Kae Matundu- Tjiparuro
Former US Supreme Court Judge, Justice William Brennan, once described the rights of free speech and free press as contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution as embodying: “A profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials”.
One does not expect the Namibian press and media to be a copycat of the US press and media, or that of any other country. Article 21 (1) (a) of the Namibian Constitution guarantees such a right as that one guaranteed by the US Constitution First Amendment: “Freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of press and other media”.
One important observation is that such a right falls under what the Constitution described as fundamental freedoms. My first interpretation of such a Constitutionally-enshrined right is that it is part of that group of freedoms which cannot de derogated from simply by will and whim.
Secondly, it is not for its own sake. In this regard I would like to quote one of the often cited quotes in the realm of democracy and the role of the press and media in a democracy: “The right of the people to speak out through a free press is a hallmark of a democratic society”. I think in this quote lies the essence of this right.
Every resident of the Land of the Brave must have the right to freely make her/his voice heard on any subject or issue of concern to her/him.
I see the submission in the National Council by the Swapo Chief Whip, Honourable Johnny Hakaye, as the exercise by him of this very right. In fact, the Constitution itself is vocal that such fundamental freedoms referred to in Sub-Article (1) shall be exercised subject to the law of Namibia insofar as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms conferred by the said Article which are necessary in a democratic society and are required in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of Namibia, national security, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
The motivation of the submission by Honourable Hakaye is not clear and honourable, at least from the reports in the press and media. The lawmaker seems to have a problem with people having a medium through which they can express them on any issue of their choice.
This is contrary to one of his foremost callings as Member of Parliament, the protection of the Constitution.
It takes one back to the short-lived suspension of the NBC phone-in programmes a few months ago which again seemed ill-advised and impulsive. In the words of the honourable as quoted in The Namibian of Friday, 24 August: “The Observer (Windhoek) was using the freedom of speech granted to it to tarnish the names and characters of political leaders while The Namibian seems to have provided for their own parliament with this SMS line they have created”.
As regard the Windhoek Observer there are laws of defamation and libel that any leader who feels his character has been tarnished by the publication or broadcast of any article in the press and media. The view concerning The Namibian SMS is to say the least preposterous. If one fully believes in an open public debate, and especially in the provision of Article (1) (a), which the Honourable of all people should be the champion thereof, this SMS service is just providing this necessary forum.
Yes, I agree that some messages may be devoid of any fear to express their views and candid on the part of the writers of these messages, which in the eyes of our lawmaker is tantamount to lack of respect and insults.
However, is sacrificing the right to free speech and expression the price we must pay for the perceived insults? I think it is time that society at large and leaders in particular, public and otherwise, accept the vagaries of being leaders, which include harsh criticism.
Muzzling the press and media is a remedy way out of proportion of the perceived demeanour of insults. I must hasten to say, however, that this is no licence to anyone to slander.
People, especially the ones who pretend to believe in the freedom of expression and other media should be cautious of denying other people the very right they enjoy in their cosy environs of the august houses.
Freedom of speech and expression cannot take place without the press and media. Hence, the inclusion of the freedom of the press and other media in the right about the freedom of speech and expression. One should strongly and unambiguously qualify that freedom of speech and expression is meaningless at worst and dead at best without an unfettered press and media.
Thus the onus is now on the prime mover of the submission to submit it to the test whether his submission is really necessary in a democratic society such as ours in Namibia, and why it is necessary. In the absence of such a motivation one cannot but conclude that the Honourable is bidding to deny others the very right he is so fond of using given his National Council vantage point.
Even should he motivate this, it is not for him alone and his fellow National Council honourables to determine the necessity of such a restriction but for the whole society.
“The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market…That, at any rate is the theory of our Constitution,” wrote US Supreme Court Judge, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in 1918.
I am inclined to think that our Constitutional fathers and mothers had the same theory in mind when they accepted the Sub-Article (1).
I would beg the honourables in the National Council for their indulgence to allow me to leave them with some food for thought: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter,” founder of the US Constitution and later US President, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802.