Press to fight black laws
KARACHI- The All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) and the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) have unequivocally rejected the newly promulgated Defamation Ordinance and the three other press laws that were recently adopted by the Federal Cabinet, says a press release issued jointly by APNS and CPNE on 4th October 2002.
The two newspaper bodies which represent newspaper publishers and professional editors from the most widely respected and circulated newspapers in the country, on 4th October, adopted similar resolutions in opposition to the four controversial “black press laws” which President Musharraf’s government is attempting to “impose” on the country.
These two important press bodies have chalked out a joint programme of action, and set up a joint committee composed of twelve members (six from each body) who will work together to promote public awareness, both domestically and internationally. The public awareness campaign will consist of contacting international press bodies and asking for their help in rolling back the black press ordinances, running nationwide public service informational campaigns in the national press to highlight the transgression of press freedoms by these new laws; and finally by the periodic calling of nationwide strikes by newspapers and magazines to protest the actions of government in crippling press freedom.
In addition, the APNS and CPNE have issued a joint statement, which has posed seven leading questions about the new press laws to the Federal Information Minister, Mr Nisar Memon, and the Federal Cabinet that has endorsed these laws. The statement demands that these seven questions be fully answered in order to justify the “attempt to snatch away from the public their sacred right to know, and of their right to be fully informed of what their leaders and public servants are up to in the name of reform.”
The joint statement of the APNS/CPNE declares: “The critical situation surrounding press freedom and the freedom of expression poses a grave danger to the continuation of constitutional democracy in Pakistan. We must act in defence of our freedoms against the draconian laws that President Musharraf’s government is trying to impose. We must act to protect Article 19 of the Constitution with the support of the entire press and independent media, and indeed, of all segments of society.”
The formulation of a common stand by two bodies emerged as a consequence of two meetings held in Karachi on 3rd October 2002. The first, that, of the Executive Committee of the APNS held under its president, Hameed Haroon, in a unanimous resolution of the body decided to launch “a massive awareness campaign” to educate the public on the consequences of reviving “a series of black ordinances that most closely resemble the draconian Press & Publications Ordinance of General Ayub Khan’s regime. Then in the late afternoon, the CPNE under the presidentship of Mujeebur Rehman Shami responded with its decision to “fully apprise international organisations of the press, and both governmental and non governmental decision makers” about “the grave threat posed to journalistic freedoms and the public’s right to know by the intended promulgation of this government’s unconstitutional and undemocratic package of black press laws.”
By evening, the two bodies had closely co-ordinated their joint programme of action in a tersely worded joint statement, that deplored “the widespread conspiracy in both circles of the government and certain echelons of the military circles, that is hell bent in throttling press freedoms and replacing these with an authoritarian information order in Pakistan. This conspiracy has been hatched by discredited and undetectable technocrat-civilians and disgruntled retired generals on the payroll of the public exchequer who are seeking to discredit civil society and denigrate our main democratic values. The military higher ups have fallen victim to this unscrupulous planning and have thus compromised their assumed posture of neutrality with respect to the future of Pakistani democracy,” the statement declares.
The joint statement further points out: “The APNS and CPNE are dismayed that the present government has once again failed to honour its written commitments and agreements reached between the Ministry of Information and us on the substance and texts of the draft Press Council Ordinance (PCO), the draft Registration of Newspapers, Presses, News Agencies and Books Ordinance (RNPNO) and the draft Freedom of Information Ordinance (FIO). We strongly believe in the process of productive dialogue. But when settled matters are unilaterally overturned and agreed decisions are flouted by an ostensibly esteemed body like the Federal Cabinet, then meetings and talks become meaningless.
“The drafts of the press laws took almost two years of discussion. Clause-wise debates were held to arrive at a series of consensus drafts. The drafts were finalized almost 12 months ago and were not promulgated despite repeated promises. We were informed that the agreed draft ordinances were awaiting the formality of enactment by the Ministry of Law. However, we were astonished to note on April 8, earlier this year, that the government made what then appeared as a half heated attempt to attach new clauses to the drafts of the PCO and the RNPO. To our surprise, a back door attempt was also made to transform a newly proposed Defamation Ordinance (DO) into one that stipulates the presumption of guilt as a consequence of any allegation levelled against a newspaper. The DO also devised novel measures to punish newspapers in the guise of posing as a legal code for the conduct of initiating defamation proceedings.
