A journalist and a human rights activist Abdelgadir Mohamed Abdelgadir reports that it has been little more than a month after South Sudan gained independence and the Sudanese National Assembly is already considering introducing a new press and publications law that will further restrict freedom of expression in the North.

Pre-publication censorship in Sudan
According to him, Sudan’s National Congress Party (NCP) is contemplating enforcing pre-publication censorship as it did between 1989 – after it first seized power – and 2009.

“Following this, the government passed a new law, which it claimed was a step towards press freedom. However, despite the new law, pre-publication censorship was selectively enforced by the regime during Sudan’s 2010 elections,” he adds.

Abdelgadir says that the details of the proposed legislation have not been made available to the public; journalists and human rights experts have been excluded from the deliberations.

“The 2009 act already imposes serious limitations on press freedom because it enables strict state control over the press and journalists. Article 22 of the law restricts the types of companies that can issue newspapers. Any organisation that wishes to publish a newspapers must obtain permission from the state-run Council of the Press and Publications and reapply for approval from the Council every year.

On 8 July, the eve of South Sudan’s independence, the Council announced that it would be withdrawing the licences of six newspapers owned or part-owned by citizens of the new nation. The 2009 press law only allows Sudanese citizens to own newspapers. The Khartoum Monitor, Juba Post, Advocate, Democrat, Sudan Tribune, and Ajras Al-Hurriya were all closed. All six papers were critical of the government and many view the decision as an act of censorship.

The law also restricts journalists, requiring that they be registered after an exam held by the Council of the Press and Publications, which is organised by the Union of Journalists. In order to work as a journalist, one must be registered.

The 2009 law also expanded the powers of the National Press and Publication Council, providing them with the power to close newspapers, stop publication, and provide licences to newspapers. While given the power to crush the press, the Council has not created mechanisms to protect journalists or provide them with any kind of public interest defense.

With a flawed law already in place, and the government’s recent crackdown on newspapers, it is frightening to think of what the new law will look like, but there is no doubt that it will further endanger press freedom,” concludes Abdelgadir.

Article 19 was one of 19 NGOs and INGOs featured in OHCHR’s summary on human rights in Tanzania and one of 27 NGOs and INGOs featured in OHCHR’s summary on human rights in Uganda for the UPR. It analyses Tanzanian and Ugandan laws concerning free speech and human rights, especially rights of journalists.

Tanzania – too many laws limit freedom of expression
In case of Tanzania, Article 19 stated that the Tanzanian Constitution guaranteed the right to freedom of expression but did not explicitly provide for freedom of the press.

The organisation listed several restrictive laws that limit freedom of expression and the ability of the media to function effectively, including the 1976 Newspaper Act (notably as it related to the registration of newspapers), the 1970 National Security Act (as it gave the Government absolute scope to define what should be disclosed to or withheld from the public) and the 1945 Tanganyika Penal Code.

London based human rights and freedom of expression NGO provided examples of the use of these laws and indicated that the offence of sedition had often been employed against opposition politicians.

Article 19 recommended that Tanzania immediately abolish these laws, in particular the 1976 Newspaper Act and the 1970 National Security Act, and replace them with legislations in line with international human rights standards; and repeal other restrictive media regulations.

The organisation’s representatives reported that there were no constitutional or legal provisions for the protection of journalists’ sources at either the Union level or in Zanzibar. Article 19 recommended that Tanzania adopt comprehensive legislation that would grant media the right to protection of sources.

Article 19 also reported that freedom of media in Zanzibar was of a particular concern. Although the residents could receive private broadcasts from the mainland, the Government published the only daily paper and controlled the Television Zanzibar and the radio station Sauti ya Tanzania-Zanzibar.

Article 19 was concerned about a number of cases, in which journalists and media workers were attacked, including by policemen, for conducting their journalistic activities. The organisation provided examples in this respect and recommended that Tanzania thoroughly, promptly and effectively investigate all unresolved cases of violence against journalists and bring those responsible to justice.

Article 19 stated that article 18 of the Union Constitution guaranteed every person the right to freedom of expression, but also the right to seek, receive and impart information, unlike the Zanzibar Constitution, which explicitly protected only the right to receive information. According to Article 19, there was, however, no legislation in Tanzania at either the union-level or in Zanzibar through which the right to information could be realised in practice.

New Ugandan legislation – challenge to free speech
Article 19 says that freedom of expression was unjustly restricted by provisions in the Ugandan Penal Code and the Press and Journalist Act 1995. Also, the Draft Public Order Management Bill 2009 posed a serious challenge to freedom of expression.

They observed that the freedom of press was infringed by the Suppression of Terrorism Act 2002, and the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 lacked adequate safeguards to ensure respect for human rights. The Electronic Media Act 1996 provided the Broadcasting Council with excessively broad powers and disregarded due process.

Article 19 was concerned that the Access to Information Act 2005 has not been made operational.

The organisation expressed concern with regard to the violence against journalists, media workers and human rights defenders and the trend of impunity for the perpetrators. Human Rights Network for Journalists- Uganda (HRNJ-Uganda) stated that many journalists were murdered, subjected to arbitrary arrests and torture, as well as intimidation and harassment by the authorities.

Related articles:

UN HRC adopted document on freedom of expression

Israel: new anti-boycott law is a threat to freedom of expression

Tunisia: new Decree on Access to Administrative Documents adopted

Kazakhstan: unfulfilled pledges to protect freedom of expression

Ukraine: Access to information law adopted

English libel law – tool to silence journalists from other countries?

No frontiers, new barriers – free speech and attempts to stop it