The research, which was commissioned by MCT, was conducted by veteran journalists Pili Mtambalike and Hamisi Mzee as well as polical scientist and lawyer Deus Kibamba.
During the research, in addition to reviewing various documents and writings, the team also interviewed a number of media stakeholders, Parliamentarians and other people.
“We talked to a wide range of people so as to get opinions on this issue,” Mr Kibamba told journalists during the launch of the report here recently. “It is our hope that this report will help those in the authority to rethink their decision. Many people are without sensible answers to a question why Bunge live coverage was banned.”
The team concluded that reasons given to ban live Bunge coverage does not hold water.
The report also notes that the decision is retrogressive as far as good practice in openness is concerned.
Mixed signals
According to the report, the government has clearly indicated that it has ill-intention in banning live Bunge coverage because of the way it has introduced the ban and the reasons it fronted.
When introducing the ban in April this year, the minister for Information, Culture, Arts and Sports, Mr Nape Nnauye, said the live coverage of Bunge proceedings had to be shelved because of financial constraints.
According to Mr Nnauye, the government was supposed to raise Sh4.3 billion each year to enable the national broadcaster — Tanzania Broadcasting Corporation (TBC) — to air the Parliament proceedings live.
This line of reasoning changed later when the same minister was quoted as saying live coverage of Bunge sessions denied people time to do other economic activities.
But, those who were interviewed by the MCT team wondered if the government was concerned by costs, why ban private television and radio stations which were ready to continue covering Bunge sessions live. They also wondered if live coverage of Bunge was distracting people from their activities, why other programmes were aired during the same hours and the state broadcaster expected people to view them.
Though one of major reasons that the government fronted when seeking to substantiate its decision to ban Bunge live coverage was money, when the Tanzania Media Foundation (TMF) indicated that it was ready to assist the government meet the costs, the government was not forthcoming.
These mixed signals from the government was a clear testimony that there was another reason, which was not fronted, behind the move to curtail Parliament live coverage.
Former TBC managing director Tido Mhando noted that though live broadcasts of Bunge sessions were costly, the figure quoted by the minister was higher than the actual one.
“I am surprised by the ban on live Bunge coverage and replacing it with Parliamentary reviews at odd hours. CCM the ruling party, was the main beneficiary of Bunge live coverage. It is surprising that while other countries in East Africa — Kenya and Uganda — have emulated Tanzania in introducing live broadcasts, we are cancelling them,” he told the MCT team.
An editor, Mr Jesse Kwayu, told researchers that what happened was akin to impinging on article 18 of the Constitution.
“This is suppressing freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” he remarked.
According to a mass communication lecturer, Dr Samwilu Mwaffisi, live parliamentary broadcasts have many advantages not only to the people and media, but even to the government itself. “Live broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings enhance democratic culture on young democracies like that of Tanzania.” He said the live broadcasts had helped people to keep an eye on what and how their Parliament was doing.
“If we want to have an open system of government we have to go public with our functions and one easy way of doing that is through live Parliamentary broadcasts.”
An editor with ITV, Mr Stephen Chuwa, said it was unfortunate that the clips which Bunge Studio had been releasing to other media houses were inferior.
He also noted that often, the clips do not match with the stories which other media houses have lined up for broadcasting.
“The clips we are given are of poor quality. As a result, we are forced to interview MPs when they come out of the debating chamber,” he told the MCT team.
MP Richard Ndassa (Sumve – CCM), one of long serving MPs, noted that Bunge live coverage has its merits and demerits. However, according to his opinion, the live coverage should remain curtailed because they make people waste their productive time watching the proceedings.
Asked if it is proper for Bunge coverage to be censored and beamed at odd hours, Mr Ndassa said it is okay because “many people watch the edited Bunge reports till late at night.”
He also said it was okay to censor the reports because there was no problem for people to get “treated information”.
For his part, Mr Juma Nkamia, (Chemba – CCM), a former journalist and deputy minister for Information, also supported the ban when he talked to MCT team but noted that it should be lifted on some occasions.
However, previously, when debating the same issue in the Parliament earlier, Mr Nkamia is in record to have said it was imperative to continue with live coverage of Parliament proceedings.
Mr Cosato Chumi (Mafinga — CCM) views the ban as transitional. Mr Chumi, who also has journalism background, said the ban “was a political mechanism” after a highly contested General Election.
“The country needs to be calm for the government to implement development programmes,” he said noting that he supports the ban wholeheartedly. He insists that the move was necessary given what was happening in the House as some lawmakers started misbehaving after knowing that they were being watched live by their voters.
“The unruly behaviour by some MPs reflected the august House in bad light before the public,” he said.
But Ms Sophia Mwakagenda (Special Seats – Chadema) said the ban was sinister.
First, she says the ban neither originate nor was a decision by the National Assembly. Given the way the issue was introduced, managed and handled, Ms Mwakagenda is of the view that the move is part of larger project to suppress freedom of expression in the country.
“Tanzanians should brace for more such moves,” she commented.
Ms Mwakagenda is worried that despite having competent standing orders and regulations to calm the heated up and divided House, there is intervention on the way the Legislature executes its business.
The first time MP believes that “Bunge might be running on remote control from the state.
Dr Faustine Ndugulile (Kigamboni – CCM) is among few CCM MPs who speak openly of their support of live Bunge coverage. He said the Parliament today is highly polarised than ever before and members hold diverse opinions on literally every single issue.
Though Dr Ndugulile sees a point in the need to bring discipline in the House, but switching off live broadcasts was not one of the workable solutions.
Launching the report in Dar es Salaam recently, the chairman of the Commission for Human rights and Good Governance, Mr Bahame Nyanduga, noted that for the country to operate well, the media should be treated as one of important pillars. Opposition members of Parliament complained to CCM counterparts who are not join to support them on their move to compel Deputy Speaker to discuss on the Dodoma university students who were expelled out of campus on Saturday s.
He noted that though media cannot be regarded as one of the pillars of governance, but it acts like a glue which binds the formal pillars and the society in which they operate.
“The media is so important such that some people refer to it as the fourth estate,” he said.
He further noted that the media cannot discharge its noble responsibilities if it is curtailed. Therefore, he said, it is important to ensure that is given not only conducive, but also freer environments to operate.
He said such freedom is also recognised by the United Nations which, in 1948, in its human rights declaration, stated that freedom to get and disseminate information was among was one of basic human rights.
Way forward
The MCT team argues that reasons fronted for curtailing live Bunge coverage do not hold water. Therefore, there was a need for the government or parliament to rethink the decision and rescind it.
Ms Mtambalike said live Bunge coverage should be restored because it is perhaps the best way through which common people are able to closely follow and understand how their Parliament and MPs’ work.
“Tanzania was way ahead of many countries in the Commonwealth especially in Africa for championing live coverage of Parliamentary proceedings. It’s high time live coverage taken as a right.”
The MCT team notes that the decision by Bunge to establish its television channel should not be used to curtail other media organisations to do their work. It is also observed in the report that the Bunge TV should do its work professionally.
This stems from the complaints from TV stations that in addition to poor quality, the clips which are handed to them were of inferior quality. The clips also do not correspond with news ideas which the TV stations would like to air to their views.
If Parliaments want to discipline its members who have taken advantage of live broadcasts to misbehave, it should not do so by punishing innocent viewers and other media houses, according to the MCT report. Bunge could use its able regulations and standing orders to keep the errant MPs in check.
The MCT team notes that errant MPs will continue to tarnish the image of the august House even if proceedings are not broadcast if they are left to continue misbehaving.
