Muzzling of the Press by Governments

New governments often come into office touting their intent to be media-friendly. But such announcements are frequently followed by efforts to undermine the freedom and independence of the press for officials’ own benefit, creating an atmosphere in which journalists who refuse to succumb become targets for harassment and intimidation.

Kenya's President, Uhuru Kenyatta, last July invited members of the Editors Guild of that country to a media breakfast at the State House. He told journalists the "relationship between government and the media need not be adversarial." Yet five months later, Kenya's Parliament passed anti-press legislation, the Kenya Information and Communication (Amendment) Act and the Media Council Act, a move designed to effectively silence critical reporting, says the Committee to Protect Journalists. The new anti-press freedom bill "will enable a new government-controlled regulatory board to fine journalists up to US$5,500 and media companies up to US$230,000 if the board finds them in breach of a government-dictated code of conduct ..."

The Sierra Leone All People’s Congress Government came into office in 2007 promising to be the most media-friendly government the country has ever had. Notwithstanding that, journalists who are deemed to be critical of the government have come under intense scrutiny including arrests and detentions.

Law enforcement personnel, weeks ago, ransacked the offices of the Independent Observer newspaper, arrested one of its reporters and took away computers. This followed the arrests of the managing editor of Premier Media Consultancy, Julius Spencer, and the editor of his Premier News newspaper, Alusine Sesay. The police raids and arrests came after the publication of articles relating to the Information Minister, Alpha Kanu’s, dealings with some of the country’s Internet service providers.

Be it a standard democracy or not, no government should be in the good books of journalists, nor should journalists be seen establishing any such relationship with authorities. Even though journalists would have an opinion on a government, it isn't their duty to express such opinion by way of performance evaluation and grading. The press, though, can report the failures and accomplishments of government or someone occupying or seeking election or re-election. This isn't the same as expressing personal opinion as news reporting. So a desire by any government or politician to entice the press is suspect. Of course, journalists must establish some contact or connection with those they report on, particularly those occupying public office, but such connections must not be extended beyond what is reported. An independent press is sure to report accurately because responsible journalists and the media organizations they represent have a standard to uphold and wouldn't want to tarnish their credibility.

Press freedom organizations have been busy since the first week of January addressing attacks on the media and on journalists themselves in many countries. The Committee to Protect Journalists on Jan. 13 sent a letter to Adly Mahmoud Mansour, the acting President of Egypt, expressing concern about the climate of press freedom in the country and requesting the release of all journalists held behind bars.

At the start of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva last month, the Global Forum for Media Development issued a statement calling on participants to include the protection of media freedom and development of a free and independent media as central in finding a solution to the crisis in that country. Some 60 journalists have been killed and about 80 abducted since the war began in 2011. 

Such organizations have reason to be concerned. In January alone four press workers were killed, three in Karachi, Pakistan, where gunmen on motorcycles shot at a TV crew, and one in Iraq, in a roadside bomb explosion in Anbar province.

From the United States where broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists and New Zealand where the government has been tracking the phone records and movement of at least one journalist following an article he wrote about probable illegal government surveillance, to the Ukraine, where at least two international journalists have been abducted, and the equipment of others damaged by government agents following a rally to protest attacks on the press, to Venezuela, where the government instructs Internet service providers to act as Internet police in an effort to curtail press freedom, attacks on the free press have become a daily occurrence.


This article is not to decry what has become the practice of particularly in-coming governments in many parts to the world to appoint members of the press to cabinet or diplomatic positions. Many such appointees have performed diligently. Some though become their government’s torchbearers of attacks on the press.

With financial support from politicians, the power of the propaganda press could not be underestimated. Nonetheless, a credible independent press is what captures the public's attention rather than government or politicians' editorials.

When journalists allow themselves to be trapped in politicians' structured government-media-friendly gestures, they are allowing the government to entice at least some of them into becoming its mouthpiece. By offering wayward press payroll "packages" for favorable reporting, politicians inevitably elevate themselves into directing editorial decisions.


In countries where the press struggles to operate and where some journalists are not adequately trained, such an attempt on the part of those in authority comes as a blessing. When this happens, politicians become both corrupt and complacent and pay little heed to the public's call for accountability.

Journalists who refuse to accede to the so-called media-friendly gesture, on the other hand, are regarded as enemies of the government and the people. They are likely to face constant harassment, intimidation and detention, as well as attacks of vitriolic fabrications tweaked in lies and character assassinations by those media practitioners on the government payroll.

