Hurried Media Bill Backpedals Recent Reforms, Threatens Press Freedom

Helpless and fuming, journalists, editors, media house custodians, and representatives from human rights organizations, CSOs, and the ombudsman made their way to Parliament on November 20, 2024, in a bid to stave off legislative changes that many fear will reverse the positive gains for press freedom seen over the last few years.

The incumbent has proposed to make stifling and stringent amendments to the Media Proclamation as the country begins to rouse itself for the next national elections scheduled to take place in a year and a half.

Officials at the Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA) have presented lawmakers with a new bill to replace the one ratified in April 2021, arguing the amendments are necessary to enable the Authority to discharge its duties, as well as for the growth of the Ethiopian media industry.

The proposal is fiercely opposed by many, who see the existing Media Proclamation as a marked improvement to the constraining media laws from the EPRDF era. The Authority, however, appears keen to reverse much of the progress.

– Advertisement –

The amendments tabled to Parliament are extensive, and will likely have deep ramifications for press freedom if the bill is ratified.

Key among the proposed changes is a shift in the Authority’s power structure. As it stands, the nine-member EMA board has the mandate to approve, renew, or revoke media licenses. The existing proclamation dictates the board is made up of two members from civil society organizations, two from the media industry, two from other relevant institutions, and three from relevant government organs.

It is worth noting that the current board does not reflect this structure, being composed mostly of government officials and members of the ruling party. Media practitioners had strongly objected (in vain) to the roster when the government submitted their names to Parliament, which it did more than a year after the proclamation was ratified.

The Authority’s draft looks to completely reverse provisions regarding board empowerment and composition. The new bill proposes transferring the powers of the board to the EMA Director-General, who is appointed directly by the Prime Minister.

Article 9 of the draft wholly nullifies previous provisions for board composition.

“We [EMA] can not do our job because of the board. Applications for media licenses come to us daily. The board is empowered to make the decision but the board meets only once a month. This is affecting the media. The power to decide on licensing and daily activities in regulating the media sector should be transferred from the board to EMA,” Yonatan Tesfaye, deputy head of the Authority, told lawmakers.

He also claimed the inclusion of media owners on the board is causing a conflict of interest.

The bill being pushed by Yonatan and his colleagues proposes to change the rules for live broadcast transmissions.

The working proclamation states that media institutions are obliged to “ensure the legality of the content of any program before its transmission by the station, with the exception of live transmissions.” In essence, the provision exempts live broadcasts from rigorous editorial process and censorship.

The EMA wants to see this provision scrapped. Its heads argue live broadcasts are responsible for inciting conflict between ethnic and religious groups, and the subsequent deaths of civilians.

“Because the existing media proclamation exempted live transmission from regulation, the media transmitted content that has caused conflict, clashes and instability that led to several deaths. In order to thwart further conflict that endangers the country, this provision must be rescinded,” said Yonatan.

He accused the media of over-exercising its freedom, of disseminating provocative content and putting the country’s stability at risk. Yonatan blames the rights granted to the board and the self-regulatory powers of the Ethiopian Media Council (EMC) for the problems.

“The board’s role should be limited to hearing appeals from the media regarding decisions passed by EMA,” he told MPs.

The arguments drew fierce opposition from media practitioners, human rights bodies, and CSO representatives who were present during the discussions. Many scrambled to voice their disapproval of the proposed amendments.

Among them was Meseret Atalay, a representative of the EMC.

“The amendments look to transfer the power of the board to the EMA director, which means from the public to the Prime Minister. For us, the media, this amendment is from freedom to detriment. What is the government’s motive for coming up with these amendments?” asked Meseret.

He argued the legislation would take the media back to square one, undoing the progress achieved through the ratification of the working proclamation two-and-a-half years ago.

“I am very afraid of this new bill,” said Meseret.

Solomon Goshu coordinated the media practitioners’ team that conducted the research used for input during the drafting of the 2021 proclamation. He also questions the logic behind the EMA’s push to change the rules.

