CENSORHIP AND SELF CENSORSHIP IN UGANDAN MEDIA: LEGAL AND

SOCIO-POLITICAL FACTORS INFLUENCING PRESS FREEDOM.

BY:

OPIO FRED

19/U/1230/GBL/PS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
LAWS.

27/APRIL/2024.
DECLARATION.

I, OPIOFRED, hereby declare that the research proposal is my own work, and it represents
original and independent research. I affirm that:

1. All ideas, concepts, and contributions from other authors or sources have been
properly cited and referenced in accordance with the required citation style.
2. The research proposal has not been submitted for any degree or qualification at any
other institution.
3. Any assistance received in the preparation of this research proposal has been
acknowledged, and the extent and nature of the help are disclosed.
4. The research design, methodology, and ethical considerations outlined in the proposal
adhere to the guidelines and standards set forth by the relevant academic and ethical
bodies.
5. I have complied with all ethical standards and regulations in the research proposal,
and the proposed research respects the rights and well-being of any involved human
subjects or participants.
6. I am aware of and committed to following the ethical principles of academic research,
including honesty, integrity, transparency, and accountability.
7. I understand the potential consequences of academic dishonesty and confirm that this
research proposal is free from any form of plagiarism or unauthorized collaboration.

I acknowledge that any breach of the above-stated points may result in the rejection of the
research proposal or further disciplinary actions.

Date:24/01/2024

Signature:
ABSTRACT

This research explores the intricate landscape of censorship and self-censorship within the
media sector of Uganda, with a focus on the multifaceted influences stemming from both
legal and socio-political factors. The research seeks to adequately cutinize the challenges
encountered by the media in exercising its freedom and the nuanced interplay between legal
frameworks and broader sociopolitical contexts.

The research employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative interviews with

media professionals, legal experts, and policymakers, alongside a thorough examination of
relevant legal documents and media content. By doing so, it seeks to provide a holistic
understanding of the dynamics shaping press freedom in Uganda.

The study investigates the legal foundations underpinning media regulation in Uganda,
scrutinizing their alignment with international standards for freedom of the press. It delves
into specific legal provisions and their implications for media practitioners, addressing issues
such as defamation laws, restrictions on content, and government oversight.

Simultaneously, the research explores the socio-political dimensions influencing media

freedom. It examines instances of censorship and self-censorship driven by political
pressures, economic interests, or social considerations. Special attention is given to the
experiences of journalists and media outlets in navigating these challenges.

The anticipated outcomes of this research include valuable insights into the complexities
surrounding press freedom in Uganda, offering recommendations for legal reforms and policy
adjustments. By understanding the interplay between legal and socio-political factors, this
study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on media freedom and its significance in
sustaining a vibrant and informed democratic society in Uganda.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACME: African Centre for Media Excellence

CSO: Civil Society Organisations

CPJ: Committee to Protect Journalists

CBS: Central Broadcasting Service

DEM group: Democracy Election Monitoring Group

DISOs: District Internal Security Officers

FDC: Forum for Democratic Change

FM: Frequency Modulation

HRW: Human Rights Watch

HRNJ-U: Human Rights Network for Journalists -Uganda

HURINET-U: Human Rights Network of Uganda

IFEX: International Freedom of Expression Exchange

ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political rights

KFM: Kampala Frequency Media

NRM: National Resistance Movement

NMG: Nation Media Group

NTV: Nations Television

RDCs: Resident District Commissioners

UBOS: Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UCC: Uganda Communication Commission

UHRC: Uganda Human Rights Commission UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
LAWS........................................................................................................................................1

27/APRIL/2024.........................................................................................................................1

DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 1:.............................................................................................................................8

1.1 INTRODUCTION:...........................................................................................................8

1.2 Background:.....................................................................................................................8

1.2.1 1962-1971..................................................................................................................9

1.2.2 1971-1985................................................................................................................10

1.2.3 Post-1986 and Birth of the Current Media Era........................................................10

1.2.4 Post-1995 Constitution............................................................................................11

1.3 Legal Frameworks:.........................................................................................................13

1.3.1Statutory Supervisory Authorities............................................................................13

1.4 Socio-Political Dynamics:..............................................................................................14

1.5 Research Objectives:......................................................................................................14

1.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT:...........................................................................................14

1.6.2 Need for Reform:.....................................................................................................15

1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................16

CHAPTER TWO:....................................................................................................................17

2.1 Literature Review...........................................................................................................17

2.1.1 Introduction:.............................................................................................................17

2.2 Legal Frameworks and Press Freedom:.........................................................................17

2.2 Mass Media as an Agent of Power.................................................................................20

 2.3 The Historical Perspective on Mass Communication....................................................21

2.4 Mass Media and Human Rights; the Legal Obligations...........................................23

2.5 Restrictive Legislations................................................................................................25

CHAPTER THREE...............................................................................................................26

3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................26

3.2 Data Collection Methods..............................................................................................28

3.3 Data Management and Analysis..................................................................................30

3.3 Limitations and Delimitation of the study..................................................................30

3.4 Ethical considerations..................................................................................................31

CHAPTER FOUR..................................................................................................................32

4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................32

4.2 Perceptions of the people interviewed........................................................................32

4.3 Self-Censorship and the Media Freedom...................................................................33

4.4 Specific Challenges to Media Freedom in Uganda....................................................34

4.4.1 The Impact of the Media Ownership on Media.......................................................34

4.4.2 The Impact of Regulatory Mechanisms on the Media.......................................36

4.4.3 Safety and Security of Journalists........................................................................39

4.5 The Impact of the Domestic Legal Framework on the Media..................................40

4.6 Politics and the Mechanics of Media Suppression.....................................................47

4.7 Uganda Media Freedom Rankings 2011....................................................................50

CHAPTER FIVE....................................................................................................................51

5.1 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 1:
1.1 INTRODUCTION:

Press freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies, serving as a vital mechanism for the
dissemination of information, public discourse, and the safeguarding of citizens' right to
know. In the complex landscape of media dynamics, the Republic of Uganda stands as a
compelling case study, offering an intricate tapestry of legal and socio-political factors that
shape the extent and nature of press freedom. This research embarks on an exploration of
"Censorship and Self-Censorship in Ugandan Media: Legal and Socio-Political Factors
Influencing Press Freedom."

1.2 Background:

Uganda, like many nations, has witnessed a dynamic interplay between the media and the
state, where the boundaries of press freedom are often contested. Against the backdrop of a
rich and diverse media landscape, the Ugandan media continues to grapple with many
challenges stemming from both legal restrictions and socio-political pressures in the country.
Therefore, Understanding the nuances of censorship and self-censorship in this context
requires not only a comprehensive examination of the legal frameworks governing media
activities but also an exploration of the socio-political forces that influence media
practitioners in Uganda.

Uganda's official media has its roots in colonialism, with British colonialists introducing
media and education to increase colonial dominance. The African press emerged as a protest
press and to present grievances against the colonial regime and their allies, such as the
Buganda establishment. In the 1920s, Africans accumulated large incomes from land
holdings granted by the 1900 Anglo-Buganda agreement, questioning colonial rule,
discrimination, and exploitation. The colonial regime resisted, leading to state regulation of
media in Uganda. Post-independent Ugandan leaders adopted the colonial regime's template,
such as Buganda Nyaffe, which accused the regime of enslaving black people. In 1949, the
press faced riots and the Press Censorship and Publications Act of 1949 limited circulation
and banned newspapers. Journalists who agreed with colonial policies were rewarded, but the
Uganda Post, founded in 1951, attacked colonial authorities. The colonial regime fought
back, leading to Paulo Muwanga's arrest in 1956 for promoting dissension and sedition. The
regime also confiscated printing machines and sometimes sold them by public auction. The
Newspaper and Publications Ordinance No. 33 of 1960 increased license fees for newspaper
publication from Shs. 5,000 to Shs. 10,000. Most small newspapers could not afford these
fees. Thus, by independence, only a handful of papers such as Uganda Eyogera and Munno
were active. “This type of attitude against free expression and particularly against comment
on political issues was also to shape the post-colonial regime’s policies …”

1.2.1 1962-1971

The colonialists eventually left, and Uganda became independent in 1962. Lacking in a sense
of irony, the African Ugandan leaders continued the draconian press order that the
colonialists, whom they had fought under the broad banner of freedom, had established to
rein them in. The successive leaders said one good thing about free speech and democracy
and did quite the opposite. Two months to independence on October 9, 1962, Milton Obote,
soon to be executive prime minister, addressed his party’s delegates at a conference saying,
amongst other things, that “every human being is free to seek the truth and to express the
truth as he may understand it” [and] “science, the arts of expression, and learning must be
free and their products freely exchangeable.” 1 What he did not make clear is that there were
serious limits to the search and the expression of the truth in his Uganda. Back in the 1960s,
modernization thinking demanded that the press address itself to questions of development
not politics, as if the two were mutually exclusive.

