KENYAN AMENDED COMMUNICATION ACT: VENDETTA, FRAUD OR BOTH?

I was in Nairobi, Kenya from January 14 to 18, 2009. This was about the time the furore generated by the amended communication act in Kenya was peaking. The government of Mr Mwai Kibaki had amended the Kenyan Media Law and included a draconian section 88 which empowers the Minister of Internal Security to “raid media houses” and seize and confiscate whatever is found incriminating before, during or after publication or broadcasting. The response has been that of condemnation and outcry. Some Kenyan papers reported an appeal by Media Owners for a revision of the amendment; Mr Kibaki’s intention to revise it; Prime Minister Odinga’s displeasure with it as well as parliamentarians opposition to the revision. In fact, parliamentarians promised to reject any attempt by the president to commence a review process (See for instance, Daily Nation Jan 14, 2009). This was surprising to me who expected that parliamentarians would be more pro-freedom and pro-people. I chatted with a few Kenyans over this and got some interesting insight.
.

The parliamentarians were glad to pass the amendment which Mr Kibaki later signed into law because they (the parliamentarians) saw it as a way of getting even with the media. The media, in the words of Chris (one of those I chatted with), “had been harassing the parliamentarians” over taxes. Only the basic pay of the lawmakers was taxed; their buxom allowances, which quadrupled their basic, are not taxed. The media felt this was unfair privilege for the lawmakers. Secondly, several lawmakers were aggrieved by the role the media played during the last bloody elections. Some media houses gave reports that made it clear that Mr Kibaki and his allies cheated their way into victory. Passing an act that severely limits the freedom of the media is thus a way of hitting back at the ‘obstinate’ watchdog.
.

But it may be more than that. Clement and Milton, with whom I also chatted, felt the parliamentarians want to pocket the media in order to make cheating their way into re-election smoother in four years when elections come up again in Kenya. A thoroughly intimidated and pocketed media would be unable to announce unfavourable election results or to report election rigging. The Act is thus a preparation for large scale, seamless electoral fraud.
.

It appears that a mixture of vendetta and fraud undergirds the communication law amendment. Whatever the case is, the story of this infamous law illustrates the important place of the media in the democratic equation, and the threat a good media system continues to pose to fraudulent leadership.
.

Now more than before, Kenya needs a strong and independent media to fight the growing large-scale corruption in the country. The papers in the week I was in Nairobi reported cases of the incredible levels and acts of corruption in agriculture, petroleum and tourism sectors of the country. Kenyans have spoken against the Act. The media should be poised and allowed to fight such evils.
.

Opinion polls continue to show that close 90% of Kenyans oppose the amendment. But Kenyans may have to do more than just express displeasure. They may need the kind of protest, uproar, threat of litigation, widespread lobby that greeted the closure last year of Channels TV in Nigeria. That reaction immediately brought the Yar’Adua government to his knees.