While officials may think otherwise, independent reporters view themselves as neither favorable nor unfavorable to government activities. They seek neither to build friendships with government officials nor act antagonistically. Their objective is merely to report the news accurately and impartially. Politicians and officeholders likewise should focus less on trying to win over journalists. Any such attempt is a recipe for journalists to go yellow and for the government to muzzle the press.



Aroun Rashid Deen

New York City

Sierra Leone: Charles Margai violates basic tenet of the rule of law

(By Aroun R. Deen,

New York)

Charles Margai violates basic tenet of the rule of law

For any practicing lawyer, professional codes of conduct and canons of ethics dictate that compliance with the law - at all times and under every circumstance - is not a matter of choice. Any member of the legal profession who conscientiously fails to heed not only to the letter, but the spirit of the law violates this basic tenet, whether or not he is regarded as forthright, reliable, eloquent or cunning in the discharge of his duties. This – in my opinion – is exactly what a veteran lawyer in Sierra Leone, opposition politician, Charles Margai, has done in the course of an apparent land dispute with Sia Koroma, wife of the country’s President.

Specifically, Mr. Margai, a seasoned and respected member of the bench, has engaged in conduct that completely disparages the rule of law, to wit, threatening to mobilize over a thousand kamajors, members of a now disbanded civil defense militia, he claims are at his disposal, to defend him and protect the property at the heart of the dispute with the First Lady should the need arise.

The kamajors were local hunters who banded together at the beginning of the civil war to protect defenseless villages and towns in the countryside that were being brutally attacked by the ruthless Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels and renegade soldiers of the government known as sobels. During the course of their efforts in that campaign, the group also engaged in conducts against perceived enemies as well as civilians deemed to be gross human rights violations. These included summary executions, making them as equally feared as the RUF. The group was disbanded following the end of the war in 2002.

Leaving aside the undeniable departure from the professional conduct and probity demanded of all legal practitioners, Mr. Margai’s statement is exceedingly reckless and inflammatory at best and liable to instigate violence at the worst. Given the known excesses of the kamajors during the civil war and the unspeakable brutality and horrors visited upon Sierra Leoneans by all sides to the conflict, it is difficult to imagine that Mr. Margai did not appreciate that his comments would cause nervousness in a war-scarred population still in the process of healing; nor can one fathom how an erudite lawyer such as Mr. Margai did not recognize such comments could undermine state security.

This article is not concerned with the question of who owns the disputed land. And while it is fair to ask questions about the involvement of the First Lady in this particular row, both Mr. Margai and Mrs. Koroma are citizens of Sierra Leone with equal rights under the law, including the right to own property.

According to Mr. Margai, as a consequence of the ongoing land dispute, he has lost confidence in the legal system to protect his right to the property he claims ownership to and to defend him, should that need arise. This he claims is the reason he may need to resort to the kamajors. However, Mr. Margai is himself an active member of the bar and frequently appears in courts of the law to represent clients. Such participation in the legal system would tend to suggest some level of faith in its efficacy and the dispensation of justice.

The justice that Mr. Margai seeks via the kamajor route clearly represents gross recklessness, anarchy and lawlessness, and is liable to enflame partisans. Indeed, it has resulted in equally untenable reactions from some who are opposed to Mr. Margai’s stance. In some quarters, it has generated arguments seeking to tie the main opposition party, the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) to Mr. Margai’s attitude and conduct. Of course, his position has nothing to do with the SLPP. After all, he is considered the kingmaker of the APC government, having virtually assured their victory in the 2007 elections by breaking away from the incumbent SLPP.   

Given the brutal nature of the civil war in Sierra Leone, there is little doubt Mr. Margai’s comments have brought back painful memories and caused uneasiness in the minds of those who survived the dark period of the 1990s.

If anything, Mr. Margai’s cavalier statement leads to the question: is there an organized kamajor presence still in the country? This is something the nation deserves to know.

Even with the obvious challenge of securing a judgment in his favor in a court of law, against the spouse of the President, there is no reason for a learned and senior lawyer to eschew the rule of law and resort to what amounts to “bush justice. Moreover, in an era of increasing globalization, there are also legitimate sources at one’s disposal to seek justice outside the one’s own country. Kamajor justice, unfortunately, is not one of them.