A syllogism informed their approach. It went: (nation building is the goal ,criticism
(euphemism: subversion or division) interferes with nation building, the goal cannot tolerate
criticism2 Any criticism had to be ‘constructive,’ with the leaders retaining the right to define
what the phrase means or should mean.) A month after independence, the ruling party’s
secretary general warned The Uganda Argus that the government might act against it for
cataloguing challenges the new government faced. It was an ominous start. In 1966, the
government deported Ted Jones, the Uganda correspondent for two Nairobi-based

1
A. Milton Obote, “A Plan for Nationhood,” Transition No. 6/7, Oct. 1967: 18
2
“A Matter of Transition,” Transition No. 38, June-July 1971: 43.
publications, the Kenya Weekly News, and the Reporter. It also threw out Billy Chibber, a
Daily Nation reporter. And Ssekanyolya, back from the dead and loudly championing
Buganda interests, was banned. It was all building up to a climax. It came in 1968 with what
has come to be known as the Transition 3 Affair.4 First, a minister said on national television
in January 1968 that the magazine was subversive and threatened government action. The
action came in October 1968 with the arrest and solitary confinement, under emergency laws,
of writer and politician Abu Mayanja and Transition founder and editor Rajat Neogy.
Mayanja had given Milton Obote a demanding time over the 1967 constitution. He said it was
designed to create “a one-man dictatorship.” He accused the prime minister of tribalism and
dismissed his party as one devoid of any ideology. The detainees were charged with six
counts of sedition. They were acquitted. But Transition, the ‘subversive’ publication,
relocated to Ghana, closed shop, changed names, closed shop again, and re-opened doors in
the United States in its original name in the 1990s. All this had a context: “Sensitive to the
fact that his popularity was diminishing with time, Obote became less and less tolerant of
criticisms and political activities of his actual and potential political opponents.” 5

1.2.2 1971-1985

Milton Obote was overthrown by Ugandan Army Chief Idi Amin in 1971, who claimed that
Milton Obote's freedom of speech had been violated. Happiness, though, was short-lived
since within a year, journalists were killed. Many were imprisoned or banished 6, and the
media industry collapsed. Following the overthrow of Amin by Tanzanian soldiers in 1979,
Milton Obote reestablished Obote II, a government that lasted until 1985. Even worse for the
media was Obote II, who in 1981 outlawed seven publications and fired the editor of the
Uganda Times for a piece on killings of civilians.

3
Transition magazine was founded in 1961 as a monthly but later started coming out every two months
4
For a full treatment of the Transition Affair and the general government approach to the press in the 1960s, see
Bernard Tabaire (2007) ‘The Press and Political Repression in Uganda: Back to the Future?’, Journal of Eastern
African Studies, 1: 2, 193 — 211.
5
Peter M. Gukiina, Uganda: A Case Study in African Political Development (Notre Dame and London:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1972) 168.
6
Tabaire, “The Press and Political Repression” 203.
1.2.3 Post-1986 and Birth of the Current Media Era.

President Yoweri Museveni’s triumphant National Resistance Army (NRA) guerrillas

captured power in January 1986. Mr. Museveni’s, like Amin’s, was one of the most popularly
received governments by the public. It promised not just a “mere change of guards,” in Mr.
Museveni’s rousing words at his swearing-in ceremony, but a “fundamental change” in
running the Ugandan state. “[T]he NRM government at its inception exemplified a
commitment to democratic rule and norms that was apparent in its record on the elimination
of systematic abuses of power, state-sanctioned violence, and inter-ethnic animosities as well
as respect for the rule of law, human rights, and freedom of expression.” 7 Specifically on the
media, an observer wrote: In the six-month interregnum between the fall of Obote and the
emergence of Museveni’s NRM, the press once again seized its opportunity. Many of the
banned newspapers, including Weekly Topic, appeared once more on the streets of Kampala,
but this time they survived the emergence of a new regime which, if not wholeheartedly
committed to the ideals of press freedom, has certainly shown itself infinitely more tolerant
than any of its predecessors.8 The Museveni government was better than its predecessors, but
only just. It banned the Weekend Digest within six months of taking power for a report on
alleged plans to oust it. From March 1986 through 1992, the government dragged before the
courts at least a journalist a year. That record has remained unchanged to date. Sedition and
criminal defamation were the often-cited offences. After 1995, the state added promotion of
sectarianism as well. In 1988, the government changed the penal code to stop reporters from
writing about military installations, equipment or supplies, and soldiers. A seven-year jail
term awaited a convicted offender. The year before, Mr. Museveni threatened to use the
Detention Act to prosecute those who smeared the army. When the government was not using
legislation to harass the media, it was using administrative means. In 1993, for example, it
stopped its departments from advertising in The Monitor, a paper that was formed by seven
independent journalists the year before when they quit their jobs at Weekly Topic. The ban
would last four years. Given that back then the government was the biggest advertiser
because the economy was just beginning to recover after decades of collapse, the ban was
even more punitive.

7
George W. Lugalambi, “An Assessment of Democratic Deliberation in Uganda: A Case Study of the Framing
of Key Political Issues in the Press,” unpublished doctoral thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, USA,
2006.
8
Adewale Maja-Pearce, “The Press in East Africa,” Index on Censorship Vol. 21 No. 7, July- Aug. 1992: 63.
1.2.4 Post-1995 Constitution

No newspaper has been banned since 1995. No journalist is known to have been killed for his
or her journalistic work per se at the behest of the government. The government enacted the
Access to Information Act in 2006. But without a doubt, the most significant happening of
the post-1995 media dispensation has been the explosion in electronic media following the
liberalization of the communications sector in 1992. Up until then, the government had never
even bothered with the electronic media because it owned both Uganda Television and Radio
Uganda, the two outlets that served as all of broadcast media in the country.21 9 According to
the Uganda Communications Commission,2210 there were 202 FM stations on air as of June
2009 compared to 166 in June 2008. There were 40 television stations on air in June 2009
compared to 26 a year earlier. There were 27,590 Internet subscriptions with an estimated
number of users standing at 2.8 million (nine percent of the population) in 2009 compared to
15,500 subscriptions and an estimated one million users in 2007. By July 2010, the number of
licensed FM radio stations had risen to 244 and that of licensed TV stations had shot up to 41,
going by the Media Council’s count. According to the African Media Barometer, about 80
percent of Ugandans get their news and related information from radio. Increased Ugandans
are blogging and tweeting as well. For print media, there are about 15 newspapers both daily
and weekly. Media watchdogs have praised the government for enabling a “relatively liberal
media climate.”11 Local journalists have rated media freedom to be at a moderate level.12

The media explosion accelerated the government’s interest in control. It has relied on a raft of
laws and public denunciations and threats. Between 1986 and 2004, more than 24 journalists
were charged in the courts of law on criminal publication offences. 25 Between 2007 and
February 2010, the authorities summoned 34 journalists on matters related to their work and
25 were charged with various offenses.13 Every year Museveni has been in power there has
been at least one reported case of media harassment.14

9
Uganda Television and Radio Uganda were merged in 2005 and reconstituted into a new public broadcaster,
the Uganda Broadcasting Corporation.
10
A Review of the Post and Telecommunications Market 2008/09.
11
“Attacks on the Press 2003: Documented Cases from Africa 2003,” CPJ, 11 Dec. 2006
12
Peter G. Mwesige, “A Profile of Ugandan Journalists in the New Millennium,” The East African Media and
Globalisation: Defining the Public Interest, ed. Goretti Linda Nassanga (Kampala: Mass Communication
Department, Makerere University, 2003) 213.
13
Peter G. Mwesige, “Can You Hear Me Now? Radio Talk Shows and Political Participation in Uganda,”
unpublished doctoral thesis, Indiana University, Indiana, USA, 2004.
14
Tabaire, “The Press and Political Repression” 205.
Apart from the Penal Code and its provisions on sedition and criminal libel, there are several
pieces of legislation that have been passed that affect the work of journalists.15

1.3 Legal Frameworks:

At the heart of this study is an investigation into the legal foundations that shape media
regulation in Uganda. Scrutinizing the constitutional provisions, media laws, and regulatory
mechanisms, the research aims to assess the compatibility of these frameworks with
international standards for press freedom. Key legal considerations include defamation laws,
restrictions on content, and the powers vested in regulatory bodies, all of which impact the
ability of media outlets to operate independently.

