The public has the general right to access information held by public institutions. Similarly, the public may access information held by private entities if will assist in the exercise or protection of a fundamental human right or freedom. 

This is the rationale behind the Access to Information Act. 

The brazen diamond robbery at the Namibia Desert Diamonds (Namdia) over a week ago, involving what is suspected to be the company’s largest-ever consignment of precious stones received, has divided public opinion. 

In the communication world, a different debate has ensued, wherein the media has been demanding answers that both Namdia and the Namibian Police Force (NamPol) have been unable to answer. 

While some believe information about the robbery is sensitive and should be kept away from the public, others argue that the public deserves to know everything. 

At the time of writing yesterday, Namdia had still not provided the public or the nation with confidence regarding the value of the stolen gems or the number of suspects in the heist. 

Therefore, Namdia and the police are not entirely innocent. 

Their communication team has been found wanting when it comes to providing timely updates so far. Proactiveness, one of the cornerstones of basic public relations and communications, it appears, is a foreign concept at these institutions. 

The two entities should pull up their socks and communicate proactively, of course, without compromising the ongoing processes. 

However, their silence, even to basic questions, has created a fertile ground for rumours, misinformation and fake news. 

Since the incident, Namdia and the police have called multiple press conferences off without reason. 

There is a delicate balance to be struck between public interest and respecting the integrity of ongoing processes. 

The media’s role is crucial, but it should be responsible – not sensational. 

Demanding certain details too early can undermine the investigation, and the due process, especially when the matter is now sub judice. 

Be that as it may, Namdia and NamPol have the responsibility to provide credible and true information in a timely manner. 

At the very least, they should have addressed the nation and provided only the details that do not affect the ongoing investigations. 

Equally, they should have been bold enough to say certain issues are security matters that cannot be ventilated in public. 

Instead, they blue-ticked the nation. 

This is why, to a large degree, it is justified for journalists and members of the public to still demand answers. 

Some have humorously even suggested that the media organises a press conference and invite Namdia and NamPol to address the nation. 

Credit, however, must be given where it is due, as silence from the two entities has not been completely deafening. 

Therefore, accusing the police and Namdia of being wantonly stingy with details is misleading, ill-informed or malicious at worst. 

Although few and far apart, Namdia has issued several statements since the incident, while the police have equally shared their preliminary findings. 

Facing the nation will help to clarify matters for the public, which has been yearning for verified, timely and accurate information about the matter. 

In the absence of these basic answers, everyone is forced to draw their conclusions. 

Journalists have a responsibility to balance public interest with the need for due process. 

This can only be achieved if institutions, public and private, come forth with information. 

However, the demand for rapid updates often conflicts with the need for thorough investigations. 

Journalists must ask themselves, are they contributing to the public good or sensationalising the situation for the sake of attention? 

This is where the professionalism of journalists becomes paramount. 

It is therefore crucial for the media to hold itself to the highest professional and ethical standards possible. 

As the eyes and ears of society, the voice of the voiceless, holders of power to account and speakers of truth to power without fear, favour or prejudice, the press is required to introspect often to avoid letting its guard down. 

At the moment, whether media professionals are upholding the highest ethical standards leaves much to be desired. 

There is a general decay in journalistic standards everywhere in our conduct and reporting. 

Journalist must be the first to admit that the media is not beyond reproach. 

It appears that journalists and editors, who are at best transmitting belts of credible information, have become everything and anything under the sun. 

They have become too opinionated, invested and emotionally attached to the news we cover. 

This is an indictment of each journalist, media professional and institution that is worth its salt or takes itself seriously. 

The integrity of journalism should be grounded in its core principles: accuracy, fairness and impartiality. 

That, however, does not mean journalists must completely distance themselves from the topics they report on but ensure that their reporting is grounded in facts – not in emotions or personal biases or interests. 

Like every citizen, journalists too are entitled to free speech and expression as espoused in chapter 3 of the supreme law of the land. 

However, journalists must not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. 

Unfortunately, in professions such as journalism, where, like judges, one is expected to always be impartial, a thin line exists between your personal views, political beliefs and your job. 

In fact, the traditional newsroom is one of the only forums for journalists to air their views without fear, favour or prejudice. 

Beyond that, there is little to no room to express yourself, especially on critical, political or social issues, unless, of course, you are providing an expert opinion on a matter that you have covered. 

However, journalists and editors still fall into this trap just because they have an opinion, forgetting they are dragging the entire profession with them. 

Journalists must demonstrate their work through reporting. 

It is not necessary to have an adverse opinion on everything publicly. 

That is why newsrooms ought to be safe spaces for us to speak about anything without fear of reprisals, with the view of enriching the depths of reportage and perspective. 

The lack of experience in newsrooms is another challenge, as the industry faces a serious brain drain. 

The industry is losing long-serving journalists, who opt for corporate jobs that pay two to three times more. 

As such, most newsrooms are manned by individuals who, in any other profession, would still be considered rookies, based on experience. 

However, anyone who leaves journalism for a better pay cheque cannot be faulted either. 

Passion does not pay bills. 

If media organisations are serious, they too should put their money where their mouth is. 

*Edward Mumbuu is an investigative journalist and broadcaster. He writes in his personal capacity.