It is now up to the laws of the land to determine whether Mr. Margai’s utterances are punishable crimes. However, it was appropriate for the police to arrest and detain him because the authorities themselves would be grossly irresponsible if they had remained silent in the face of Margai’s statement. But the authorities also must ensure that the ongoing land dispute that gave rise to this episode is properly addressed, particularly given the involvement of the First Lady. This it must do in a transparent manner without interference or threat of punishment or reprisal. Accordingly, the rights of the true owner of the property in dispute must be protected by the court in its determination so that justice is done and seen to be done, especially because of the high visibility of the case.

Aroun Rashid Deen is a freelance journalist in New York.

This article is entirely the opinion of the writer. It does not represent the general view to this media.

Sierra Leone opposition party calls on lawmakers to boycott Parliament

By Aroun Rashid Deen


The Sierra Leone People’s Party, whose candidate, Julius Maada Bio, came
in a distant second to the incumbent President in a crowded field in the
just-concluded Sierra Leone presidential election, has called on its members
of parliament and other elected officials, to “stay away” from
parliamentary and all other local council proceedings.

A statement from the party’s secretariat issued Tuesday, just four days
after the National Electoral Commission NEC of Sierra Leone declared
incumbent President Ernest Koroma, of the All People’s Congress, the
winner of the presidential election held on November 17, stated that its
National Executive Committee strongly “condemns the refusal of the
National Electoral Commission (NEC) to address the electoral irregularities
including fake and unstamped Reconciliation and Result Forms, pre-marked
ballot papers, ballot stuffing and over-voting in Kono, the Western Area and
the Northern Province and more other instances of malpractices which
undermined the credibility of the results.” The party had hinted - just a
day after the result was announced - that it was going to contest the
presidential result, claiming electoral wrongdoings.

The SLPP national and local lawmakers are among the hundreds also elected
during the November 17 polling. Although the party has also – in a
separate statement - indicated that the elected officials have reaffirmed
their firm commitment to the resolution to stay away, pundits speculate that
few of them will adhere to their party’s call for the boycott. And if they
do, it will not be for long. Among them are first-timers, some of whom,
notwithstanding the party’s position regarding the results declared by the
NEC, are anxious to take up their seats for which they had worked hard, if
not to begin serving their constituents.

The call to stay away from parliamentary and other council proceedings may
be a signal that the SLPP is running out of options or strategies to reverse
the election result. In its press release, the party prevailed on the
international community to consider its claims of election fraud, demanding
“an independent international assessment” of the whole election process
involved, including the presidential result.

It is not clear which sector of the international community the SLPP wants
to intervene, since key players and leading decision makers in world
affairs, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, the
United Nations, the European Union ECOWAS, the West African regional bloc
and the African Union, among others, have all recognized the election of
President Koroma. They have done so by way of statements of approval of the
election process and congratulatory messages to Koroma.

However, a reliable source from Freetown has indicated that frenetic
diplomatic efforts, led by the United Nations, are under way to bring
together President Ernest Bai Koroma and Julius Maada Bio, to find a
resolution to the SLPP’s alleged election fraud. It is not known what, if
anything, Mr. Bio would gain out of it, following his dismal performance,
other than to be coaxed to accept the election result. Representatives of
the two groups are to meet in Freetown shortly.

Further, in its press release, the party demanded the “unconditional
release” from police custody, those of its members and supporters who are
still being held. And in what it described as in the spirit of
reconciliation, the SLPP called on the government to “nolle prosequi all
pending political matters in our local courts.” It did not specify the
political matters in question nor indicate how the request is related to the
allegations of electoral fraud and irregularities.
Nolle prosequi is a term used in the context of the legal profession. It
means that either a prosecutor or plaintiff in a legal matter already in
proceeding has declared that he or she will not proceed any further.

Aroun Rashid Deen is a freelance journalist. He lives in New York City
646 645-1857

Indict Muammar Gaddafi now for War Crimes in Sierra Leone

Aroun Rashid Deen – With international pressure already mounting on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and with the International Criminal Court now in the process of gathering information on civilian deaths in Libya, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court have a profound opportunity to indict Gaddafi for war crimes and crimes against humanity he has committed in Sierra Leone. The United Nations has already sanctioned Gaddafi’s government, and now it’s time his prior crimes in West Africa are brought to justice, too.

