Free Speech Under Attack – On Both Sides of the Indian Ocean

There are disturbing developments unfolding in South Africa (SA) – the 13 year old democracy birthed in no small way by dissident journalism. Freedom of speech is under threat from an increasingly arrogant and power-drunk ANC government which is seeking to silence its media critics.

Ethical questions raised about the methods of investigative reporters who exposed the South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, as an abusive alcoholic and a "kleptomaniac", are being used to justify a clamp down on free speech under the guise of privacy protection and respect for culture.

Following a five month investigation, leading SA newspaper, the Sunday Times, recently reported that the minister got drunk and abused nursing staff during her hospitalisation in Cape Town in 2005. A week later, the paper revealed that Manto was an alcoholic who bullied medical staff into fast-tracking a liver transplant she underwent earlier this year and covering up the diagnosis that led to it - alcoholic liver cirrhosis. And, they have alleged she's continuing to drink post-surgery. The paper also exposed her as a convicted thief. She was found guilty of stealing from patients when she was a hospital administrator in Botswana in the mid 70’s.

But it’s not Manto the government is accusing of theft and impropriety – it’s the reporters on the story and the paper’s editor who are under police investigation and face possible jail sentences if prosecuted. Confidential hospital records obtained by the Sunday Times were relied upon for substantiation and there’s an inference they may have been stolen (by persons unknown) from a Cape Town private clinic. SA law prohibits the release of personal medical information on privacy grounds and while there are legitimate questions to be asked about the ethics of publishing such material and the manner in which it was obtained, the government's reaction to a story clearly in the public interest is out of all proportion. Again, debate over the ethics of investigative techniques employed by journalists is always warranted as are clearly stated reasons justifying publication when the ethical territory is murky – it’s healthy professional practice and the public has a right to know if spurious methods are used. But the reaction of the ANC government to this story underlines the very tenuous nature of freedom of speech and free media in the ‘new’ South Africa, despite its enshrinement in the country’s vaunted Constitution. (See SA journalism Professor, Guy Berger's, blog posts on this aspect of the story here and here)

In the shadow of this saga, SA president, Thabo Mbeki, and his political apparatchiks have publicly condemned journalists and media outlets critical of the ANC, arguing such coverage is inconsistent with being ‘proudly South African’. And the ANC is considering replacing self-regulation with a Media Tribunal. Their argument is that journalists have a responsibility (or should be forced?) to uphold culture and assist development – an approach that represents a serious threat to independent journalism and freedom of speech. But it’s an approach which has apparently already been adopted by the cowed South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) which sounds increasingly like a state broadcaster, rather than a public one. SABC News Editor, Snuki Zikalala recently told an SA Human Rights Commission seminar on free speech and privacy that the SABC would not have run the story about the Health Minister because it only carries stories that help develop the country. “We are guided by the Constitution not to incite violence or hatred in our reporting. Publishing such a story is disrespectful.” He has a point – racial dignity is invoked in the South African Constitution but there’s also very strong protection for free speech and free media within, and the two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One could argue, for example, that the Minister’s behaviour amounted to self-inflicted indignity worthy of exposure in the public interest. It really is hard to understand the argument that Manto’s rights to privacy and dignity would have outweighed public interest in this story – particularly in light of her apparent abuse of the health system she heads, for her own medical benefit. Indeed, the Freedom of Expression Institute’s, Jane Duncan, told the Mail & Guardian such stories should be published: "There was an abuse of power here so one can't have a reasonable expectation to privacy."

Even more disturbing is a scandal reminiscent of apartheid-era politics and propaganda erupting around the ANC President. It’s been revealed that a company (Koni Media Holdings) owned by Mbeki’s political advisor, the government’s foreign affairs spokesman and the former Chief of State Protocol, was mounting a takeover bid for a newspaper group (Johncom) which happens to own the Sunday Times (the originator of the Manto story) along with other titles regularly critical of the ANC. This sort of state interference in the independent media is reminiscent of the darkest days of apartheid censorship. In 1978 a newspaper critical of the apartheid regime revealed the government had funded another newspaper, which purported to be independent (The Citizen), for propaganda purposes. The parallels to the takeover bid of Johncom by ‘The President’s Men’ are obvious. And, there’s fear being expressed in some quarters that SA's liberators are at risk of becoming the oppressors – a controversial perspective but one which does resonate. One SA media commentator, Ivo Vetger, has blogged about “worrying similarities between the socio-economic policies of this government and the apartheid regime — both practicing a form of national socialism or state corporatism.”

The fact that this ANC clampdown on the media coincides with the 30th anniversary of what’s known as Black Wednesday – the day the apartheid government permanently banned key anti-racist newspapers along with all Black Conciousness organisations – highlights the amnesic danger of the ANC government’s strategy to suppress independent, critical journalism. The fact that so many courageous South African journalists risked so much and suffered so greatly – with Steve Biko and others like him paying the highest price with their lives – just for the right to speak freely and write what was right makes this dangerous political manoeuvre all the more distasteful. (See Guy Berger’s blog post on his own transformation inspired by Black Wednesday).

This is a complex and disturbing story about the right to tell stories in a country with one of the most heart-breaking tales in history. And it’s one we need to watch. But we also need to be cogniscant of the diminishing rights to free speech here, in Australia. A study released this week by the Right to Know Coalition, “should ring alarm bells for those who value free speech” according to the chief investigator, former NSW ombudsman, Irene Moss. Moss admitted she was initially sceptical about the concerns being expressed by journalists over oppressive Freedom of Information (FoI) regulations but the report found “free speech and media freedom are being whittled away” in Australia. It lists more than 500 separate legal provisions in 335 different state and federal acts of Parliament as evidence that freedom of speech is being eroded. Secrecy provisions in a range of acts are being blamed for suppressing information which should be in the public domain. The study also confirms the FoI laws are a significant impediment to journalists attempting to report on government and identifies more than 1000 suppression orders issued by Australian courts.

Among examples of the curtailment of information availability cited by the report are opinion poll results on the first round of advertisements for the Federal Government’s controversial 'Workchoices' legislation and state government statistics on poker machine revenues. Calling for greater accountability and transparency upon the release of the report, media outlets said they would continue to campaign for reform to FoI and suppression laws while lobbying for the protection of whistleblowers. "We are not living in a dictatorship, but we are not living in a gold standard democracy. We are paying lip service to the principle of open government," Fairfax Media Chief Executive, David Kirk, said.

Journalists, and journalism academics have a responsibility to do more than pay lip service to the concerns raised here: on both sides of the Indian Ocean.

Update: The SA parliament is also considering a bill which could, in effect, act as a form of pre-publication censorship for the print media. Read about this 8/11/07 Mail & Guardian article by Guy Berger about what's at stake