But critics say Sierra Leone’s new media law gives the government the powers to shut down media houses and ban individual journalists from practicing their professions. Credit: Jeffrey Moyo/IPS

By Mohamed Fofanah
FREETOWN, Jul 30 2020 (IPS)

Last week, Sierra Leone’s parliament voted to repeal the country’s 55-year-old libel law, which criminalised the publication of information that was deemed defamatory or seditious, and which had been used by successive governments to target and imprison media practitioners and silence dissenting views. But not everyone is convinced it was in the best interest of media freedom.

On Jul. 23, in an unanimous vote, Sierra Leone’s parliament repealed Part V of the 1965 Public Order Act (POA), which criminalised  libel. It was replaced with the Independent Media Commission (IMC) Act 2020, which was also approved unanimously.

But critics say the IMC Act 2020 gives the Sierra Leone government the power to shut down media houses and ban journalists from practicing their professions.

Sylvia Blyden, who served as a minister of the main opposition All People’s Congress, and is currently editor of the local newspaper, Awareness Times, told IPS that she was against the repeal of all of the provisions in the POA.

Blyden, a prominent journalist and activist, is presently facing charges brought by the government for defamatory libel, publishing false news and seditious libel — charges that existed under the repealed Part V of the POA.
But Blyden told IPS that there are many protective caveats of that act, which made it not as bad as some people believed it to be. She added that the importance of the criminal libel laws went far beyond the practice of journalism and politics.

“It is sad for poor citizens who cannot afford the money to pay lawyers to institute civil libel litigation to protect their names and good reputations as there is no more punitive deterrent in place.
“I am not speaking of journalists, I am speaking of citizens assaulting other citizen’s reputation. We still have our laws to protect against physical assault on us but we have removed the laws that protect us against assault on our good names. Not much thinking went into this process of repeal,” she argued.

Others have noted that the IMC Act 2020 will serve only to “undermine media pluralism and completely eliminate the registration of newspapers as a ‘Sole Proprietorship’ business, and only provides for registration under the Partnership Act 1890 and the Companies Act 2009”.

Lawrence Williams, writing for the Sierra Leone Telegraph, said, “It’s important to note that many newspapers in Sierra Leone are registered under ‘Sole Proprietorship’ as one among several options provided for under the current IMC Act”.

He said the elimination of newspapers registered under sole proprietorship could lead to the closure of many independent publications, and could therefore “end media scrutiny of government institutions and public officials; and inevitably result to ending governance accountability and transparency in Sierra Leone”.

Amin Kef Sesay, writing in the Calabash Newspaper, said that the IMC Act 2020 would allow the government to “tie the hands of citizens from freely investing in the media and heading those institutions as editors, publishers, etc”.

But Sierra Leone’s information and communication minister Mohamed Rahman Swaray told IPS that the POA had been in violation of 12 international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that government had to comply with international standards.

He said that the IMC Act would enable the mitigation against sedition and libel against private citizens. He added that the Independent Media Commission, the regulatory body of the media, had been given quasi-judicial functions under the IMC Act 2020, and had powers of the high court to hear civil matters of sedition and libel.

• When the act is signed into law, the commission will be able to monitor and regulate the media, its content, ensure that a minimum wage $60 is paid to media practitioners, and to ensure that only qualified and trained media personnel are employed as editors/station managers etc.

Swaray also argued that the IMC Act 2020 was not government exercising further rights over the media. “We discussed the draft bill with the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) and they all agreed to the contents of the draft which was then sent to parliament so there was endorsement of the contents of the bill by SLAJ,” he said.

Swaray told IPS that government was very concerned about improving the media landscape in this West African nation as the old law meant the country’s brightest and best brains shied away from the profession because they could face criminal charges. “Women also were refusing to practice,” he added.

He is confident that the recent decriminalisation of the libel law will now see more women taking up the profession.
“Now the best minds and women will come on board and we will make the media and journalism a professional, lucrative and serious institution in the country,” Swaray told IPS.

Speaker of parliament Dr. Abass Bundu said at the time that parliament had restored the dignity of the media and he hoped that, going forward, responsible and professional journalism would hold sway.

Hassan Samba Yarjah, a commissioner of the Human Rights Commission in Sierra Leone, told IPS that the commission had called for Part V of the POA to be repealed every year for the last 10 years in its annual ‘State of Human Rights Report in Sierra Leone’.

He said that as a commission they could not emphasise the importance of the passing of the IMC Act 2020. Yarjah told IPS that the press and citizens would now have greater freedom to express their views, speak out, challenge government on issues affecting them, constructively criticise and speak truth to power without being arrested and branded a criminal.