Muammar Gaddafi was the mastermind and key financier of the brutal war that left hundreds of thousands dead in Sierra Leone in West Africa in the 1990s. The war would not have happened in the first place had it not been for the desire of the Libyan leader to punish the government of Sierra Leone for what he regarded as its siding with the West in the 1980’s when Gaddafi was at loggerhead with particularly the United States and Britain. It was also part of Gaddafi’s broader agenda including his geopolitical ambition to destabilize much of West Africa and establish satellite states in the region to be headed by puppet regimes that will be doing his biddings.The decade-long war ripped Sierra Leone apart. Thousands of its victims, whose arms and limbs were chopped off by rebels,were reduced to paupers, roaming the streets as beggars in Freetown and other cities. Children as young as a day old were also among those whose arms and limbs were hacked off by Gaddafi’s rebels. Pregnant women, too, were disemboweled with delight in their display of ghastlybrutality.

As part of his criminal plans to set West Africa on the warpath, Gaddafi instituted a program of guerilla warfare in Libya for a group of disgruntled West Africans, including a group of Sierra Leoneans he had invited to Tripoli to undergo training. The men who led the war on Sierra Leone — former Liberian leader and warlord, Charles Taylor and Sierra Leone’s rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, and The Gambian Fugitive, Kukoi Samba Sanyang– were among those who trained in Libya.

The ring leaders of the Revolutionary United Front rebel group, which was fighting to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone, also received massive financial support from Libya through Gaddafi’s People’s Revolutionary Council.

Long before the government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations jointly set up the Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute key suspects of the war for war crimes and crimes against humanity, calls have been made for Gaddafi to face international justice for his role in Sierra Leone — like Charles Taylor now in The Hague. An opposition leader in Sierra Leone, Charles Margai, who was one of the strong advocates for Gaddafi’s indictment, was incensed when Gaddafi visited the country in 2007. In a BBC interview, he called on Sierra Leoneans to boycott the reception that was hosted for him at the national stadium.

David Crane, the first Chief Prosecutor at the Special Court,considered indicting the Libyan dictator. The former prosecutor, who now teaches law at Syracuse University, says that the direct participation of the Libyan leader in the wars in both Sierra Leone and Liberia caused the “murder, rape, maiming, and mutilation of over a million human beings…” But calls for justice were not heeded because it appears principle Western nations developed a fondness for Mr. Gaddafi following his so-called positive gestures, such as his abandoning of WMD programs.

In January 2004, former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was quick to express hope that French firms would participate fully in business activities in Libya. This followed Libya’s signing of a deal to pay $170 million to relatives of French victims of a UTA French airliner bombing in 1989, which was blamed on Libya.Current French President Nicolas Sarkozy also went to Tripoli in July 2007.

The greatest irony of it all is that Sierra Leone and Liberia never got compensations from Libya for the untold suffering, infrastructural damage and needless loss of lives even though evidence suggests that he was the master-mind of the carnage.

Then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, met Gaddafi in Tripoli in 2004. The meeting was christened with the signing of a deal by oil giant, Shell, estimated at hundreds of millions of British pound sterling for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast.

In August 2008, Italy’s Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi visited Libya and signed a $5 billion dollars investment deal with Gaddafi. Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State has also been to Libya where she met with the controversial Gaddafi.

The Libyan leader’s promise to, at the least, pay compensations to relatives of his brutal crimes as well as his giving up of his WMDs were welcome news in a world — particularly in Europe — that confronts many terrorists activities. Oil supplies from Libya mean much to the West. But appeasing the West should not stand in the way for justice for Sierra Leone, just so because it is not an affluent country endowed with oil deposits.

Up till now, Gaddafi’s relations with the West were getting cozier by the day. His brutal treatment of peaceful protesters — who seek nothing more than just a political change that guarantees freedom and better living standards — shows clearly that Gaddafi is too grown to learn new tricks. He is fundamental in his choice to resorting to brutality as a means of addressing challenges.

Muammar Gaddafi bears the greatest responsibility for the brutality in Sierra Leone. The Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up at the end of the war found out that Libya contributed in a significant way to the chaos and mayhem that engulfed the country. Mr. Gaddafi’s role in the training in Libya and financing of the rebels justify his direct involvement in the mayhem. Such key roles deserve more than mere naming and shaming.

The desire for a share of Libyan oil or business prospect should not rub leading international policy makers of their moral responsibility to let Mr. Gaddafi account for his brutal misdeeds.

Gaddafi’s hatred for Sierra Leone goes back to the early 1980’s when then President of Sierra Leone, Siaka Stevens, in November 1982,  boycotted an Organization of African Unity conference Libya was scheduled to host. The 1982 conference lacked a quorum due to the absence of many heads of state as a result of controversies surrounding Gaddafi’s role in the rebellions that were going on in Africa at the time. Gaddafi must not go unpunished. What was good for the British and French must be good for Sierra Leoneans too.

Source:aloftnews.com