APNS, CPNE reject Information Ministry’s rejoinder
KARACHI- Hameed Haroon, President of All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami, President of Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors (CPNE), in a joint letter to the federal secretary information, have rejected the response of the ministry to the APNS-CPNE joint statement and noted that the spokesman has completely ignored the crux of the seven questions raised in the joint statement.
The APNS and CPNE joint letter issued here on 7th, October 2002 stated:
“The government has time and again reiterated its adherence to a completely free media policy and not to interfere with free flow of information. However, the draft ordinances adopted by the cabinet on the instance of your ministry and the Defamation Ordinance-2002 promulgated by the government of Pakistan do not support the above contention. It appears that the information policy of the government is dictated by the notion of, ‘except as required by law in the interest of national unity and integrity’ and the term ‘interest’ to be determined by the establishment.”
“The ministry has further maintained that the government was willing to enter into a productive dialogue with the press. The claim is meaningless in view of the outcome of the several meetings in last two years, as the ministry has arbitrarily amended the agreed drafts irrespective of its written agreements. It is also not correct to suggest that the promulgation of the laws was deferred to allow sufficient time to the press bodies to come up with practical suggestions. It should be pointed out that the ministry very well knew that in the first half of September the leadership of the two bodies will be out of the country and the president APNS was scheduled to return in the last week of September. It is pertinent to note that during the absence of the leadership of the APNS and CPNE, the draft ordinances with arbitrary amendments were placed before the cabinet for approval. The drafts were pending for enactment for last one year but the time chosen by the ministry for enactment speaks of the spirit and sincerity behind this haste,” the letter remarked.
The two presidents stated that the answers given by the ministry to our seven questions completely lack the basic concept and idea of these press laws. “The Press Council of Pakistan has been considered by the ministry as a governmental organisation to control the press and hence it took the liberty to change its character and nomenclature. The ministry failed to understand that the Press Council is a self-regulating body formed by the press and not a press court. In the agreed draft, the government has two nominees out of 17 members of the council, whereas the ministry on its own has changed its composition and assigned nine nominees of the government out of 19. If the Press Council is a self-regulating body, how can the government have a dominating role in its composition? The inclusion of academics in the Press Council has no relevance as the council is not an academic forum. Nor is it appreciated that these academics will be appointed by the provincial governors who are appointees of the president. Clearly the self-regulating nature of the council is a critically damaged by the induction of the change by the ministry.”
The APNS and CPNE refuted the contention of the ministry that the power to recommend suspension or cancellation of declaration rests with the publishers themselves. The concept of the Press Council as agreed between the APNS and the ministry has been to form a voluntary and self-regulating body. Therefore, its agreed draft contained a moral power to persuade a newspaper to print apology in case a damaging story has been published. The approval draft of the cabinet has assigned draconian powers to suspend or cancel declarations, which completely disregards the rhetoric of freedom of press. The government’s vision of the Press Council appears as largely a subservient body dominated by government appointees to regulate the press, whereas we insist that it should be an independent and voluntary self-regulatory body of the press. Its power will rest in its ability to pronounce must censure, not in its ability to lay down draconian punishments to the press.”
Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami and Hameed Haroon insisted that the Code of Ethics is a mission statement by the professional editors but the ministry has transformed it into a legal understanding. “The clauses were added to the Code of Ethics to give a cover to an earlier amendment which APNS-CPNE promptly rejected, an amendment that unsuccessfully sought a bar on reporting matters injurious to reputation of the army and the judiciary. Needless to say that this clause was strongly resented by the APNS and CPNE.”
“The APNS has long been insisting for a law to register the titles of newspapers. The uniqueness of the title simply works as a trademark registration. We have no hesitance to accept the responsibility and liability to the printer and publisher. The issue in dispute is the double indemnity as no person can be punished under two laws for one offence. Is it not strange that the DCO has been granted wide ranging discretionary powers to refuse declarations on default of public dues or conviction of criminal offence? So a declaration can be denied or cancelled for a conviction on traffic offences or not paying a disputed telephone or electric bill.”
“The ministry’s spokesman has claimed that the package of press laws was a final decision arrived at from inputs made by different tiers of policy making that ultimately affects the citizen. The right of freedom of information has recognised to be concomitant to fundamental right of freedom of expression. This right cannot be exercised if citizens are not informed of the working of public bodies. There is no need to exempt the noting of on files, minutes of meeting or interim orders from disclosures. These exemptions merely construct additional walls of secrecy behind which government officials can hide. It is strange to say the least, that in case of non-provision of the requested information, the recourse to approach high courts has been denied and instead an appeal to Wafaqi Mohtasib has been provided.”
“The spokesman of the ministry has stated that the Defamation Ordinance has been enacted to save the honour and dignity of the citizens from defamatory reports. It appears that the ministry was playing to the gallery just to conceal the fact that the ordinance will act in concert with the Official Secrets Act, the Registration Ordinance and the Freedom of Information Ordinance and thus will accomplish the exclusion of all important government matters from the purview of press comment. The threat of prosecution or imprisonment which will result from the printing of a classified or ‘excluded’ document is conceived to be an effective deterrent for journalists who wish to probe into the workings of public bodies.”
“The APNS and the CPNE, therefore, urge upon the government to withdraw the amendments made in the agreed drafts to ensure freedom of press in the country, which would help in transition to a democratic dispensation.”
Source: The News
Date:10/8/2002
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
