Eschewing The Curtailment Of Press Freedom

Parliament’s recent enactment of a contentious draft proclamation amending the 2021 mass media law has not sit well with stakeholders of the media industry in Ethiopia. As a piece of legislation that could very well deal a blow to the positive gains for press freedom that the existing law ushered in, journalists, editors, media house custodians, and representatives from CSOs as well as the state-appointed human rights commission and the Office of the Ombudsman had expressed on several occasions serious misgivings about its grave implications prior to its passage. Sadly, the government has remained unwilling to entertain any opposition to the legislation, preferring to trot out unpersuasive arguments in its defense. This has led many observers to conclude that it is entirely motivated by political considerations and not, as it says, the imperative to enable the regulatory Ethiopian Mass Media Authority (EMA) to discharge its duties and to promote the growth of the Ethiopian media industry.

In recent years, Ethiopia has experienced significant political and social upheaval, leading to a complex transformation in its media landscape. The raft of political reforms the administration of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) embarked on soon after he came to power seven years ago, particularly the release of several journalists incarcerated in jails and the introduction of a relatively progressive media law that, among others, decriminalized defamation and relaxed restrictions on foreign journalists and media companies, understandably gave rise to hope that the future boded well for the industry. While these changes were greeted with optimism, the realities on the ground reveal a more complicated picture. The revamping of the media law, while providing increased freedom in theory, has not fully translated into practice. Journalists face increased scrutiny, arbitrary arrests, state intimidation, administrative hurdles, and restricted access to information, particularly in the context of ethnic tensions and political instability. This has created a climate of fear that stifles critical reporting and undermines the principles of a free press.

The architects of the media law presently in force, primarily composed of independent lawyers and media professionals, produced a draft after they undertook an extensive assessment of the strengths and flaws of the legislation it repealed, ensuring that it not only adhered to the pertinent constitutional provisions and international human rights instruments Ethiopia is a party to, but also integrated best practices. The final version was extensively deliberated on by prominent experts in the field before it was submitted for parliamentary approval. One of the landmark changes it brought about was that it laid the foundation for the establishment of a robust and autonomous regulatory body, whose management board is made up of members chosen through a process that allows public nominations and input regarding candidates. This approach was considered essential for the authority to effectively fulfill its primary duty of safeguarding freedom of expression and press freedom, rights that many believe are foundational for the exercise of other basic human rights.

The amendments to the mass media law undercut the institutional autonomy of the authority and its management board. For example, one such change does away with the ban on a board member from being affiliated with or employed by a political party. Another abolishes the requirement that the nomination of board members must be conducted in an open and transparent process involving the public, granting the prime minister exclusive control over this function.  Moreover, the new law wrests the board’s power to nominate EMA’s Director General as well as to issue and cancel operating licenses, bestowing it on the prime minister and the Authority, respectively. It further ends the exemption broadcasters enjoy from ensuring the legality of the content of live transmissions prior to airing. EMA officials have time and again stood behind these amendments, maintaining that they are vital to fill the gaps allegedly preventing the Authority from properly exercising its regulatory powers under the media law.

The Ethiopian constitution, along with the human rights treaties to which the country is a signatory, explicitly safeguards press freedom and emphasizes that the press, as an institution, is entitled to legal protection to maintain its operational independence and ability to express a range of viewpoints. The independence of the EMA has already been compromised by the appointment of members from the ruling Prosperity Party to its board in a blatant violation of the media law. The removal of the safeguards that provide even minimal protection for press freedom is sure to have grave repercussions.

Ethiopia stands at a crossroads in its media journey, facing both tremendous challenges and opportunities for growth. As the landscape evolves, it is vital that all stakeholders do everything in their power to promote media freedom and accountability. Addressing the legal, economic, and social dimensions of the media environment can go a long way towards cultivating a vibrant, responsible press that contributes to a healthy democracy. Only then can the promise of free expression truly take root, enabling citizens to engage fully with their society and government. In the coming years, as the effects of these changes unfold, the collective response of Ethiopia’s media community, the government, and civil society will be pivotal in shaping a future where media can thrive free from fear, bias, and manipulation.