The media in Uganda is in a precarious situation where it is subject to both statutory and self-
regulation, at least in theory.

The National Institute of Journalists of Uganda (NIJU), the Disciplinary Committee, and the
Media Council are the statutory media bodies tasked with regulating media practices in
Uganda, including the registration and licensing of journalists. The Press and Journalists Act
of 1995 (Act 13) established these bodies.

1.3.1Statutory Supervisory Authorities

S. 9 describes the Council's duties as including monitoring the conduct and moral standards
of journalists, disciplining them, and settling disputes between the public, the government,
and themedia.
However, the National Institute of Journalists of Uganda is tasked with maintaining
journalistic professionalism, providing support and guidance on training and educational
initiatives, as well as promoting responsible journalism and research. The institute is run by
an Executive Committee.
The Disciplinary Committee, established under S.30, has the power to suspend a journalist's
practicing certificate and mandate that the media outlet pay the person who was mistreated if
the journalist is found guilty at a hearing.

The Act itself, in addition to these oversight bodies, has several provisions that violate basic
elements of the right to freedom of expression. These provisions include those pertaining to

15
“African Media Barometer Uganda 2010”.
the licensing of journalists, such as restrictions on who is eligible to work as a journalist,
editor registration, a system for filing complaints, a code of conduct, and a range of penalties
for unethical behavior.

1.4 Socio-Political Dynamics:

Beyond the legal realm, the research delves into the socio-political factors that contribute to
censorship and self-censorship in the Ugandan media landscape. Political pressures,
economic interests, and societal expectations can exert considerable influence on media
content and editorial decisions. The study seeks to unravel these complexities by engaging
with journalists, media professionals, and relevant stakeholders to capture the real-world
experiences and challenges faced in navigating these pressures.

1.5 Research Objectives:

The primary objectives of this research are to:

1. Examine the legal frameworks governing media activities in Uganda and evaluate
their alignment with international standards for press freedom.
2. Investigate instances of censorship and self-censorship within the Ugandan media,
identifying the socio-political factors influencing editorial decisions.
3. Explore the experiences of media practitioners in negotiating legal and socio-political
challenges in their pursuit of press freedom.
4. Provide insights and recommendations for potential legal reforms and policy
adjustments to enhance press freedom in Uganda.

Through this research, I aspire to contribute valuable knowledge to the ongoing discourse on
press freedom, offering a nuanced understanding of the factors shaping the media landscape
in Uganda and their implications for the broader democratic framework.
1.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including "freedom of the press
and other media," according to both national and international law. Restrictions on the
aforementioned human rights are only permissible and clearly justified in particular
situations, such as threats to public safety or health (Article 43 Ugandan Constitution, 1995;
ICCPR, Article. 19(3)).
If there is no media censorship and people are free to criticize those in positions of authority
and to start conversations about issues of national, regional, and international importance,
then that country is said to have a free society. Thus, in democratic nations, media freedom is
recognized as "an important right" and functions as a tool and method for citizens to
participate in self-governance by closely examining the actions of their government and
holding them accountable.
Restrictions and media control persist despite the freedom of expression being guaranteed by
the constitution and the passage of domestic laws that enhance this right. The Anti-terrorism
Act forbids publishing anything that encourages terrorism, the Penal Code Act connects
journalistic materials to sedition, and there are other regulations that will be covered in
chapter four of this thesis.

Due to shortcomings in Uganda's judicial system, over thirty journalists have ongoing
lawsuits based on local legislation; nonetheless, their trials are regularly delayed. Depending
on the circumstance, the present domestic media rules have hampered media freedom, and
the excellent laws are noticeably ineffective. Similarly, during protests, state security
personnel continue to attack, threaten, and destroy media outlets' property out of concern that
the media will reveal their unlawful enforcement practices. This is often seen when there are
protests and elections. Because security agents are still raiding media spaces in the name of
looking for subversive content, media outlets are being temporarily shutdown in the process
while dictating on the content they should broadcast.

One major barrier to the achievement of press freedom in Uganda's media and information
landscape is the pervasiveness of censorship and self-censorship. With a particular focus on
the legal and socio-political aspects that underpin the intricate dynamics of censorship and
self-censorship, this study aims to examine the various obstacles that impede unrestrained
journalistic practices in Ugandan media environments.

1.6.2 Need for Reform:

The persistent challenges posed by censorship and self-censorship in Ugandan media

underscore the urgent need for reform. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive
understanding of the legal and socio-political factors at play. This study aims to contribute
valuable insights and recommendations that can inform policy changes, legal reforms, and
societal awareness initiatives to foster a media environment that upholds the principles of
press freedom and democratic expression in Uganda.
1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.
♦ To what extent do journalists perceive legal constraints as a significant factor
in their decision-making processes, leading to self-censorship?
♦ What challenges do media practitioners (journalists) face with the existing
control of the media industry in Uganda?
♦ Are there any gaps or contradictions in the existing and new laws that limit
mass media freedom in Uganda?
CHAPTER TWO:
2.1 Literature Review
2.1.1 Introduction:

This chapter reviews existing literature related to the research topic, "Censorship and Self-
Censorship in Ugandan Media: Legal and Socio-Political Factors Influencing Press
Freedom." The review encompasses studies, articles, and reports that explore the interplay of
legal and socio-political factors affecting press freedom in Uganda. By examining the current
state of knowledge, identifying gaps, and evaluating methodologies used in previous
research, this chapter sets the foundation for the current study.

2.2 Legal Frameworks and Press Freedom:

Numerous scholars have addressed the role of legal frameworks in shaping press freedom
globally. In the Ugandan context, studies such as [Sobel, M. and McIntyre, K., 2020. The
state of press freedom in Uganda. International Journal of Communication, 14, p.20.]
have delved into the legal structures governing media activities. These works highlight the
influence of defamation laws, media licensing requirements, and regulatory bodies on the
ability of journalists to operate freely. The review also identifies discrepancies and
ambiguities in legal provisions that may contribute to self-censorship among media
practitioners.

The four theories of press presented in a book of ‘Communication Theories’ by Severin J.W.
and J.W. Tankaro (1997:345) presents some different normative philosophies underlying the
functions attributed to media in society. The theories which reflect three authors Siebert,
Peterson and Schramm are ‘normative theories’ derived from observations.

Authoritarian theory originated in England in the 16th and 17th centuries when the
philosophy of absolute power under monarchy spread to many parts of the world. Even now,
many nations continue to use authoritarian theory to further the goals of the ruling
government and to serve the state16. According to the hypothesis, anyone with a royal patent
or other comparable authorization can utilize the mass media, which is why government
patents control the licensing and occasionally censoring processes. It implies that media
restriction and licensing are determined by government patents. Although it was later
embraced by numerous dictators to strengthen their hold on power, the idea was created
during the period when the world was ruled by autocratic monarchs with absolute power.

The Soviet totalitarian theory, intricately linked to the authoritarian theory emphasizes that
the media should be contributing to the success and continued existence of the soviet system
in the world. The theory looks at mass media as being controlled by the government through
their political, economic actions as well as surveillance. Hence the mass media is seen as an
arm of the state that should exist to further the state interest (ibid p.352).

The libertarian theory of press and media, which emerged from the basic theories of
rationality and natural rights to oppose authoritarian viewpoints, is very distinct from the first
two theories mentioned above. The common belief that the mass media should serve as a
vehicle for the pursuit of truth, a watchdog over the ruling class, and a source of
entertainment and information for the public was established by Milton, Locke, and Mill
(Severin J.W. and J.W. Tankaro 1997:348). According to the argument, the media is private
and anyone with the means to do so can enter it with the intention of undermining people in
positions of authority. According to Werner, there are two ways in which the mass media can
be influenced by the theory: first, through the "self right process of the truth in the free
market place of ideas that would enable individuals to differentiate between the truth and
falsehood"; second, through the legal system of the nation in question, which has the power
to criminalize indecency, obscenity, sedition, and defamation.

The United States established the social responsibility idea of media in the 20th century,
drawing inspiration from media practitioners, media codes, and press freedom commissions
(p. 350). The notion highlights that in addition to informing, entertaining, and selling, media
should also create friction and encourage debate. According to the theory, everybody who has
a significant idea should be given a platform where they can voice it; if the media does not

16
Maerz, S. F. (2018, August 2). The Many Faces of Authoritarian Persistence: A Set-Theory Perspective on
the Survival Strategies of Authoritarian Regimes. Government and Opposition, 55(1), 64–87.
provide this opportunity, then someone needs to make sure it is done (ibid). The theory's
main thrust is that, rather than the government, the people's beliefs, deeds, and morality
should govern the mass media. This is further supported by Serbert et al. (1956), who assert
that in order to control the quantity of channels and frequencies, the government must
function as a regulatory body.

