependent upon aid as the East ad Horn of Africa region, the donor countries’ often shallow analyses and superficial understanding, unprincipled attitude towards own ideals and weakness in implementing own policies must take its share of the guilt as to why local authorities can let the suppression of the media continue. Over and over again, all donors have refrained from addressing such serious violations against media freedom that they would have brought the authorities down, if the same had happened back home in the donor country.

Among the more grotesque examples in this category are the circumstances surrounding the European Union’s development programme towards Eritrea, signed in May last year, and worth 122 million euros over five years. The agreement requires that Eritrea ‘takes a constructive solution oriented approach to both regional crises and human rights and media freedom’. At the launch of the agreement, EU commissioner Louis Michel declared that he was ‘very, very honoured’ to be able to wish Eritrea’s President Issaias Afeworki welcome to Brussels. Meanwhile, Afeworki categorically dismissed any and all critical questions about human rights. But even such a clear signal that Eritrea has no intention of meeting the demands of the agreement the country had just signed, among them on media freedom, had any consequences.

In addition to the internal factors and the need to meet the requirements of donors, there is a third factor that looks to introduce a new and more dangerous phase for human rights in general, media freedom in particular in the East and Horn of Africa. This is the entry of the People´s Republic of China, not only as entrepreneur and trading partner, but also as a political actor. Thanks to China’s increasing engagement, many countries have already been able to reduce their dependency on western countries. And unlike those, the People´s Republic of China does not make a single demand. Up against ruthlessly commercially minded Chinese Ambassadors, their western colleagues, with a habit of handing out aid only if certain conditions are met, don’t stand a chance. The Chinese even provide direct support to the local authorities’ suppression. In this field, the People´s Republic of China is a world leader. There are already examples that noise transmitters against unwanted radio stations are part of the ‘cooperation package’ with the People´s Republic of China.

From bad to worse?
The world’s three leading agencies for media freedom; Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) agree that the media freedom situation in the East and Horn of Africa has gone from bad to worse. RSF writes that African governments did things in 2007 that they dared not do before. The power arrogance became more obvious, the broken promises more shameless, the suppression more brutal. In addition to the well known, and overall simple, yet effective means to bring journalists to silence, there is also a detectable tendency for the authorities of this region to make ever more frequent use of new, more sophisticated methods.

At the same time, the understanding seems to be growing that different situations require different ‘approaches’. ‘Classical’ infringements, like violent attacks against and closures of local radio stations, are ever more often combined with more subtle techniques, like telephone threats or discrete economic sanctions against the bigger independent national media. For the individual journalist, the security has been reduced. Ever more of them are forced to leave their profession or even their home country. For the media, working conditions are in decline. Ever more of them are forced to compromise, at best with their own standards and ideals, at worst with their authorities. Suppression of the media is on the rise. And the media freedom is losing out.

Sources: Reporters Without Borders (RSF), International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Freedom House, Eastern Africa Journalists Association (EAJA), Amnesty International (AI), Sudan Organisation Against Torture (SOAT), International Media Support (IMS), National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ), Human Rights House Network (HRH N / www.humanrightshouse.org), and journalists and human rights defenders from the East and Horn of Africa who can not be named.