{UAH} Media Ban On Mr. Tamale Mirundi: Sacrificing Sound Democratic Principles for Loyalisms.

Bonjour!

The somewhat comical news that the entire Ugandan media has reportedly been banned by the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) from hosting an individual, Mr. Tamale Mirundi, is actually concerning for those looking ahead at the long term leadership trends and the possible democratic gains or reversals in Uganda.
UCC is the state institution referred to as the media regulator. It's work actually includes insuring free speech.
I don't want to waste time citing laws and statutes here since I assumed they were firmly tucked under UCC's, and all stake holders medula oblongata.
However the regulatory framework that the regulator abides by, is one intended to promote freedom of expression as well as the overall media industry, rather than prohibit it's development.
An industry that offers jobs to qualified Ugandans, offers experience to young interns but most importantly, the media is the most essential tool in providing information to the people.
It is therefore a critical component in fostering economic development. This it does through providing independent information that either educates the public on a limitless range of topics but also influences consumer choice through messages that inform large audiences about trends
and availabilities in the various markets.
UCC is also the institution that should be open to new communication tools and trends that become available to the public as technological innovations occur.
But threatening to shut down technologies such as social media as happened earlier this year, is proof of being unable to catch up with a fast changing industry, and being unable to cope with its demands for up-to-date adaptations at the operational as well as the regulatory level. This might therefore suggest some professional incompetence in an industry that is today notorious for being spearheaded by an extremely creative and tech-savvy youth.
For media professionals, and I was formerly one, fighting for free speech is a default activity. It's basically like fighting to continue to earn a living from ones trade that somebody is always trying to curb for some reason or another, yet knowing the significant exponential gains the industry brings to a country and its socio-economic fabric.
In contrast, lawyers for example might first quote the 18th century French writer, historian and philosopher known as Voltaire, the ardent advocate of freedom of religion and freedom of expression who said: "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
I usually hear both government and opposition (plus their respective supporters) discuss the right to freedom of speech.
One side regularly boasts for having brought freedom of speech to Uganda (I'll have to explain to them later what the word inalienable rights means), while the other is constantly fighting for their right to speak freely. They are fighting because the first group is trying to take that right from them through threats and other back door means.
I can confirm that since 1995, the independent media has been relentless in fighting tooth and nail to maintain it's right to free speech.
They have been under constant behind-the-curtain attacks from mostly government agents of all kinds, including senior army officers, government ministers, RDC's...etc. Mostly at an individual capacity.but using the office they represent.
Some media houses have literally been forced to self censure or abandon their editorial independence altogether and now function as mouth pieces rather than communicating independently and in a neutral way. Alarmingly, I am yet to hear or see a single instance where UCC intervenes in the media's defence during such moments where a media house experiences coercion from external interests. Yet in their interactions with the Uganda media owners association, they receive regular specific complaints of this nature that they should actually start acting on to set an example that clearly deters unscrupulous individuals from interfering with the editorial independence of media houses.
I am still trying to get around aanother recent ban by the Electoral Commission of a brilliant, realistic, non-partisan voter education advert.
If banning was a gun, such incidents would qualify some folks for being comparable to the overzealous, trigger happy Local Defense Unit chaps.
UCC was gone silent on this ban.yet they should have been available to advise/counsel the Electoral Commission on the validity/invalidity of their complaint about the said commercial. And the Electoral Commission should have avoided overstepping boundaries by first inquiring from UCC about their concerns on the media product in question.
People in positions of authority should have known by now that defamation laws exist for a purpose, and any aggrieved party can and should seek redress IN COURT.
Redress includes corrections, apologies or other reparations if slander has been proved.
However some folks say one thing in public, then practice the opposite immediately after. It's like those who go to church Sunday morning, but are found at the witchdoctor's Sunday evening drinking some foul concoction that should allegedly get them favor, popularity, boss positions or unspecified riches.
The Uganda Communications Commission has therefore taken a radical pre-judicial step by banning the entire country's media from hosting one individual.
The threat of revoking the license of any broadcaster who goes against their directive is possibly criminal, and surely unfair.
Mr. Mirundi should sue UCC for crimes they didn't imagine they have just committed and which could cause substantial financial loss to the state, and therefore to the taxpayer.
The media is free to host the bugger, and he is free to speak to the media.
Though my concern with the gentleman is that he is more qualified as Mama Fina's business associate, advising on relationship/bedroom matters, rather than a professional advisor to the president on media affairs.
Capital radio or CBS radio might have the most popular evening/night show if they hired Mr. Mirundi to tandem a program with some journo/presenter.
And it is Hussein the former media expert opining here. Thank me later.
However, what Uganda's Constitution allegedly guarantees is "Inalienable rights". And this includes the right to free speech.
Inalienable rights are defined by the Encyclopedia Britanica as rights that cannot be given by anyone or any legal entity, and cannot be taken away by anyone or any legal entity.
Basically one already has these rights even before they are born.
Similarly, a media house has them even before it is created.
And when they abuse that right with defamation, the courts are there to decide on the situation.
Does UCC mean that the Ugandan media is now not allowed ever to host Mr. Mirundi for the rest of his life? What law in this country allows that?
In my view they have viciously overstepped their mandate somehow here. First by abusing the media's right to choose who they host. Then.by dictatorial.preventing one individual in 37 million from accessing the media even if he paid for the service.
Even Osama Bin Laden tapes were aired on CNN when the editors decided so. At the time he was the most wanted terrorist in the world.
Poor Mirundi!
We are said to have highly educated fellows managing the UCC. They are taking drastic measures and demanding that they be enforced by the entire nations media, yet aimed against one innocent, law-abiding, uncorrupt public servant albeit with incurable verbosis.
I don't know about my colleagues in the media fraternity, but this clearly indicates abuse of authority. One that I hereby wouldn't want to refer to as so obviously ridiculous that it might as well have been initiated by someone who is also yet to be diagnosed with medulla oblastoma.
Ladies and gentlemen, Uganda needs to keep up with the times.
Any modern leader worth his talk should have discouraged/scrapped this UCC decision and the recent ban by the Electoral Commission on a voter education commercial.
There are certain principles that are beyond election seasons. They are their for the long term, for all citizens, for future Ugandans and the country's guests, so that they may all enjoy the most peaceful, prosperous and progressive country possible, isn't it?

by Hussein Lumumba Amin
Kampala, Uganda

04/12/2015

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com