Ugandan realities: The country lies halfway between the authoritarian and Soviet Union
theories, which place a strong emphasis on the requirement that all media outlets operate
under governmental supervision. Because of the influence of the middle class and ruling
elites, Uganda's media landscape is more heavily skewed toward authoritarian and Soviet
methods. For instance, while having strong legal frameworks, political authorities have
frequently used the justification of media censorship to shield their population from threats to
the country.

The Ministry of Information, which has all the authority to regulate media operations through
the issuance of licenses, rules, and even censorship, maintains media censorship as a result of
legal contradictions. For instance, the Ugandan ruling party leadership contends that the
media should have its license canceled or revoked if it breaches any government laws. The
usual justification is that it wants to protect its citizens' safety and tranquility by limiting and
controlling the media's coverage of important topics. Such practices adhere to soviet and
authoritarian ideologies, where limitations are justified by defending the interests of the
country. As a result, rather than shielding Ugandans from potential external threats, the media
is perceived as serving the interests of the ruling party.

Therefore, one could contend that media censorship violates the right to freedom of speech
and expression even while it may shield Uganda's ruling class and other powerful individuals
from touchy subjects. This kind of behavior is in line with Soviet Union doctrine, which
places a strong focus on total government control over the media for the good of the
populace.

In summary, Ugandan practices appear to combine elements of the two theories; the main
distinction is that authoritarian practices typically permit only one form of communication,
with little to no public input, whereas Soviet practices permitted two forms of communication
as long as the media operated under strict control.
The principle of social responsibility, however, permits private ownership. Uganda has
permitted private media ownership, albeit with greater caution. For instance, the majority of
privately held media outlets cater to politicians and ministers who work for the current
administration. Thus, in contrast to social responsibility theory, which advocates for
unrestricted private ownership of free media, the situation in Uganda is the reverse. By
limiting options for opposition politicians to acquire media operations and only permitting
politicians and businesspeople who support them to do so, the government has deftly
acquired control of private media outlets. Because of this, the media is "remotely controlled"
by the government even if it operates independently.

2.2 Mass Media as an Agent of Power

Even though they are two distinct ideas, power and media are closely related. The idea that
the media can act as a tool of power is the foundation of the material reviewed for this study.
I looked at academic research on the connection between power and the media.

The mass media is still a potent instrument for shaping public opinion and influencing the
opinions of the public that it aims to represent in its news. Because they may establish the
standards by which voters judge their politicians' performance and policy accomplishments, it
functions as a tool for agenda-setting in any nation. Numerous research' findings demonstrate
that the mass media's influence extends beyond cognitive impacts to include the message they
spread to the public17.

Political conversations typically revolve around issues that have received significant attention
from the press and mass media in the majority of the world. "Every morning the papers give
their publics the conversations of the day," as Gabriel Tarde stated in 1898 (quoted in Rudige,
2003:234). “The mass media is typically the source of the micro-level conversations that
individuals have regarding the political and socioeconomic advancement of their own
nations”. People around the world mostly depend on the press and media for any political
message, and the media's agenda dictates the kind of political information that people will use
to create their opinions18.

17
Rölle, D. (2016, July 20). Mass media and bureaucracy-bashing: Does the media influence public attitudes
towards public administration? Public Policy and Administration, 32(3), 232–258.
 The ruling administration may show that it can quickly handle the mass media when it
provides information that is crucial to the public's assessment of individuals holding political
office (ibid., p.117). "The more attention media pay to a particular domain—the more the
public is primed with it—the more citizens will incorporate what they know about that
domain into their overall judgment," according to scholars Krosnick and Kinder.

2.3 The Historical Perspective on Mass Communication

The media, according to Rostow and Hagen modernization theorists of by gone eras, is a
potent weapon and channel of diffusion for social, political, and economic advancement.
According to Lerner (1958 in Mohammadi et al., 1995), Schramm saw the purpose of media
as being to "create the empathetic mobile personality and promote economic consumption
and political participation that development required." Assuming that earlier societies lacked
unique or complex communication systems, Lerner regarded media development as a secular
trend of global significance (p. 29).

His thesis contextualizes another theoretical lens that colonialists established, one that
focused on modernization and technology's reshaping of dependency syndrome rather than
the independence of the majority of African republics. Thus, in the majority of African
republics, greater emphasis was placed on media imperialism and cultural synchronization.
An example drawn from Lerner's theory of media evolution is the media situation in Uganda
(Lerner, 1958 in Mohammadi 1995). When he examines the media as a component of any
government that is in power, scholars Mohammadi et al. (1995) put this in perspective by
pointing out that these governments might be democratic or authoritarian, developed or
underdeveloped. Ugandan government attempts to control media through ownership either
directly or through politicians, businesspeople and private individuals who subscribes to the
ideology of the ruling party exemplifies Mohammadi’s view.

18
Social Media Use and Political Polarization: the Mediating Role of Political Engagement and Political
Loyalty. (2021, June 12). International Journal of Media and Information Literacy, 6(1).
In a separate spectrum, Altschull reinforces the historical view through his four theories of
press in his book ‘Agents of Power’ (1984) 19. Most notably that, the media can be looked at
as a mechanism of resistance to the government that is in power. An illustration of how the
Ugandans is using the media to resist what is termed as ‘bad governance and policies’ by the
ruling government. The opposition and the Civil Society Organizations (CSO) are on the fore
front of this while the ruling government does it in counteraction way.

Studies point out that the current media environment in developing countries is far better than
in the 1960s; every rural community has access to at least one form of media as a way of
accessing information. Media has therefore remained central in informing people about the
socio economic and political development in all countries around the globe.

Harold Lasswell (1948, 1950), a Professor of Communication at Yale University argues that
media plays a significant role in modern society; he mentions ‘surveillance of the
environment, correlation of part of society to respond to environment, and transmission of
social heritage from one generation to the next’ (cited in Severin J.W. and J.W. Tankaro
1997:355). While Charles Wright (1959) adds entertainment as the fourth (ibid) while, Smith
adds dissemination of government policies and providing information to the people
(2010:292). Mass media therefore informs and provides news and information to the people
(p.16). In Uganda all the functions are carried out well except for functions related to
reporting political issues. Attempts by media to report on critical political development in
Uganda has always met stiff censorship by way of harassment, intimidation, and threats
(HRNJ, 2010).

To relate further the issue of media and power, Altschul (1984) in his book ‘Agent of
Power’20 looks at media as an agent of power by arguing that an independence media cannot
exist and that the press and media are agents of those who hold social, political and economic
power(cited in Severin et all…1997). He looks at the three models of press to include the
market (capitalist) model, the communitarian (social) model and the advancing (less
accurately, developing countries) model. He concludes by saying that the content of the news

19
Weaver, D. H., Gussow, D., Deakin, J., Clarke, P., Evans, H., Miller, A. H., Kessler, L., Altschull, J. H.,
Shook, F., & Lattimore, D. (1984, March). Journalism. Communication Booknotes, 15(3–4), 26–28.

20
ibid
in the media always reflects the interest of the donors who fund it and therefore, the press
practices always differ from theories (Altschul 1984, p.440-441). This view is relevant in
Ugandan situation because, the ownership has always determined the content of the news just
like this theory and scholar puts it.

2.4 Mass Media and Human Rights; the Legal Obligations

In trying to understand media freedom, it is important to review the legal framework within
which the mass media operates. Domestically, Article 29 (1) (a) 21 , 41(1)22 and 4313 of the
1995.

Ugandan Constitution guarantee basic freedom of expression and speech, which includes
freedom of press and media (cited in Sekagya 2010:39). The other domestic legal framework
that governs and have impact on the practice of journalism and media in Uganda are the
Journalist Act (Cap 105 of 2000) and the Electronic Media Act (Cap 104 of 1996) of the laws
of the Republic of Uganda (2000), the1950 Uganda Penal code (Cap 120) 23, the Anti-
terrorism Act (2000) and the Access to information act (2005), the Press and Journalist
Amendment Bill (29 January 2010), the Public Order Management Bill, the Regulation of
Interception of Communication Act 2010. It can be argued that, the above national
legislations are important because they provide the platform through which journalists
practice. (I will analyze and discuss these domestic laws in detail in Chapter 4).

A review of the international legislation is important for this study; it forms a basis upon
which the national legislations derive their mandate to regulate the practice of media in free
and democratic society. Smith 2010 specifies these international laws to include the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights24 Article 19 which states:

21
Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides for every person’s right to ‘freedom of
speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media’.
22
Every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency
of the State except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the
State or interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person.
23
The Penal Code has since undergone a number of amendments, but 15 June 1950 is its date of commencement
as the laws of Uganda (1950).
24
UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III), 10 December 1948.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the right to
hold Opinions without interference and to seek receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers (UDHR, Art 19).