“Revoking a media license is not a simple task and should not be taken as a daily job. So, if the board convenes once in a month, it is sufficient to determine the fate of a media license. But the number of times the board meets a month can be increased based on the tasks at hand. Why amend the proclamation for such minor operational issues?” he asked.

Solomon told MPs the working proclamation was the result of intensive study and designed to promote democracy and safekeep public interest.

“The government is attempting to amend the proclamation in a way that completely disregards the public interest and democratization. The amendments grant all power to the government and muffle freedom of expression. The bill pushes the public out of the picture,” said Solomon.

He criticized the EMA’s objections to the clause about live broadcasts.

“How can media houses control live transmissions? It’s live, and participants and audiences express their opinions. It is against editorial policy to intervene in public opinion. Second, media houses do not have the time to intervene and assert editorial policy during a live transmission,” said Solomon.

The Authority’s proposals drew fire from Rakeb Messele, acting head of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

She noted the changes proposed in the draft are disproportionate to the EMA’s arguments that the amendments were necessitated to correct administrative and regulatory gaps in the existing law.

“This bill closes the door on the media. It must be reevaluated cautiously, in line with the freedom of expression provided in the Ethiopian constitution, and international conventions ratified by Ethiopia,” said  the Acting Commissioner.

Rakeb put forward several tailored recommendations she urged lawmakers to consider before deciding whether to ratify the bill.

“EMA must be impartial from government influence. The board members must be diversified. The proposed amendment contradicts and is against the Ethiopian constitution, freedom right conventions, and human rights laws. It also chips at institutional freedom. The bill cancels provisions given to the board in the existing proclamation. It also reverses provisions regarding board diversification. This means the proposed bill cancels public representation and participation in a public institution [EMA]. These articles that empower the board must not be rescinded,” she told MPs.

Rakeb stressed that a provision for public participation in nominating and critiquing members of the board in an open and transparent process must be kept as it is in the existing media proclamation.

She argued the EMA’s concerns over a conflict of interest brought on by rules regarding board composition are unfounded.

“There are administrative approaches and mechanisms like rigorous screening processes to eliminate any conflict of interest among board members,” said Rakeb.

The Acting Commissioner warned lawmakers the amendments nullify the power of the board over EMA, and places EMA in direct control of the executive organ. She observed that the exclusion of diverse organizations and fields in board composition will lead to the board and EMA becoming partial institutions that fall exclusively under the influence of the state executive organ.

However, Rakeb did share with EMA officials their concerns regarding live broadcasts.

“Live transmission should be regulated, as a way to control its potential impact in causing conflict. There are mechanisms that can help media houses to intervene and control the content of live transmission,” she said.

Other participants, such as the EMC’s Tamerat Hailu, argued the provisions set out in the existing proclamation are often ignored, and warned the proposed changes would only lead to more problems.

“Why is the government in a rush to amend the proclamation just two-and-a-half years after the best one [yet] was ratified. This Parliament approved board members appointed by the government last year, against the proclamation provision that states board members must be diversified. This Parliament itself breached the media proclamation by approving board members appointed by the PM. This is illegal. The existing EMA board is illegitimate,” said Tamerat.

He sees the proposed amendments as little more than justification for already-effective government influence on the board.

Tamerat also rejected the EMA’s claims that the presence of media owners on the board is leading to a conflict of interest. He noted that media owners are not appointed to the board, rather representatives are chosen from the Media Council, one of the 18 media practitioners’ associations, CSOs, or other relevant institutions.

“This does not mean they represent the interests of media owners. Media houses and the Authority are democratic institutions. This bill revokes the public’s rights and representation in democratic institutions. If this bill is approved, the Authority will begin revoking media licenses for the slightest breaches and use the media law as a political tool to muffle the media,” Tamerat argued.

His views were shared by Samuel Fikre, a media law expert and a journalist working in live broadcast at Ethio FM.

“This bill is very frustrating. Why is the government attempting to amend the proclamation, which is perfectly good, in such a hurry? It was ratified after intensive study and several rounds of consultations with all stakeholders. Now, EMA is presenting the bill without consultations; without studies,” said Samuel.

