[kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations

Vitalis Olunga VOlunga at Safaricom.co.ke
Wed Jan 14 17:37:48 EAT 2009


Let us not assume that Sec. 88 affects only the media. Not at all. This bad law has effect across the board. Th whole Communication Act or the whole ICT for that matter is affected, including telecommunications or communications apparatus or equipment.  I would wish to remind some of us who have been in this industry for over a decade, not to not forget that, it was illegal to own a fax machine in this country at one time, unless with express approval from state house.  The ownership of mobile phone was illegal unless  approved by a battalion of state  security agents,  and only those authorized were to have it in their possessions.  The computer terminals were not spared either. It was illegal to have a VSAT TV -Receive Only terminal on top of your roof. Etc. Etc. It is therefore only right to fight to remove the draconian  clause from this law, given the chance. I fully support the Media Group in their fight. The regulations of cause need to be there, because the rules of the game have to be there, and  a referee must be there in the field. There are quite a number of positive contributions and suggestions which have come up that, such as making the  media council effective to be the referee of some kind.


 VK



-----Original Message-----
From: kictanet-bounces+volunga=safaricom.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+volunga=safaricom.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of David Makali
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:57 PM
To: Vitalis Olunga
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations

Brian,
I thought you are a nice guy, but now I am beginning to think that when you run for president (of malawi? hahaha!) i will not vote for you because i can detect a dictarotial streak in your genes (smile). 
Now let me turn to your views, which i hold to be fundamentally wrong and misguided. To start with, please stop giving sympathetic interpretations to a bad law. The law is read in the letter (and the spirit left to the courts). May be you have not suffered injustice and that is why you espouse such optimism about Sect 88. If you have read that law, please re-read it to see the venom it has. It can be used arbitrarily and has no respect to private property or the presumption of innocence of the victim of its application. 

There are many reasons why i think it is bad law but i will be brief. The law says that the Minister can declare a public emergency (NOTE: it has NOTHING to do with the State of Emergency provided for in the Constitution!).Anything can be a public emergency, including houseflies at city market. And all that is required is for the minister to determine it is, and for the purposes of a law, issue a certificate do declaring, and bar communication between people. What is worse is that if for instance the minister is wrong and he cannot return your equipment (at the end of the so-called emergency), he alone will determine the value to compensate you! 
Now, is that fair? What happened to the right to be heard? Due process?
But that is not grave perhaps.  It is your wrong interpretation of that law that prompts me to respond:
The law, as i havbe stated above, does not come into force during the period when a State of Emergency has been declared by the President as laid out under the constitution sect 83. NO, that section brings into force provisions of section 57 (preservation of public security act). And what would you say Michuki used when he authorised the attack and seizure of KTN /Standard Group equipment on the pretext that the group had infomration prejudicial to state security (his socks were torn, perhaps)?
As you may have noticed, he has never produced the information, returned the seized equipment, or compensated them. And as you well know there was no state of emergency. Good thing is he never cited the law he employed. Up to now. 
Earlier last year, there was no stat eof emergency declared when the Minister fo Internal security invoked sect 88 to ban live boradcasting. As you well know, the ministry recapitulated and dropped the ban when we took them to court. Why? Because it was illegal!
Finally,let me inform you and others that that section, in fact dos not deal with boradcasting stations but those other communication installations and short wave radio (call them "over-over") used by security firms, G4, Cartrack, Taxis and other courier services.  Please do not justify what is patently wrong. 
For us in the media, we don't want such arbitrary actions that threatene our lives and those who invest. So we havbe asked that those provisions apply to you if you want or so love to keep them. 

For those who have not read, I am reproducing that offending sect below:
	
88. 	On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for internal security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in their behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya, and –

(d)	in the case of radio communication, that any communication or class of communication shall or shall not be emitted from any radio communication taken under this section; or

(e)	in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in the direction; or

(f)	in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or description of postal article in the course of transmission by post within Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as the Minster may direct. 

(2)	A certificate signed by the Minster for the time being responsible for internal security shall be conclusive proof of the existence of a public emergency, or that any act done under subsection (1) was done in the public safety or tranquility.

(3)	A telecommunication apparatus constructed, maintained or operated by any person within Kenya or any postal article which is sized by any officer duly authorized under subsection (1) (a) shall be returned to the telecommunication operator at the end of the emergency or where such apparatus or article is not returned, full compensation in respect thereof, to be determined by the Minster, shall be paid to the owner.

(4)	A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minster under subsection (3) as to the compensation payable in respect of anything seized under this section may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days of such decision.

David


--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Brian Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
> To: dmakali at yahoo.com
> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 2:22 AM
> 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 at 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 at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >
> > This message was sent to: blongwe at 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 at gmail.com
> cell:  + 254 722 518 744
> blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com
> meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: dmakali at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com


      

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

This message was sent to: VOlunga at safaricom.co.ke
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/volunga%40safaricom.co.ke

#####################################################################################
NOTE:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. 

Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. 
Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this 
email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. 
The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited 
disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences 
that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal 
opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise 
or damage the integrity of the recipient’s information technology systems. 
If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete 
this email from your system.Unless expressly stated by a duly authorised officer of 
Safaricom Limited nothing contained in this email message shall be construed as being 
an offer to contract or an acceptance of an offer capable of constituting a contract 
between Safaricom Limited and any recipient(s) of this email.
 
#####################################################################################


More information about the KICTANet mailing list