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights16 Article 19 all of which Uganda as
country has ratified in 1995 and accepted with full signature states:25

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice
(ICCPR, Article 19).

From the regional perspectives, the laws protecting media freedom are also important and
these includes; The Windhoek Declaration on Promoting Independence and Pluralistic
African Press adopted by general assembly of UNESCO in 1992, Article 918 of the African
Charter on Human and people’s rights adopted on 27 June 198219 and came into force on 21
October 1986, Article II and VI of the 2002 African Commission declaration of the principle
of freedom of expression in Africa26, Article 2(10) and 17 (3) of African Charter on
democracy, Elections and Governance 2007 adopted by 29 African countries by September
2009, Protocol on managing information and communication 2000 of which Uganda is a
member and the 2001 African Charter on broadcasting adopted by media practitioners and
human rights organizations at the UNESCO conference to celebrate 10 years of Windhoek
declarations27. Lastly, the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of
Expression and Access to Information, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,
(U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1996/39, 1996)28

25
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A
(XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force
March 23, 1976, acceded to by Uganda June 21, 1995, art. 19.
26
Uganda is a member of the African Union, the successor to the Organization of African Unity (OAU), whose
commission adopted the 2002 Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression at its 32nd Ordinary Session
in Banjul, the Gambia, from October 17-23, 2002.
27
According to Lugalambi (2010),UNESCO’s Windhoek Declaration, like other non-treaty documents, has
moral authority by representing a broad consensus of the international community on the detailed interpretation
of the Universal Declaration and other relevant standards as they relate to the press in Africa.
28
It sets out standards for the protection of freedom of expression in the context of national security laws. They
were adopted on October 1, 1995, by a group of experts in international law, national security, and human rights
convened by ARTICLE 19.
Finally, outside the African continent, there are other regional human rights laws like
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and American Convention on Human
Rights (ACHR). Whereas the decisions from these other regional bodies outside Africa may
not be binding to Uganda as a country, none the less they provide a platform from which
rights of freedom of expression and media can be looked at from an international lens
(Article 19, 2010:2)

2.5 Restrictive Legislations

Article 19, HRW, Amnesty International and UHRC acknowledge that right to freedom of
expression is not absolute and international and national law permits certain limitations under
specific circumstance (Article, 19 2010; UHRC, 2010). Scholar Smith 2010, Amnesty
International (2011), HRW (2010) and CPJ (2011) as well observed that the United Nations
through the legislation ICCPR23, allowed member states powers to make certain restrictions
and limitation on the freedom of expression as long as such restrictions is captured under the
law and specifically for two reasons; ‘(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b)
for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or
morals’(ICCPR, art. 19(3). UHRC agrees that limitations can be put on ground of public
interest and protecting human rights of others. Likewise, Smith 2010 writes that the
restriction of freedom of expression itself should not mean putting the right into jeopardy but
this should be prescribed by the law (p.295, 296). He argues that classifying information as a
security concern is discretionary to a particular state and there is always little that the
international treaties bodies can do apart from providing supervisory role over the exercise of
state discretion (p.298). A similar restriction can be found in the European Conventions on
Human Rights (ECHR) and American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR).

In the same way, the 1995 Ugandan constitution recognises freedom of expression under
article 29, but puts limitations and restrictions under article 4324 in line with the ICCPR,
article 19(3). Smith (2010) in agreement argues that restrictions of freedom of media are
necessary under certain circumstances and this is pointed out in article 43 of Ugandan
constitution. It is right to say that, in theory, the freedom of mass media in Uganda is
recognised by law but in practice it is lacking.
CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I will highlight on the methodologies used in the study starting with the
approach adapted with qualitative methodology being central in determining the analysis,
sampling techniques where purposive sampling was adopted, data collection methods zeroing
on content analysis and use of interviews, data analysis, limitations and finally the ethical
concerns in carrying out research. The methodology became very important section for
obtaining the data used in chapter four and five of this study.

The Method I used an interdisciplinary strategy to gather data, so even someone who isn't a
lawyer by background can comprehend how I was able to assess and analyze local, state, and
international frameworks to see how they affect media freedom. The method for gathering
data was to get a list of all media radio stations and newspapers from the Uganda
Telecommunication Commission (UCC) website, keeping in mind that all media industries in
Uganda need to be formally registered with the UCC. It contained comprehensive details
including radio station owners, frequencies, addresses, and locations.

As a researcher, this proved to be helpful as it made it simple for me to identify the media
outlets controlled by politicians, the majority of whom are ministers, members of parliament,
and wealthy businessmen who support the current NRM administration. I was able to gain a
general understanding of how political ownership and affiliations are likely to impact free
media practices and how it functions in a political setting. Second, I tracked down national
and international media publications about Uganda's media freedom, which gave me a solid
foundation for conducting interviews.

I was able to ask questions from an informed point of view especially, during the non-
directive interviews that were carried out with the journalists. It also acted as a double check
and reinforcement to the interviews that I conducted.
 Finally, I managed to speak to some of the prominent journalists and radio reporters that
were mentioned in the several reports of the national news media. I engaged them in
answering several questions about media freedom in Uganda and what they experienced in
the industry as professional journalists.

To effectively address the research aims and questions, a qualitative methodology was
employed in the study. As a way to examine things "holistically and comprehensively, to
study it in its complexity and to understand it in its context," Punch (2005:186) describes
qualitative research. The primary characteristic of qualitative research is evident in its
designs, which prioritize naturalistic approaches and the examination of objects, individuals,
and occurrences in their authentic environments (p. 140).

Qualitative approaches are "particularly interested in how people observe and describe their
lives," according to Silverman29. He argues that this gives room for flexibility and for an in-
depth focus on the study being conducted since the data obtained is in form of words rather
than in numbers (ibid). This method was used to derive meanings out of the respondents’
descriptions and explanations of issues raised during the interviews. Sampling was used in
this study; Nachmias et al… defines a sample as ‘a smaller group obtained from the
accessible population. Each member or case in the sample is referred to as a subject’ 30.

Sampling is very important in qualitative research; because we cannot study everyone;

sampling decisions are required not only about the participants to be interviewed but also the
setting and process of the interview itself (Punch 2005: 187). Punch looks at ‘Purposive
sampling’ to mean sampling in a deliberate way, with some purpose or focus in mind 31 . In
this research, purposive sampling technique was used; hence the researcher used his
knowledge of the population to select 34 individuals and media professionals who had
experience and knowledge on the issue relating to media freedom.

29
QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT. (2005). Issues in
Information Systems.

30
Roach, S. A. (1963, December). The Frequency Distribution of the Sample Mean Where Each Member of the
Sample is Drawn from a Different Rectangular Distribution. Biometrika, 50(3/4), 508.

31
Fernando, L. D. (1968, June 1). A Pedal-Operated Punch for Sampling Leaves. Journal of Economic
Entomology, 61(3), 849–850.
3.2 Data Collection Methods

Both primary and secondary data were useful sources of information in this research. In
addition to conducting interviews, national and international documents, text books
literatures, periodicals, journals articles, magazines, reports and publications in the library
and those posted on internets were mostly consulted source of data during the research hence
content analysis was adopted.

Document Reviews/Content Analysis Documents, both historical and contemporary, remain a

major source of data for social research32. For this study, I analyzed, national and
international documents which included; Human Rights Watch report, Article 19 publications
and reports, Amnesty International report, The 1995 Constitution of Uganda, the Domestic
legislations (The 1950 Uganda Penal Code, The 2002 Anti-terrorism Act, The 1995 Press and
Journalist Act, The 1996 Electronic Media Act, cap 104, The January 29th, 2010 Press and
Journalist Amendment Bill, The Regulation of Interception of Communication Act, 2010) 25,
Text books literatures, Periodicals, Journals articles, Magazines, Publications posted on
internets and Newspaper Articles.

Through examining these documents and other texts, the overall picture of the study was
drawn however, newspapers represented opinions rather than real facts hence information
from other sources was vital in supporting the findings. The review of documents as a source
of data in this study is supported by the argument by MacDonald and Tipton 33, that with the
development of social sciences research, documents have proved to be useful sources of data.
Similarly, sociologists like Durkheim, Marx, and Weber did their research primarily relying
on documents (cited in Punch 2005:184). Documents were important for this research
because they provided the study with a ‘rich vein for analysis’34.