Amare Aregawi is head of the EMC and founder of the Media and Communication Center, which publishes The Reporter newspapers and magazines. He worries the amendments will be an added burden for the press, which is already struggling with censorship and a disregard for law.

“Those who make the laws do not respect the laws themselves. Article 19 of the UN universal declaration of human rights has directly become article 29 of the Ethiopian constitution. But it is not implemented. For instance, this article states the government should provide protection for journalists and media houses. But the government itself has become a threat to journalists and media institutions,” said Amare.

He observes that access to information has become a serious challenge in Ethiopia, which was among the first five African nations to ratify access to information conventions.

“Journalists belonging to private media in Ethiopia are not invited to government meetings, unlike state media journalists,” said Amare.

He pointed out that journalists are often detained, and their equipment confiscated.

“But when EMA is asked, it does not know, or does not respond. EMA says ‘ask the police’. When we ask, the police and courts say nothing about detained journalists. There is a lack of systems and institutions to implement media law. Approving laws is not enough, they must be implemented,” said Amare.

He expressed concerns that genuine journalism and mainstream media are being conflated with activism, particularly online.

Amare wants to see the EMC exercise the powers granted to it by the country’s media policy and proclamation. He rejected the idea that the EMC is made up of media owners, explaining the Council is composed of representatives from the ombudsman, Parliament, chambers of commerce, human rights bodies, CSOs and others, each playing an equal role.

“The Council was created to self-regulate complaints about media houses and journalists before cases go to court,” said Amare.

He stated that despite an MoU signed with the EMA last year, the Authority has never once brought a case before the Council.

“Journalism cases are going to courts directly without being seen by the Council for self-regulation,” said the veteran journalist. He urged lawmakers to conduct thorough studies and public consultation before approving the bill tabled by EMA.

Yohannes Sahle, another seasoned journalist, has other concerns.

“The bill does not even define who a journalist is. Everybody with a mobile phone is a journalist now. The government empowered pro-government social media activists intentionally in order to make mainstream media irrelevant. It intentionally confused, exposed and left the public in the mercy of social media activist journalists. Genuine journalists and media houses do not have a proper place due to the government’s work. They became victims. Now, the government is trying to hold accountable the genuine journalists and media houses, for the bad works of social media activities. This is wrong,” said Yohannes.

Firew Hailu, participated during the discussions as representative of the Editors’ Association.

“This bill amendment is wrong. EMA could not provide sufficient justification as to why the amendment is needed. The drafting of the amended bill is also illegal, and outside of the normal process. Nobody was consulted; nobody did research. The existing media proclamation must remain,” said Firew. “We are talking about fundamental human rights, democratic rights, freedom of expression, and constitutional rights. Muffling these fundamental rights affects all aspects of the nation. Yonatan said including representatives from the media sector on the board caused a conflict of interest. As far as we know, in the board, no media owner has sat to judge on a case of his/her own media case. The media policy and proclamation recognized the Media Council for its self-regulatory role. But practically, the Authority is not allowing this.”

Mesud Gebeyehu, executive director of the Consortium of Ethiopian Human Rights Organization (CEHRO), warned MPs that ratifying the bill would have negative repercussions for press freedom.

“This is a bill of panic for the media and CSOs. If approved, it would reverse gains in free speech, media growth, and democratic nation building. The existing board hasn’t even finished a single term, but the EMA is rushing to amend the proclamation. The Council must have self-regulatory powers. The Authority must be staffed by professional journalists,” he said.

Mesud observes self-censorship is already prevalent in Ethiopia, due to the fear of government retaliation.

“People are afraid of speaking in the media. Media houses are afraid to criticize the state. Why further ban direct transmission? Media and CSOs work for the public. But this new bill diminishes this public interest. If the board and Authority are not discharging their duties, the proper action should be correcting that, not amending the proclamation. The existing proclamation is very good and should not be reversed,” said Mesud.

He underscored that the board is accountable to HPR, while the EMA director-general is accountable to the PM, which means, if the proposed bill makes the board powerless, media will be exclusively under the control of the PM.

