In 1774 Edmund Burke gestured to reporters in the House of Commons in England and said, “There are three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

He was acknowledging the contribution the press made in society, even though it was not as free as it is today.

A handbook titled, ‘Undue Restriction’ which focuses on Laws with restrictive impact on the media in nine member states of the SADC region, says that Malawi is one of the countries that has not taken the required steps to ratify international human rights instruments in its domestic law.

Despite various attempts in creating a favorable climate for the adjudication of issues involving fundamental rights and freedoms, Malawi has on its statute book a number of laws that not only unduly restrict media freedom, but in some instances confers arbitrary powers on the authorities to ban or take other action against media.

“The restrictions are mostly described in wide, vague and frequently subjective terms that are likely to inhibit the practice of journalism. They also range over a wide variety of communications activity,” says part of the handbook.

The publication also points out a number of issues in the Constitution of Malawi that hinders media freedom. For instance, the Constitution does not spell out the interest that may justify limitations to media freedom in accordance with international human rights standards.

Restrictions on media freedom in Malawi can only be legitimate if they protect those interests spelt out in international legal instruments such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The ICCPR, which is an elaboration of the civil and political rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, aims at transforming the rights spelt out in the latter into legally binding obligations.

Internationally, media freedom is protected under Article 19 (2) of ICCPR, where it says, ‘Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any, other media of his choice.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case in Malawi. There are times when the media is refused access to public information coupled with intimidation when carrying out investigation on some stories.

But it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel because the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA-Malawi Chapter) has drafted a bill on access to information as one way guaranteeing media freedom in the country.

Currently, the fate of access to information draft bill lies in the hands of the ruling DPP government who has a majority of legislatures, in terms of voting to enact it into a Law.

However, apart from that there should be a number of areas to be looked into in order for the press to have genuine freedom, for instance amendment of some of the existing legislation like the Court Act and the National Security Act would be a welcome idea because it would minimize reluctance from officials in releasing information for public consumption.

An example is Section 60 of Courts Act which says ‘proceedings in every court of law shall be carried on in an open court to which the public have access. However, proceedings may be held in camera if, in the opinion of the presiding officer, it is expedient in the interests of justice or property or for other sufficient reason to do so.

While the provision may be addressing a legitimate concern, it has been criticized for its failure to provide clear guidelines when a presiding officer may exclude the public from court proceedings.

Media practitioners are concerned that in the absence of clear guidelines and checks on the powers of presiding officers, the provision can be easily abused to exclude the media from court hearings, thereby undermining their watchdog role over the administration of justice.

The provisions of the National Security Act enforce a culture of secrecy in the public service making it very difficult for media practitioners to obtain information from public servants. This seriously erodes the media’s ability to play its watchdog function and hinders the dissemination of important information to the public.

Some of the provisions in the Constitution of Malawi are also at fault because they promote the disregard of media freedom.
Section 46 of the constitution empowers the Minister to ban the publication that in his or her discretion is contrary to the public interest.

The expression ‘public interest’ is not clearly defined. The danger with this provision is that it gives the Minister very wide discretionary powers that may be easily abused to ban publications that are critical to government.

But much as some stakeholders are fighting tooth and nail in the fight for media freedom, there are some media practitioners who sabotage the process for personal gain. For instance, sometime back journalists tried to seek an audience with the President as part of commemorating the World Press Freedom Day.

This was aimed at discussing with the President some key issues choking media freedom. However, some of the top media gurus did not welcome the idea because of what can be described as conflict of interest. But what they did not know was that they were shooting themselves, as well as the media fraternity on the foot.

What all media practitioners should bear in mind is that for this battle to be won there is a need to rope in the Head of State and Members of Parliament because they are important figures in the enactment of laws as well observing the principles of democracy.

Former South African President Nelson Mandela is quoted as saying that Africa should put the freedom of its press and media at the top of its priorities as a democracy.

“None of our irritations with the perceived inadequacies of the media should ever allow us to suggest, even faintly that the independence of the press could be compromised or coerced. A bad free press is preferable to a technically good subservient press,” Mandela insisted.

The media in Malawi and other countries that share similar challenges needs such kind of powerful and influential voices if the dream of enjoying freedom of expression without any strings attached is to be met.

President Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika should take a leaf out of Mandela’s book in this regard and become the champion of free voice and an informed society.