Like Ethnographers says, social researchers should always use any written document that
they feel is useful in documenting either ‘the immediate natural and detailed behavior of

32
Mikkelsen, F., Clubb, J. M., & Scheuch, E. K. (1982, November). Historical Social Research: The Use of
Historical and Process-Produced Data. Contemporary Sociology, 11(6), 702.

33
Documents and Source Material. (1996, July 1). Journal of Palestine Studies, 25(4), 137–161.

34
Hammersley, M. (1995, February). Theory and evidence in qualitative research. Quality & Quantity, 29(1),
55–66.
participants’35 Interviews The researcher relied heavily and extensively on in-depth
interviewing using the interview guide that was developed for the different categories of
respondents.

Kahn and Cannell (1957) describe interviewing as ‘a conversation with a purpose’ (p. 149) 36.
With the selection of interviews as a method of data collection, the researcher took into
considerations that the respondents had the experience in a given phenomenon under
investigation. Focused (Semi structured) interviews were used; Merton (1946) identified this
form of interview as taking place with respondents known to have been involved in a
particular experience (p.541- 557). Yet following from Payners guidelines, the questions
were put in the order that they appeared on the interview guide and the respondents were led
from general to specific questions (2004:132). The researcher interviewed the media
professionals who had experience the real violation of rights by the state agents in Uganda.
Several Media and press scenarios occurred in Uganda which undermined the independence
of the industry and through interviews some were explored into details to get the real facts on
the ground.

Non-directive (Unstructured) interviews were also adopted for this study. Punch lauded
unstructured interview as a powerful tool being widely used in social research because of its
richness in producing valuable data (2005:172). While using this method, there were no
specified set of questions, nor were the questions asked in specific order, there were no
schedules as well (Donald, 1983). As Payner et al…, in agreement with Nachmias, put it this
type of interview proved to be useful for this study because the respondents were able to give
accounts of their experiences, opinions and feelings in their own way. The task of the
researcher was merely to probe for further details and ask for clarifications whenever
necessary (Payner, 2004.132).

35
Wartberg, L., Spindler, C., Berber, S., Potzel, K., & Kammerl, R. (2023, November 28). A Four-Item
Questionnaire to Measure Problematic Social Media Use: The Social Media Disorder Test. Behavioral Sciences,
13(12), 980.

36
Glock, C. Y., Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1957, December). The Dynamics of Interviewing: Theory,
Technique, and Cases. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 761.
3.3 Data Management and Analysis

Data analysis began right from the field where editing was done. Data was then deduced by
putting into consideration how themes relate to the objectives, research questions and
literature reviewed. I was able to match several answers from respondents with objectives and
the already reviewed literature. Gaps that existed between what has been studied and what the
research found in the field were identified and highlighted. Under qualitative analysis,
narrative and content analysis technique was used for describing the data.

Qualitative data generated from interviews were analysed using content analysis which
involved summarizing the findings in terms of the themes and main issues raised by the
respondents. The data was used to reinforce information gathered using structured
questionnaires and to draw conclusions. These findings were further linked to the research
objectives to generate meanings.

3.3 Limitations and Delimitation of the study

The greatest limitation to the study was to locate the respondents during the busy working
days. Many potential respondents were away for the field or office.

The second limitation was entirely ethical in character; two journalists outright declined my
request for an interview, despite my assurances that it was strictly academic in nature. The
majority of responders expressed concern of being questioned due to the nature of the
research and their occupations. Those who agreed emphasized that the final report should not
reveal their names or identities. I was able to identify myself and persuade the respondents
that I am a student with a solely academic interest in the study in order to overcome this
barrier. I assured them that I would honor their request to have only their ideas—rather than
their names—and that I would maintain the study ethic of extreme confidentiality and trust.

\
3.4 Ethical considerations

Ethical concerns remain central in any kind of social research. Saunders (2007) 37, looks at
ethics in the context of research to mean the appropriateness of one’s behavior in relation to
the rights of those who become the subject of your work or affected by your work (p.178),
while Seiber (1993:14) defines it as ‘the application of moral principles to prevent harming or
wronging others, to promote the good, to be respectful and to be fair’. For this study, I
ensured that ethical principles were observed. These included among others, ensuring the
principles of voluntary participation; where the selected respondents were not coerced or
forced into participation but did it willingly. The researcher made sure that people assented to
be interviewed without force; and promised to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of
the respondents.

As Saunders stressed, the participants had a right to withdraw partially or completely from
the interview process in case they felt so (2007:181). Even Payner (2004) re-echoes the same
by arguing that, informant identity should be protected by making them anonymous in the
published reports (p.68). In fact, the issue of media freedom being a very sensitive area in
Uganda, the researcher considered the privacy of the participants by yielding to their
demands of not quoting their names in this final research report. Respondents made it clear
that publishing their names in the report would mean that they stand risk of being followed by
security agents and risk of losing their jobs with the media outlets they serve.

37
Saunders, J., & Wisely, J. (2007, October). Promoting and facilitating ethical research. Clinical Medicine,
7(5), 433–435.
CHAPTER FOUR

Findings, Analysis and Discussions

4.1 Introduction

The chapter looks at the findings, analysis and finally discusses it in line with the objectives
of the study as already outlined in chapter one and the literature reviews. Content analysis
and interview responses are key materials used to compose this chapter. This chapter forms
the main body of the study.

It therefore looks at the perceptions of people interviewed, self censorship as a new

phenomenon in media industry in Uganda and specific challenges to free media in Uganda
while specifically focusing on ownership, regulation mechanisms and security of the media
workers. Following this, the chapter focuses on analyzing the legal frameworks including the
new domestic laws and the impact of politics on the media accessibility and finally concludes
with a general discussion about the findings linking them to the literature reviewed and
objectives of this study.

4.2 Perceptions of the people interviewed

The study showed that most radio journalists interviewed were reserved on certain sensitive
issues especially commenting their employment, benefits and whether they were treated fairly
in their place of employment due to fear of termination of their service. The research also
found that most radio journalists work without contracts of employment and because of this;
there are no legal binding documents between them and the owners of the media outlets. We
don’t ask for signing of contracts because when you ask that will be the beginning of your
exit for the job. The Director of our radio station is aware of the legal implications of signing
the contract and he will ask you to accept the job on mutual agreement, if not he says you are
free to look at other employment in other radio stations26 On the other hand, the Politicians,
CSOs, Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), District Security Officers (DISOs) and
Lawyers interviewed expressed their views without fear compared to the journalists
interviewed.
Many politicians interviewed, tended to defend their own political parties on issues of
censorship of the media. NRM politicians and RDC’s for example offered the defence that
the media in Uganda is free and that censorship is always a response to provocations by
journalists and media outlets and is enacted for the sake of maintaining peace and harmony in
the country, while their counterparts the opposition politicians, CSOs, lawyers and the public
officers in the ministry argued that the media in Uganda is actually not free and they went on
to give examples to support their views. My own analysis and conclusion on the issues of
respondents is that politicians will always think differently from professional journalists
because they would want to politicize every issue that comes up in the country including this
issue of freedom of expression even when it goes against their conscience.

4.3 Self-Censorship and the Media Freedom

Self-censorship among media professionals in Uganda has persisted at different levels and is
attributed to different reasons; fear of persecution and arrest, political pressure (in which case
the media decide to abstain from reporting certain issues that are politically sensitive), fear of
losing a job when the story does not comply with the employer’s editorial policy or business
interests. In practice some media outlets have been forced by politicians and government to
stop publishing certain stories. Journalists who are critical in reporting about the government
get intimidated, harassed, threatened and investigated, many have been charged in courts with
unclear crimes and charges. Andrew Mwenda of the ‘Independence magazine’ faces a
number of pending charges38. According to Free House, these threats coupled with legal
actions have fostered ‘Self-Censorship’. HRNJ adds that the repressive and restrictive media
laws and continued threats by government through the regulatory bodies have created tension
and widespread ‘Self-Censorship’ among media outlets, journalists and other media
practitioners39. The media therefore operates in an ‘intimidating and threatening environment’
where the consequence has been ‘Self-Censorship’ as reported by one journalist with the
Monitor newspaper:

Rather than reporting on government policies and political developments in Uganda many
journalists and Media outlets have now resorted to reporting leisure activities like weddings,
38
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), ‘Attacks on the Press 2009: Uganda,’ 25 April 2024, accessed at:
http://cpj.org/2010/02/attacks-on-the-press-2009-uganda.php, and Human Rights Watch (HRW), ‘A Media
Minefield: Increased Threats to Freedom of Expression in Uganda,’ May 2010,
39
HRNJ–U, ‘Government blocks radio stations from live broadcasting Buganda Kingdom conference,’ 4
January 2011,
Discos. Perhaps, the closure of five privately owned radio stations in September 11, 2009 and
the subsequent re-opening with conditions attached to it escalated self-censorship among the
media practitioners. The frequent warnings by the government through the Media Council,
UCC and Broadcasting Council worsened fear among many media outlets across the country.