Abera Abebe, representing the Lawyers for Human Rights Center, argued the amendments are the product of political motivations.

“The interest in amending this proclamation came exclusively from the government. It disregards the gains attained by the existing proclamation over the last couple of years. The Authority is rushing to ratify the amendments, hinting at political interest in reversing provisions in the proclamation and thereby muffling freedom of expression,” he said.

Abera noted the proposed bill was forwarded to the parliamentary committee for Democracy Affairs rather than the Law and Justice committee.

“All these show the flaws. It is a politically motivated draft. It will stunt the mainstream media, leave the public to the mercy of social media, and eliminate the free media space,” he said.

Derese Nigat, a member of the Editors’ Association, had similar objections.

“We say the media is the fourth estate. The bill proposes all nine members of the board will be from the government. Can we then say the media is the fourth estate?” asked Derese.

He criticized the draft for its lack of protection for media houses, particularly when it comes to live broadcasts.

“Somebody could intentionally transmit unnecessary messages using live broadcasting. The person might be intentionally doing harm to the media. But the government is always framing it as if the media told the person to relay the content on live transmission,” saud Derese.

Another participant likened the proposal to moderate or control the content of live broadcasts to “holding Parliament accountable for the speech of MPs.”

EMA officials were eventually given the floor to provide justifications for the amendments they are proposing and respond to queries from other participants.

Mohammed Edris serves as EMA director-general. He was appointed to the position under the administration of Abiy Ahmed. He used to work as director of communications at the Information Network Security Administration (INSA) during the EPRDF regime.

Mohammed’s response to the questions surrounding the bill were authoritative, glossing over the reasoning behind the proposed amendments and the rush to see them through.

“Thousands of citizens have died in the past few years because of unregulated content and information disseminated through live transmission from media houses. EMA is tied down by the existing proclamation, and could not take action against these media houses to save lives. EMA is the only authority and public institution that is given mandates but not given power. The power is given to the board but the board could not discharge its duties,” said the Director-General.

He claimed the working proclamation prioritizes the interests of media owners over public safety, criticizing the board for delays in making decisions about media institutions accused of publishing harmful and inciting content.

“Do people have to die while the board makes its decision?” asked Mohammed. “If power is granted to the Authority, we can make the decision and immediately suspend the media [institution], and stop the conflict and killing of people because of unregulated live streaming.”

He claims the working proclamation has allowed media houses to escape accountability for “false news coverage.”

“It has also blurred the line between state and religion by allowing the licensing of religious media institutions. Over 50 religious TV stations have acquired licenses. Amending the bill is necessary to correct this,” said Mohammed. “Over the past three years, I have seen how people show partiality for political groups even without being an official member of that group.”

He repeatedly appealed to MPs to either disband the Authority and grant all power to the board or grant the board’s powers to the Authority.

“The constitution states that media freedom can be restricted to protect the interests of the public. Everybody is taking their rights and leaving behind their responsibilities. Press freedom is fully exercised, but the media is unwilling to discharge responsibilities related to rights. EMA is trying to fill that gap,” said Mohammed.

He called the Authority’s inability to intervene and cut short inciting live transmissions an “existential threat” for the country.

His deputy, Yonatan, argued the same.

Azmera Andemo, deputy chair of the parliamentary committee for Democracy Affairs, seemed to support Mohammed’s position, at least partially.

“Ethiopia has not detached itself from a singular rhetoric narration of its nation building narration. EMA needs power higher than EMC. In Ethiopia, group rights are held higher than individual rights. Individualism is yet far away in Ethiopia, not flourishing. Ethiopia is falling victim to past narrations. The government is sovereign, and has a monopoly of power. The government has its own checks and balances among the three branches,” said Azmera.

He also implied the proposal for amendment has not been rushed.

The bill will be subject to further discussions and consultation before lawmakers vote on whether to ratify it. Azmera said any amendment would be made in a way that will not affect the media environment, but participants left Parliament uncertain about what the future will hold.