Addis Standard Resumed: via a loophole in the law or an intended protection of freedom?
Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA) temporarily suspended Addis Standard a week ago on the 15th of July for the reason EMA described “… that the Media has been a platform to advance the terrorist group’s agenda, to the extent of refusing to abide by the decisions of the House of People’s Representative: legitimizing a terrorist group as a ‘Defence Force’”.
Today, Addis Standard resumed publication after a discussion with EMA during the past few days. However, what the Addis Standard team described the content of the discussion with EMA and the decision for their resuming the online publication and what EMA announced its reason for the reinstatement decision are very different.
In its press release about the reinstatement of Addis Standard, EMA said, “In our discussions, the editors of Addis Standard have assured us that they enjoy full editorial independence from all parties . . . that they strive to do balanced reporting and are not a mouthpiece for any political groups or entities . . .” And then, EMA finally concludes, “Therefore, having come to an understanding regarding past errors and based on their pledge to operate with adherence to the law going forward, we have decided to reinstate their operational license.”
It could actually be true, but that is not the whole story. Addis Standard comprehensively narrated their discussions with EMA, especially emphasizing that the law never mandated EMA to suspend or revoke license/registration of an online media and the fact that EMA officials had actually admitted, during the discussions, that their prior decision of suspension did not have a legal base. Let’s see what the law says.
The new Media Proclamation (1238/2021), which repealed Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation (590/2008), has introduced a legal framework for online/internet media services. The new proclamation states that any Ethiopian – privately or as a company – has the right to be legally recognized and get certificate of registration to establish an online media and news service, under Article 22 (1). The sub-article further emphasizes that such a registration system for online media “shall not impose substantive restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.”
Further to the top, when the law describes the power and duties of EMA under Article 6 (3), it is stated that EMA gives legal recognition to an online media “… by registering and issuing certificate of registration.” For other forms of media or broadcasting services incorporated in the proclamation, EMA is mandated to issue, renew, suspend and revoke broadcasting “license”. There is no single provision that gives mandate to EMA to suspend, revoke or ‘un-recognize’ an online media that has “registration certificate”, whereas there are a number of provisions and procedures regarding temporarily suspending or totally revoking a broadcasting “license.” This is what Addis Standard’s argument is based on.
Addis Standard is not a licensed broadcaster, but a registered and recognized online media based on Article 6 (3) of the proclamation. How come the Authority mandated to recognize and provide a registration certificate for online media is not provided with the power to un-recognize or suspend and/or revoke the registration certificate? Is it a loophole in the law? Or is it a deliberate omission in order to safeguard freedom of expression as indicated under Article 22 (1), described above?
In fact, under Article 27 of the proclamation, where it describes the procedure of registering an online media, the law narrows the scope of the power of EMA. Its sub-article three states that if the applicant for registering online media has applied meeting the requirements and EMA could not provide the registration certificate with in 30 days, the online media can start operations without even receiving the certificate. Sub-article four even further narrows the grounds for refusal of registration by EMA: registration may only be refused with in 30 days only if the applicant does not provide the necessary information to EMA or if the name the applicant wants to use for the online media is already taken. These are very minor grounds for refusal.
Therefore, one may inclined to see the deliberate omission of EMA’s power to suspend or revoke a registration certificate of an online media, than a simple loophole in the law. And the rationale behind wound only be to guarantee freedom of expression in this online world of information. Registration facilitates freedom of information, but should not extend to the level that limits freedom of expression. Of course, the public harms and adverse consequences of the increasingly growing digital communications should always be taken in to consideration, and there are other provisions in this proclamation – or even in the criminal law – which involves relevant institutions, such as the Public Prosecutor and the Court, that have the profession and the power.
Having said that, I congratulate and appreciate the Addis Standard team for their strong stand in asserting the law and for their integrity and willingness to defend one of the most relevant institutions for a country, that is the Media.
By Gizaw Legesse
21/07/21
Related Links:
Press Release of EMA
Addis Standard Report
