Koigi has a warped mind on Media in Kenya

The following article was written by information and communication assistant minister Koigi Wa Wamwere. In my opinion, this is an assistant minister with a warped mind regarding media in Kenya. Read on and make your own judgment. Your comments are welcome.
@@@
Sections of the media have asked why I have been quiet over the Media Bill. I have been thinking. The media should be the voice of democracy, but they can also be the voice of dictatorship. I have always feared that media owners or other partisan forces can unleash unregulated power to intimidate, terrorise, excommunicate, ostracise, subdue and ultimately destroy media heretics or perceived enemies.
The intention of the Bill is to prevent the media from being misused for money or power to erode and destroy public morals, private lives, African identity and culture, subvert truth or rig elections. Unfortunately, the law is trying to take meat from a lion that is not ready to eat grass.
Viciously, the lion has bared its sharp teeth and put its claws out to tear the Bill and its advocates into pieces. Already, the media lion has floored the Minister for Information and Communications Mr Mutahi Kagwe with its paw of one-sided debate and distortion of Ol Kalou MP Mr Muriuki Karue’s amendment.
As Kagwe lies on the floor bleeding, the heaviest guns are now aimed at President Kibaki whom the media warn to sign the Bill at his own peril. Of course, before the media obliterated the minister, they had fired their ammunitions at Parliament, but failed to intimidate MPs.
The media war against self-regulation is, however, not lost if they can destabilise the minister and force the President not to sign the Bill. The final duel will, however, be fought on the floor of the House if the President rejects the Bill.
But the President can grant the media temporary victory if he returns the Bill to the House or refuses to sign it, leaving the matter in the hands of next Parliament. It is clear that the media and Parliament are at war over whether the National Assembly should make a law for them or not. Though the media fight against regulation, they urge the strictest regulation for everybody else, including the President they now ask to reject their self-regulation.
Media interpretation unprofessional
By the way, I do not mind the war as long as it is fought within the Geneva Convention of civilised warfare. In other words, like all other wars that society uses the media to fight, truth and fairness should be observed.
However, since the media lost the battle in Parliament, it has abandoned rules of civilised warfare in its attempt to win at whatever cost. The other side is not heard and Karue’s amendment asking that a clearly described, but unnamed subject of a story be named in court is distorted to mean disclosure of the source of a story.
The media’s attempt to interpret ‘subject’ to mean ‘source’ is unprofessional and alleging danger to the source insincere because the country has enacted the Witness Protection Act to shield whistleblowers who expose corruption.
Equally, the media and their supporters argue that the Bill is unconstitutional and the President should not assent to it despite Temporary Speaker’s ruling and Attorney-General’s opinion that it is perfectly constitutional.
To block logic in the debate, pleas go unheeded that the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Attorney-General and all MPs cannot be nincompoops that did not see the unconstitutionality of the Media Bill and Karue’s amendment. MPs make laws, but the media and its lawyer-supporters believe they have not the slightest idea of what is constitutional or not!
Ideally, the media should be dispassionate fora for the nation to debate her problems, anxieties and aspirations. They should never constitute themselves into a force outside or against society. What happens when the media cease to be voices of all and become partisan? They become a frightening voice of dictatorship, not democracy.
The media are asking the President to reject the Bill, not because it or Karue’s amendment are unconstitutional, but because they have all along been hostile to regulation and self-regulation.
But if the media are exempted from regulation and self-regulation, they will turn rogue, trample on everybody and unleash disaster to the country.
If the President signs the Bill into law, he will be saying yes to a free but responsible media. If he says no to it, he will be saying yes to a rogue media. Should he then sign it or not? The President should sign the Bill because if he does not on the basis of meaning and constitutionality, he will be helping the country to say goodbye to truth and honesty.
The President should sign the Bill because if he does not, he will be helping the country to say goodbye to public morals and security of the State under threat from negative ethnicity. The President should sign the Bill because he is not a dictator and should not rule the country without Parliament.
Rejecting a Bill that Parliament has passed will be a statement against democracy.
The President should sign the Bill because he should not consent or reject laws on the basis of media, politicians and civil society intimidation.
The President should sign the Bill and those who wish can challenge its constitutionality in court. Kibaki should sign the Bill even if magistrates and judges might interpret Karue’s amendment differently. In an adversarial legal system, that is the common fate of all laws.
Above all, the President should not reject the Bill to favour the media for past or current coverage. That is not how fair and just laws are made.
The writer is the Assistant minister for Information and Subukia MP