Fighting the Cause of Media Survival: the Reality

When in 2007 media men and civil society in the country took up the cause to smoothen the way of journalistic practice that is devoid of criminality by law and to brighten the way to freedom of information and of the Press, heated debates ensued between government which was and is still reluctant to remove the clause that criminalizes libel in the 1965 Public Order Act as to the justification for retaining the law on the one hand and that of removing it on the other hand; supported by SLAJ and some segment civil society.

That was what principally led the Association of Journalists to take the case to the Supreme Court of the country to adjudicate as to whether there is justification for its retention, taking into consideration the provisions of Freedom of Expression and of the Press enshrined in the Peter Tucker Constitution of 1991. The Problem in the argument forwarded by SLAJ is that the notion of criminality in the defamation and libel laws of 1965 impinges on the proper functioning and the realization of the freedom of speech and of the press provided for in the constitution of the country. Whilst that is so, the Government on the other hand has all this while been advancing that there is apt justification of the criminal libel laws owing to the manner in which the media operates in the country and the fact that it as a government has the obligation to not only ensure freedom of expression and that of the Press, but to also ensure that such freedom does jeopardize the peace and good name of public servants and peaceful citizens.

That is to say, the modus operandi of the media is such that if left to operate on free hold, it will end up taking to ransom the peace of others by its rather uncontrolled spree of irresponsible media practice; costing public servants their good name and reputation that might not deserve to be put to shreds in such reckless abandon and posturing that is often the stock in trade for some of our self proclaimed finest journalists.

There is no denying that the criminality in the libel law is not outdated and devilish; but the question is: what remedy do we have in place in case some one is found wanting for libel and defamation? Some have meticulously but unsuccessfully advanced that civil suit be a replacement of the criminal libel suit; but could some one still attempt at propounding the argument as to whether Sierra Leones media world is really ready for such development? The apt reality is: the media is absolutely too poor, under resourced and immature for such undertaking; as much so that I wonder how many of libel and defamation prone media houses is able to stand the fines that characterize civil suits.

In the worlds where defamation and libel laws are not subject to criminality, the media is usually much matured so that it is able to censor itself and at worse are as much so wealthy that they are able to pay fines levied by civil suits in case they are found wanting for such. This is certainly not the case in Sierra Leone given the proliferation of mush room media outlets that cannot afford to remunerate their staff but are indulged in black mail and defamatory journalism. The sickening truth is that; for some, that is the primary source of their wealth and sustenance and as such will continue to cause untold damages that can eventually lead to stifling the very course of media and press freedom.

We might say that to some extent the reason for government protecting the libel laws hinges on the fact that it will not want the media to have such freedom to report about things that may have far reaching implication for their success in some way but the reality also is that; it is bound by law to protect other vulnerable folks that have been the ungainly target of irresponsible journalism.  

Stay with Sierra Express Media, for your trusted place in news!

© 2009, https:. All rights reserved.