Many journalists censor themselves by avoiding discussing sensitive political topics

including any differences between the central government and the Kabaka the King of
Buganda (Amnesty International, 2011:12). The Media Council has a significant role to play
in determining the hostile environment in which the media operate. This organization holds
overwhelming powers that work to create situation of self-censorship among the journalists.
In April 2010, the Council Chairman Eng. Godfrey Mutabaazi made directives on the
suspension of two radio presenters of Voice of Lango, a Lira based FM radio station for
hosting opposition politicians (HRNJ-U, 2010:8), similarly in December 2010, it instructed
the management of Radio Kigezi to dismiss a presenter accused for being partisan (HRNJ-U,
2011:13). Such directives, by the Media Council for the suspension and dismissal of
journalists have a far reaching impact on media freedom as it increases ‘self-censorship’
among many journalists for fear of losing their jobs. The study revealed that many journalists
no longer find the media jobs interesting because of high level of censorship, instead they
prefer not to report, if they feel the content of their news would antagonize the government
and possibly cost them their job.

Self-censorship was found common among the journalists working in areas far from the
capital city of Kampala (often referred to as ‘up country’). This was attributed to the
harshness, threats and intimidation by the RDCs and the Police who hold overwhelming
powers on behalf of the president at the district level.

4.4 Specific Challenges to Media Freedom in Uganda

4.4.1 The Impact of the Media Ownership on Media

The media ownership remains a key determinant of way in which media houses carry out
their activities. The issue of media ownership has recently become an issue of debate and
contention. The government control of the private media through owning or through the
people who are pro government has turned out to be one of the biggest hindrances to free
media40.

An election radio survey carried out on the eve of the 2011 presidential campaign showed the
ruling party presidential candidate taking more favours in the radio stations country wide than
the other five candidates (Lugalambi, 2010). This link to the ruling NRM party has been a
major factor in compromising free media operation in the country; yet media remains a major
way through which the citizens get the information (HRW, 2010; Free House, 2010).

Even though there are independent media, their works are always compromised by third
parties that have links to the ruling government. The research finding revealed that opposition
candidates and politicians across the country were denied air time on many radio stations
because of their political affiliations. NRM politicians, ministers and businessmen own radio
stations and this has a lot of effect on how media operates. These radio owners find it
extremely hard to host opposition politicians for fear of annoying their party president;
secondly they fear losing business by the government on advertisement from various
ministries who are doing business with them.

Another journalist told me: The government has invested heavily on compromising media,
many outlets are controlled by state and they have a lot of say on what goes on in the outlets.
Even the private media outlets are controlled indirectly through the people, businessmen and
politicians who work for the ruling government 41. Besides doing business in the media sector,
such people also have other business interests; the implication of antagonizing the
government through their media outlets would mean losing other businesses and investments
with the government like constructions, supplies, health and schools (Free House, 2010).

The impact of ownership of media outlets on freedom of expression was further demonstrated
during the 2016 presidential and parliamentary election campaigns to the disadvantage of
those without the stations, and more especially opposition candidates. The finding indicates
that many media outlets campaigned for incumbent president and his supporters; Super FM
for example campaigned for candidates Museveni, Voice of Lango in Lira campaigned for
Felix Okot Ogong and candidate Museveni, Mega FM and Radio Rupiny campaigned for

40
Uganda Media Profile; A comprehensive profile of major TV and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and
ISPs in Uganda on website http://www.ucc.co.ug
41
Interview with a journalist Radio Rupiny , Gulu 21 March 2024.
candidate Museveni and NRM leaning candidates in Gulu, Radio Kitara and Kings Radio
campaigned for Kabakumba Masiko and Candidate Museveni, Metro FM campaigned
Captain Edward Francis Babu, Busiro FM campaigned for former Vice President Professor
Gilbert Bukenya and other NRM contestants, Voice of Teso and Voice of Busoga for Mike
Mukula and Museveni respectively, Radio Kinkinzi campaigned for Prime Minister Amama
Mbabazi and Candidate Museveni, Radio Apac for Jovino Akaki, Museveni and NRM
leaning candidates (HRNJ, 2011:11).

The above facts show the level of press restrictions and the bias of the coverage by the
existing media outlets on instruction and orders from their proprietors. Surprisingly, in Lira
district, it was frustrating for opposition candidates as, in the two weeks prior to the 2011
elections, the NRM party booked and paid for many airtime slots in all the five radio stations,
many of which were subsequently not used. The reason was to deny the opposition
candidates free access to the media35 .

4.4.2 The Impact of Regulatory Mechanisms on the Media

The media plays a major role in shaping the government in power, it is therefore important
for the government to always distance itself from interfering with media regulatory systems
(HRW, 2010). The regulatory bodies must be independent in all aspects and free from
interference by political and commercial interests. This means they should be guarded against
political and government influence (UHRC, 2010; Article 19, 2010:4). For media ‘self-
regulation’ remains the best way for promoting high standards in the media industry36 and
where this has failed the public authority could come in with some regulatory mechanism as
long as it does not rely so much on government as its source of decisions (Article 19,
2010:5).

In the Ugandan context, regulation has presented a social problem because the regulatory
framework impedes media freedom due to government control over appointment and
licensing of the various regulatory bodies through its line ministries (Free House, 2011;
Article 19, 2010:4) The study found that the major institutions that are mandated to regulate
the media industry in Uganda are compromised by the government who appoints them (Free
House, 2011; Amnesty International, 2011:11).
Whereas the Media Council42 major responsibilities is to regulate the conduct of journalists,
arbitrate disputes between the public and the media and to accredit foreign journalist; it has
been greatly criticized for being housed in the Prime Minister’s office. It is argued by most
critics including Amnesty International that through this, the Council is more vulnerable to
political control and compromise by the very office that accommodates its office and
Ministry of Information that appoints the members leading to illegitimate restrictions of
freedom of expression (Free House, 2011, Amnesty International, 2011:11).

Likewise, the Broadcasting Council, which guides and regulates the broadcasting sector, has
its image tinted with bias because of its licensing process and decisions on the opening of
new outlets. The actions to illegitimately close five radio stations in September 10, 2009 and
the banning of live debates ‘ebimeeza’ portrays the Broadcasting Council negatively in the
eyes of both the public and international bodies (ibid).

Consequently, the study reveals that majority of local radio stations are owned by politicians
and business people supportive of the government. In most parts of the country, members of
the opposition are denied licenses by the Broadcasting Council to open radio stations while
their counterparts in the ruling party are given licenses38. Practical example includes James
Musinguzi, a treasurer with Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party, who was denied a
license to open up a radio Station in Kinkizi, while his main rival Amama Mbabaazi the
current Prime Minister was granted the license in the same area by the Council (IFEX,
2008:386).

The finding from the study revealed further that not only has the licensing caused problems
with media regulatory systems but also the exorbitant fees set up by the council have made
the operation of the media business difficult. The licensing fee stands at Uganda Shillings
three million ($1,275) for Local Radio FM station and Uganda shillings five million for
Televisions (TV) and slightly less for upcountry media outlets depending on the kilometers
from the city centre (Free House, 2011).

42
According to HRW report 2010, in 1997, plaintiffs challenged the Press and Journalist Statute. The
Constitutional Court decided on procedural rather than substantive grounds to dismiss the challenge. The Court
based its decision on differing rules of procedure between cases brought directly to it by way of petition and
those referred to it by another court. Uganda Journalists Safety Committee, Mohammed Katende, Peter
Bahemuka v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 7/97, 199
This implies that owners of the media outlets needs to invest huge capital in order to operate
media business. On the other hand, there is much interference by government on the work of
the UCC. For example, Free House 2011 reports that during February 2011 elections, The
UCC on orders from the government blocked the sending of SMS during the vote counting
for fear of ‘promoting hatred and creating discomfort among the public’. (HRNJ–U,
2011:13). All the telecommunication services were ordered to stop relaying the data to the
DEM group and opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) tallying centers in
Kampala. While in April The UCC instructed the internet service providers in Uganda to
block Facebook and Twitter for 24 hours in an effort to avoid mobilization of the public
through these social networks which they argued would have incited more riots on escalating
food and fuel prices in Uganda code named ‘Walk to work protest’ (HRNJ–U, 2011:15). This
was a violation of freedom of speech and participation through the media channels as
captured in both national and international laws (Amnesty International, 2011).

