Establish tribunal to curb arbitrary UCC directives

Numerous media houses in Uganda have suffered the wrath of Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) directives once they violate the “minimum broadcasting standards”. These standards are enacted under Section 31 and Schedule 4 of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 (as amended).

The minimum standards refer to the “satisfactory” content that should be aired by radio and television stations to the public.

Recently, the World Express programme on Endigyito FM was suspended by UCC in a letter dated May 20. The UCC alleges that the programme host, Mr James Kasirivu, violated the “minimum broadcasting standards”. The UCC has also stated that the programme and its presenter will not return on air, unless changes that are “satisfactory” to UCC are proposed by the radio station.

These UCC directives are arbitrary because they are issued without following the principles of natural justice. This makes UCC the complainant, prosecutor and judge. At times, UCC states that it received complaints from the public, but when you ask them who particularly has complained, they are evasive.

Some of the provisions of the law, including Sections 5, 31, 45 and schedule 4 of the UCC Act, under which the UCC derives powers to issue its directives to media houses, are vague and were drafted in a manner intended to serve partisan political interests.

These provisions of the law cannot, therefore, pass the three-part test, employed world-over, to limit media freedom and freedom of expression, generally.

This is because for a limitation to satisfy the principle of legality, it must enable a person of ordinary intelligence to know in advance what he must not do and the consequences of disobedience. The aforementioned vague provisions of the UCC law cannot also pass the “foreseeability” test.

The said provisions cannot enable either the citizens, media and even UCC personnel to know how to regulate their conduct or what the minimum broadcasting standards are.

These provisions have also led to the imprecise UCC summons to broadcasters. Sometimes, neither UCC nor the broadcaster actually know what exactly UCC is “investigating” about a media house!

This national law is, therefore, is contrary to international human rights because the vague legal provisions are not justifiable limitations against freedom of expression.

There is, therefore, an urgent need to amend the said law to enable a precise drafting of a new law, which will definitely lead to precise interpretation by ordinary citizens, media personnel and UCC.

UCC directives are also in breach of several constitutionally-guaranteed rights, including the right to be heard, presumption of innocence, the right to equality before and under the law, the right to practice a profession and the right to a fair and just administrative decision(s).

Perhaps the operationalisation of the Uganda Communications Tribunal could help ameliorate some of these fundamental human rights violations by UCC against media personnel and media houses.

The tribunal has not been established, since the enactment of the UCC Act in 2013. Under Section 64 of the UCC Act, the tribunal has the mandate to hear and determine all matters relating to communications services arising from decisions made by UCC or the Information minister.

The authorities concerned with establishment of this tribunal, including the President, Information minister, the Judiciary and UCC, should expedite their actions to enable its operationalisation.

This will significantly reduce the violation of the right to freedom of expression by UCC, because this is a fundamental human right that enables citizens’ public participation in their societal affairs.

Mr Walyemera is a member of Civil and Political Rights Working Group of Network for Public Interest Lawyers (NETPIL).