He said that this return of power to the people was a big development for democracy here, adding that this would change the landscape of journalism and develop the media. “The commission will, however, continue to monitor these freedoms and also ensure that the Media and everyone enjoy this freedom with greater responsibility,” Yarjah told IPS.

Both the repeal of the POA and the passing of the IMC Act 2020 have been sent to President Julius Maada Bio for his signature.

Ordinary netizens – from bloggers to Facebook users – could be persecuted under the Philippines’ new Cybercrime Prevention Act. Credit: Kara Santos/IPS

By Kara Santos
MANILA, Sep 29 2012 (IPS)

A newly enacted cybercrime law in the Philippines has raised fears that not only online media but also ordinary netizens could be persecuted for exercising their freedom of expression.

Media groups have expressed concern that the law poses a threat to press freedom and limits freedom of expression in the country. Bloggers and social media practitioners also point out that the new law allows the government to shut down websites without due process, and makes Internet users liable for simply clicking the ‘like’ button on Facebook or re-tweeting something on Twitter.

Republic Act (RA) No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, was signed into law by Philippine President Benigno Aquino III on Sept. 12. Actions now punishable as ‘cybercrimes’ include illegal access and interception of any part of a computer system without right, computer-related identity-theft, cybersex and child pornography, among others.

However, the law also broadens the coverage of libel as a content-related offense that can be committed by just about anybody using a computer.

Section 4 (4) of the Cybercrime Act deems as illegal any “unlawful and prohibited act of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future”.

Libel is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as a “public imputation and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

Professor Luis Teodoro, who serves as deputy director of the Centre for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), says the new law actually strengthens an 82-year-old libel law that has been described by the United Nations Human Rights Council as “draconian” and “excessive”.

“At a time when the global trend is to decriminalise libel, the new cybercrime law is very regressive and takes us several steps backward,” Teodoro told IPS.

“In the age of new media, where ordinary citizens take to Facebook and Twitter as a venue for free expression, here is this absolutely objectionable law that gives agencies so much power to limit free speech,” he said.

He added that certain provisions of the law empower government agencies to take down or prevent people from seeing Tweets that have been deemed libelous, or even monitor activity on cyberspace, including private Facebook accounts.

The National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) said that the enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 betrayed Aquino’s commitment to transparency and freedom of expression.

In an interview with IPS, Secretary General of the NUJP, Rowena Paraan, called the law “sneaky”.

“Certain provisions in the law were not part of versions approved by the Senate and just suddenly appeared in the version that the president signed. These were not subject to consultations,” Paraan told IPS.

Many Filipinos are disturbed by the fact that the man allegedly responsible for this last-minute change, which lumps online libel with cybersex and child pornography, is notorious for plagiarising blogs, and recently elicited a spate of criticism from active netizens.

Citing Senate journals and interviews, investigative journalist and blogger Raissa Robles claims that Senator Vicente Sotto III pushed for the insertion into the law at the eleventh hour; an ironic twist, given various allegations that he copied parts of blog articles in previous speeches without crediting the bloggers.

Robles goes on to list some of the flaws in the law, including the difficulty of identifying the origin of libelous material, and extending the offending parties to those who “share” or “like” a post on Facebook or comment on articles agreeing with alleged libelous material.

“Historically, in the Philippines, it is the rich and the powerful who use libel as a weapon to suppress criticisms about them,” she added.

“Before the Internet came along, it was easier for the rich and the powerful to control criticisms. All they needed to do was buy a stake in newspapers, TV and radio. Or sue them. Now they have realised that the Web is beyond their control,” she wrote in a blogpost.

According to NUJP’s Paraan, anyone who uses the internet to express their opinions is now liable for what they post. Online statements posted on blogs and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, that can be interpreted as an attack on the reputation of an individual or an entity, may give rise to libel suits.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a statement Friday criticising the law, which, they say, “drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information”.

“The cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced,” said Brad Adams, Asia director for HRW. “It violates Filipinos’ rights to free expression and it is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government’s obligations under international law.”

Various civil society groups have resorted to legal measures to stop government agencies from implementing provisions in the law.

“I’m quite happy that a lot of different groups have been questioning the threat to the rights of freedom of speech and due process and different provisions in the law,” Paraan told IPS, citing various civil society and blogger-led initiatives.

At the time of writing, at least five separate petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court, questioning the law’s constitutionality.

On Sept. 27 several bloggers and technology law experts hosted an online roundtable discussion on the Act using Google+ Hangouts. Netizens were able to view the live webcast via YouTube and send questions to speakers and lawyers through live chat and by using the #cybercrimelaw hashtag on Twitter.

(END)