“We expressed major reservations with respect to the drift of the government’s press policy, and strongly rejected the new clumsy attempt to curb the freedom of press through the proposed ordinances. Initial pressure from newspaper bodies and an alert public opinion forced the Ministry to beat a hasty retreat, and the black laws were hurriedly withdrawn. We have the documented evidences in the form of letters and drafts expressing the acquiescence of high officials of the Ministry to these withdrawals.
“On July 23, at a meeting at Islamabad, we were given fresh drafts of the press laws, wherein all objectionable provisions as demanded were withdrawn. The draft ordinances approved by the Cabinet barely a month later tell a completely different story. Were these new promises by the Ministry an exercise in deception? Or an innovative strategy in the art of utilising decoys as in planned military manoeuvres? Or was it that the ministry simply lacked the moral authority to convince the Federal cabinet on its earlier agreements with press bodies? Whatever the answer, this about-turn on agreed decisions raised serious questions regarding honesty and trustworthiness of the government of the day. This is certainly not the first time that the government has lied to us, but we must ensure that this will be the last,” the APNS/CPNE statement continues.”
The Federal Ministry of Information has explicitly stated that only ‘minor changes’ have been made in the agreed draft laws. This explanation is grossly misleading and totally unacceptable. For the benefit of the federal minister of information and media development we wish to pose the following seven critical questions:
1. Is the transformation of a self regulating body of the press with only 2 out of 17 members directly belonging to the parliamentary side of government, into a new form of press court where 9 out of 19 members are directly appointed by the government (over half of them by presidential appointees) a “minor” change?
2. Is the transformation of the Press Council’s moral power to persuade newspapers to print its decisions regarding published news items (for example with respect to the government) into a draconian power that instead cancels the declaration of newspapers, thus causing them to cease publication instead – is this merely another “minor” change?
3. Is the transformation of a mission statement by professional newspaper editors – the Code of Ethics – something to be tinkered with? Can a government unilaterally add clauses to this code of its own volition and, thus converting a professional code into legal undertaking given by editors, publishers, and printers to the government, which would be actionable under the law? Is this, yet another “minor” change?”
4. Is the transformation of an ordinance that purports to register a newspaper for purposes of protecting only the uniqueness of its title and attributing liability, into one that disallows newspapers from acquiring a permission to print, unless specifically allowed by a functionary of local government under centralised authority is this withdrawal of a fundamental freedom we have enjoyed for the past decade also another relatively “minor” change?
5. Is the introduction of a new law on freedom of information, that seeks to render illegal for purposes of publication, all file notes, minutes, summaries and interim orders by government officials including ministers – in other words, the kind of information that caused military governments to issue volumes of white papers and following Ehtesab, to subsequently prosecute as many as three civilian prime ministers for corruption and in one case even murder – can a new law stipulating further prohibitions on the publication of such information, be somehow termed only as a “minor” change?
6. Can the transformation of a law that forces the issuance of an apology to an aggrieved party by a newspaper, or the payment of financial compensation for any proven damage caused to such a party, be thus transformed into a law that imprisons an editor for the same offence? Can this too be classified as only a “minor” change?
7. Can the transformation of a constitutional article that upholds the freedom of press into an ordinance that excludes from publication any transaction whatsoever concerning the army (we are not talking of something as confidential as strategic military secrets), and the conduct of foreign policy from fair comment by prohibiting the reproduction of any documents on these matters – will this also be said to constitute a “minor” change?
The time has come for the government and its federal minister to answer fully these seven questions to justify the ludicrous attempt to classify as “minor” such changes and to conceal the snatching away from the public of their sacred right to know and to be fully informed of what their leaders and public servants are up to in the name of reform. Or is the snatching of such fundamental rights yet one more of the “minor” changes which President Musharraf’s government intends to effect, upon civil society before an elected parliament is convened?” the joint statement asks in conclusion.
The APNS and CPNE are expected to issue a major document outlining unilateral changes made by the government early next week and the consequences such changes imply for Article 19 of the Constitution and the future of a free press in Pakistan. The document will also list transgressions of press freedoms by the Musharraf Government before the induction of the new ordinances into the public arena.
Source: Dawn
Date:10/5/2002
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
