A blow to free press

The media in the Pacific has recently been put under pressure making it difficult to maintain its independence and probing stance . Western Samoa passed two new laws in parliament curtailing the freedom and inhibiting the work of journalists .

Papua New Guinea is considering drawing up government’s policy on the media and Tonga’s Akilisi Pohiva has a record five cases before the courts for articles published in his magazine, Kele’a.

PIM takes a look at how the media is faring under this pressure .

By Alan Ah Mu

WESTERN Samoan reporters came under siege in early February when Prime Minister Tofilau Eti Alesana introduced the Newspapers and Printers Act and, with a big majority in Parlia ment, had it passed two days later.

Stunned and then outraged, reporters focussed on one clause clause 10 which required them to reveal sources of information in libel cases.

Scepticism greeted Agriculture Minis

ter Misa Telefoni Retzlaff, a lawyer and

former attorney-general when he said New Zealand and Australia had laws similar to the bill. As it turned out, New Zealand’s Newspapers and Printers Act 1955, clause 10, allows a plaintiff to discover the “name of the printer or publisher of any newspaper or of any matter relating to the printing and publishing thereof, in order to enable him more effectually to bring or continue an action for damages”.

As it turned out, New Zealand’s Newspapers and Printers Act 1955, clause 10, allows a plaintiff to discover the “name of the printer or

publisher of any newspaper or of any matter relating to the printing and publishing thereof, in order to enable him more effectually to or continue an action for damages”. .Zealand and Australia had laws similar to the bill. As it turned out, New Zealand’s Newspapers and Printers Act 1955, clause 10, allows a plaintiff to discover the “name of the printer or publisher of any newspaper or of any matter relating to the printing and publishing thereof, in order to enable him more effectually to bring or continue an action for damages”.

The Samoan version adds after

“thereof’ the words, “including any correspondences, written materials or other sources of information whatsoever, in order to enable him more effectually to bring or continue an action for

damages”.

The country’s two major newspapers responded at the earliest opportunity.

The Samoa Observer , which comes out thrice-weekly, said, “Let us clear this up now, this publication will defy this requirement...no matter the conse quences to us”.

In less direct terms, the twice-weekly The Samoa Times said the same thing and added that either the government held

contempt for the journalistic process or was grossly ignorant of what it involved.

As if to support the latter, the Prime Minister on the second day of the bill’s debate in Parliament, said a Radio Australia report that morning had wrongly told the world that Western Samoa was not a democracy. If the bill became law, the identity of the reporter who sent it would have to be revealed.

But the report referred to Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) president, Monica Miller’s view that the bill was a

form of censorship who the reporter was, was immaterial.

Regarding clause 10, the main cause of concern, the Prime Minister explained it protected the rights of those defamed by letters-to-the-editor published under nom de plumes (like “Trouble” or “Con cerned”). Those thus wronged, he said, had a right to know who had made the defamatory statements so they could be sued. The Samoa Observer contended such letter writers preferred anonymity for fear of “fear of reprisals”.

But an independent MP Le Tagaloa Pita, publisher of The South Sea Star , argued a newspaper had recently been fined WSS2O,OOO for defamation (a decision now being appealed) before the bill was passed, so the rights of those who felt wronged were already protected.

Opposition MPs accused the govern ment of intimidating the press, with former Cabinet minister Ulualofaiga Talamaivao Niko, urging fellow MPs not be afraid of criticism “we’re not angels”.

The bill was not referred to the bills committee to allow members of the public to express opinions on it and led to Samoa Observer publisher Fata Sano Malifa describing it as an “unpreceden ted swift passage”.

Referring to clause 10, the deputy secretary-general of the International Federation of Journalists, Neal Swancott, said the refusal to break confidence imposed by sources was an

international principle ofjournalism. Yet

reporters were now faced with a WSSSOOO fine or a three-month jail term for adhering to that principle. As criticism mounted, the Prime Minister felt the need to broadcast an explanation of the bill on government radio. Alesana also said after a meeting with PINA the “lines of communication” would be kept open and if the govern ment saw a need to change the act, it would.

This applied also to the Defamation Act which went before Parliament before the meeting. This time, however, the media was given the opportunity to make submissions on it. JAWS argued against two clauses, which were “original” and not in the NZ statute it was based on.

One of them made it an offence to publish defamatory statements made in court about someone who was not a party to the court proceedings. JAWS argued it was up to the judges to decide whether or not statements should be suppressed and the journalist’s job was to report what happened in court. Further more, evidence was presented under oath and any false statements may be taken care of by existing laws against perjury.

The second clause deals with matter printed about a member of a group when the member is unidentified. Any member of that group who feels “aggrieved”, by the report and has “reasonable grounds” for believing others “may suppose that the words are intended to apply to him”, can demand a written “disclaimer” saying the published words did not refer to him. JAWS submitted the clause was too vague because, for example, if a story reported carpenters generally were care less, it could result in hundreds of carpenters demanding disclaimers.

The Defamation Bill was passed by Parliament unaltered and, like the News papers and Printers Act, is now law. □