Less than 48 hours after the annual Media Institute of Southern Africa (Botswana) Awards, we meet at the Abyssinia Coffee House. Thapelo Ndlovu settles for strong black coffee. He needs it. The stress of putting together the event, with limited budget and a small staff, is evident.
Depending on where you stand in the media debate, Ndlovu is either an arsonist, or a firefighter. What is not in dispute is that he is always at the scene of the inferno.
So, how does he describe himself?
“I am an activist. I defend journalism and freedom of the media, which is an essential part of freedom of expression as derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he answers.
In the week that media practitioners are in the news, it is an opportune moment to reflect on the state of the media with the man who heads the local chapter of an organisation that advocates for freedom of expression in the region.
“We still lack the investigative part, especially these days when there are serious challenges facing our nation,” he reflects. “There is need for various media houses to come together to see how they can work together to address this shortcoming. We always hear rumours on the streets and the work of a journalist is to verify these rumours. I wish next time there would be an award for someone who has delivered a really big story.”
Even as he expresses this wish, Ndlovu says he couldn’t agree more with the adjudicators for giving this year’s investigative journalist award to Francinah Baaitsi of The Voice who broke the story of former minister Ndelu Seretse’s potential conflict of interest over his company doing business with a government institution under his ministerial portfolio.
From his interaction with a cross section of the society, Ndlovu feels confident to declare that the nation appreciates the role of a free and independent media as a guarantor of the country’s democratic institutions. He draws inspiration from this appreciation ÔÇô which comes in different forms, from different quarters.
“When you talk to government employees, even those in high ranks, they tell you ‘guys continue the good work you are doing’. That’s what people in the private sector say as well. Local authorities, both from ruling party and the opposition, tell us that the media is doing a good job. We get similar compliments from ordinary citizens as well,” he says.
With this amount of recognition of the value of an unfettered press, it’s somewhat surprising that on the same breath Ndlovu talks of the reluctance of people to come forward to stand with the media in the ongoing battle against the Media Practitioners Act that those in the media view as an attempt by government to put a leash of the watchdog. Ndlovu argues that anybody whose wish is to see this country continue as a democracy, even if they are not part of the media industry, shouldn’t wait to be lobbied to speak out against the dreaded law. His biggest disappointment in this regard is with people who should know better ÔÇô the educated elite.
“It is disappointing to see the level of apathy among Botswana’s educated elite. But it’s not quite surprising because if you look at dictatorships elsewhere, they were abetted by educated people. Some of these people even go to the extent of saying the media thinks it is sacred. Who said it is? I have realised there are people who will throw their morals and integrity down the drain just to cozy up to the leadership,” he says.
There are many who are suspicious of the media professionals’ real intentions in their fight against the Media Practitioners Act. The question often posed is why it is that all other professionals should be regulated, except journalists. Those on the opposite side of the media’s popular view conclude that journalists want special treatment for themselves because they don’t want to be made to account for their recklessness.
“Everyone, including myself, accept that journalists make mistakes ÔÇô sometimes very reckless mistakes. I agree that an inaccurate report about someone can cause irreparable damage, but the point is not about the media fearing to be regulated. It’s about whether what is intended is regulation or control,” Ndlovu responds. “For government to want to have a hand in the regulation of the media, would you expect any government to do that in fairness? When people get hold of power they don’t want to be scrutinized and the only institution that can scrutinize them is the media.
The wording of the Media Practitioners Act vindicates us that it’s all about control, and not regulation. Look at issues like the prescriptive right of reply. To us, the motive behind the Act is the problem.”
He makes a distinction between journalism and other professions by making the point that journalism is an extension of freedom of expression, which is even safeguarded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“You can’t say someone shouldn’t drink water, or eat even if that person is the worst criminal. By taking away someone’s right to expression you are also taking away other people’s right to receive information,” he argues against barring offenders from the profession.
He concedes that before the eyes of ordinary people, self-regulation, which is what the media argues for, is not understood to be effective. However, he argues to the contrary. He maintains that in the industry an apology is punitive since a publication that retracts its reports frequently soon loses credibility.
“Now if you own a newspaper you would know the value of credibility,” he says.
He does not deny the case made by the other camp that often when newspapers are in the wrong, they choose to hide the apology in some obscure corner, taking away the essence of a sincere act of contrition. Ndlovu says this can be rectified by raising awareness for people to know that they can demand that the apology be displayed in a prominent manner. He points out that under the self-regulatory mechanism set up by MISA, the complaints committee is empowered to ensure that an apology is given some measure of prominence. He says depending on the content of the story and the extent of the offence, the apology can even be on the first page.
He sees the threat to a free press as a growing trend within the countries that make up the Southern African Development Community (SADC). “This thing started in Zimbabwe, then Botswana followed. Now it’s happening in South Africa. Other governments are talking about introducing similar media laws. We have a looming battle with SADC governments.”
What best portrays the case of two pairs of eyes looking at the same object but giving conflicting interpretations is how international rating organisations consistently give Botswana A-ratings in terms of governance, while the media complains that the country’s democracy is under threat. So who is out of touch with reality?
“When we say civil liberties are under threat and you see instances of government encroaching on people’s rights, you need civil society to take the issue further and raise awareness. But, unfortunately, we don’t have that. Rating organisation look at what they get from government. We rarely get independent appraisal of the way government does business. We should also bear it in mind that this rating is done in relation to the rest of Africa, and most of Africa is really bad.
This doesn’t mean that we don’t like the ratings. It’s good to be viewed positively, but we will continue taking government to task to see that things are perfected,” Ndlovu says.
Perhaps the country’s fiercest, and undoubtedly the most powerful, critic of the private press is President Ian Khama who often accuses newspapers of writing sensational headlines about him to boost their sales. The private press’s coverage of Khama is a contested field, and some commentators have drawn the conclusion that the media has an obsession with the president.
Ndlovu says given Khama’s position as Botswana’s CEO, the media’s obsession with him shouldn’t come as surprise.
“ He is happy when there is positive obsession with him. He is happy when people flock to his meetings and want to shake his hand. He must look at himself and ask himself why the media writes about him the way it does. He has been in power for two years, but he has never held a single press conference. But when he goes outside he holds press conferences. There are certain things that as president he should provide leadership in, such declaration of assets and liabilities because in the absence of such mechanism we can only speculate. We always hear rumours that he owns ABC and D. If you are a democrat like he calls himself, you should be able to do these things,” Ndlovu says.
For a man who started out as a secondary school teacher, Ndlovu has strong views about the current crisis in the public education system. He talks of the pain he goes through as a former teacher to see what teachers are made to go through.
“If you follow the comments of all the previous education ministers, they always admitted that teachers are not given their rightful dues. What we are seeing now is the result of people treating teachers with arrogance,” he says.
In the current standoff, his biggest disappointment is education minister Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi, whom he accuses of believing that every problem can be solved by propaganda.
He is of the view that the integrity of this year’s examinations has been compromised and they are as good as invalid.
“The solution is to make the students take the exams again under proper invigilation. Invigilation is not just about standing in front of the students and waiting for them to finish writing. I was surprised to hear some people say any person can invigilate. The students should be readmitted as new candidates and rewrite. I feel the president must intervene and not just let propaganda lead us,” Ndlovu says. “Someone said exams are running smoothly except in only 15 schools. Under the circumstances 15 schools is far too many. Even if it were only two schools, or just one, that would be enough to prove that there is a crisis. These are people we are talking about, not abstract figures. We could be talking about a future president.”