This study found that the government smuggled in another regulatory mechanism to stifle
media freedom outside the legal mandate. In 2005, the Office of the President created the
Media Centre, whose major function is to create positive factual public awareness of the
government. HRW observed that on the eve of 2006 and 2011 election the Media Centre
usurp the power of the Media Council and set itself another task of investigating foreign
journalists and censoring radio journalists moving 100km outside the city centre (2010:14).
This was outside the mandate upon which the Media Centre was supposed to operate and in
any case, it is illegal because there is no law that establishes the Media Centre (HRW, 2010).

Foundation for Human Rights Initiative for example criticized the Media Centre for
conducting its activities as ‘political prop, acting largely as information outlet for the NRM
rather than as an independent government agency’ 43. From the above discussions, media
activities are seen to be highly censored in Uganda. One journalist interviewed said: The
Media Centre is rather a promoter of government propaganda and interest through the media
rather than an independent regulatory body of the NRM government. There is no legislation
that creates and regulates the conduct of the Media Centre and this renders it illegal in
Uganda media regulatory system. The last system put in place is ‘the Police Media Crime
department’, set up three years ago to investigate crimes related to media.
43
IREX, “Media Sustainability Index (MSI)–Uganda 2008,” accessed at: http://www.irex.org/system/files/2-
Africa_08_uganda.pdf. According to the IREX MSI 2008, 75 percent of stations are owned by politicians and
75 percent of them belong to the NRM ruling party.
HRW observes that up to April 2010, 90 cases were submitted by the Director of Public
Prosecution and out of which 12 were allowed to proceed (2010:14). The findings indicate
that, the media crime departments of the Uganda Police rather exist to intimidate rather than
exercising criminal investigation to the allege crime committed journalists and other media
practitioners44. Article 19 observed that the establishment of this department has led to
increased number of journalists who are being charged rather than helping to regulate the
practice of journalism45. In summary therefore, one can argue that the UCC, the Media
Council, and the Broadcasting Council, all have assumed powers beyond the legal obligation
granted to them by the Ugandan laws and have continued to undermine and violate media
freedom by acting to promote the interests of the ruling party rather than the interests of
ordinary citizens to which they were established to serve.

4.4.3 Safety and Security of Journalists

According to the Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda (HRNJ-U, 2010; 2011)
press index report, increased violence has been experienced by Ugandan journalists over the
past three years.

The report indicates that, in 2009, 35 cases of intimidations, harassments and violence were
reported while the number shot up to 50 cases in 2010 and 107 in 2011. International bodies
(Amnesty International, 2011; HRW, 2010; Article 19, 2010) report that several journalists
continue to fall prey to attack by unknown people purportedly suspected to be security
operatives. The security of media professionals remains at great risk; journalists interviewed
revealed that many of their colleagues continue to disappear, suffer at the hands of security
operatives and others are killed under unclear circumstances.

The following examples illustrate this finding. Sserumaga Kalundi of WBS TV and Arafat
Nzito of Simba FM 97.3 were kidnapped on 10th September 2009 and November 3, 2010 and
held in an undisclosed location by the security forces. Paul Kigundu and Dickson Ssentongo
lost their lives while at work under unclear circumstance 46. Wilbroad Kasujja of Buwama
Community radio in Mpigi was raped, and later killed on her way from the radio station. Top
radio reporter Paul Kiggundu and Prime radio news anchor Dickson Ssentongo were both

44
nterview with journalist with the New Vision Publication in Gulu district on 22.01.2024
45
http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/2636/11-08-09-A_HRC_WG.6_12_UGA_3_Uganda_E.pdf
46
International partnership group freedom of expression mission to Uganda Statements
murdered in cold blood while at work. Foreign Rwandan journalist Charles Ingabire from
Inyenyeri publications was murdered in Kampala in November 2011 under unclear
circumstance. Journalist Gideon Tugume was shot at Kibuye roundabout and injured as he
took live coverage of Dr. Besigye’s return from treatment in Nairobi (HRNJ-U, 2010; 2011).
Although the government distanced itself from such brutal acts against the media, and in
many instances condemned them, it remains government responsibility to provide security
and protection to all Ugandan citizens including journalists.

4.5 The Impact of the Domestic Legal Framework on the Media.

There are specific Ugandan laws that have been put in place to criminalize certain practices
of the media professionals. The clauses in these laws have been criticized for taking away
media freedom by contradicting the country’s constitutions and the international legislation
that promotes free practice of the media. To trace how draconian such laws are to the media, I
analyze and discuss them below.

 The 1950 Uganda Penal Code Cap 120

The 1950 Penal Code contains a number of sections that restrict the freedom of media. It
defines offences that criminalize sedition 47 (Penal Code Act 1950: sec 40), sectarianism (sec
41), Incitement of violence (sec 51) and libel (sec 79 which also includes publishing of
defamatory information). Despite the legal guarantee under the constitution and international
laws, criminal charges through the above sections of the domestic law continue to be a
method through which journalists have been framed and charged as a way of scaring them
from expressing their views on government policies and actions (Amnesty International,
2011:9; Article 19 submission to UN). IFEX (2010) and HRNJ (2010) reports that many
Commonwealth countries to date have dropped many sections of this law, but in Uganda,
journalists like Mwenda48 and opposition supporters continue to be charged with sedition
charges including opposition politicians like MP Betty Kamya, MP Betty Nambooze and
Medard Ssengona.

47
The Penal Code Act defines sedition as when a person alters or publishes statements aimed at bringing hatred,
contempt or disaffection against the president, the government or the judiciary. According to
HRNJ-Uganda/IFEX 2010, In 2005, journalist Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Institute, petitioned
the Constitutional Court challenging the provisions on sedition in the Penal Code Act.
48
According to HRNJ-Uganda and IFEX 2010, Out of the 25 times, Andrew Mwenda, a Ugandan journalist has
been charge, 18 times were with the offences of sedition.
In its submission to the United Nations, Article 19 argues that the Penal Code is not only
vague but ‘susceptible to unreasonable wide interpretations by both authorities and those
subject to the law’ it is therefore clear that such ‘draconian law’ has a chilling effect on
freedom of expression in any democratic country. In a landmark case of freedom of
expression, the Constitutional Court on August 25, 2010, nullified sections 39 and 40 and
Cap. 120 of the Penal Code Act which defines and establishes law on sedition; also removed
are sections 42, 43 and 44, which put in place a law promoting sectarianism49.

Similarly, in the case of Charles Onyango Obbo & Others Vs Attorney50, the Constitutional
Court51 nullified the offense of publication of false news under section 50 of the penal code of
Uganda as being unconstitutional. Despite the Court ruling on section 50 of the Penal Code in
February 2004, more charges resurface under the nullified law; journalist Yoweri Musisi of
CBS was charged with publishing false news in March 2011, an offense that no longer
existed. The case was later dropped on May 18, 2011 after his lawyers and HRNJ-U
challenged the legality of the charge following a Supreme Court ruling in 2004
(HRNJU,2011:21; Amnesty International, 2011: 9-10).

 The 1995 Press and Journalist Act

The 1995 Act whose content regulates the practice of media has been a subject of criticism
especially the registration clause, which requires licensing of the practice of journalism;
perhaps, placing conditions on who qualifies to practice journalism as put down in section 26
and 27 of the above Act even worsens the situation (Free House, 2010). The Act becomes
worse with the proposed amendment of January 29, 2010 by the government (The 1995 Press
and Journalist Act). Article 19 criticizes the Act as not being in line with the international
legislation because it puts too many conditions on the kind of person who may practice
journalism and yet this is mentioned nowhere in the international legislations of freedom of
expression (Article 19.2010: 1).

 The 1996 Electronic Media Act, cap 104

49
HRNJ–U, ‘Constitutional Court nullifies law on sedition,’ 25 August 2010, accessed at:
http://www.ifex.org/uganda/2010/08/25/sedition_law_null/. accessed on 14.03.2024.
50
[2004] UGSC 1
51
Lead Judgment by Justice Joseph Mulenga of Supreme Court of Uganda, 2004 in Constitutional Appeal No. 2
of 2002 between Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mwenda and Attorney General.
The Electronic Media Act gives the Broadcasting Council unchecked and excessive powers
to act with impunity on the media outlets by regulating media content (HRNJ-U, 2011:27).
Such power became practically experimented during the September 11, 2009 closure of four
radio stations Central Broadcasting Service (CBS), Radio 2 (Akaboozi FM), a Catholic
Church run FM station Sapientia, and Suubi FM) during the riots and demonstration in
Kampala52.

In addition, the Broadcasting Council has abused its powers on many occasions by ordering
suspension of critical journalists, banning public debates and live broadcast coverage of riots
and demonstrations as well as blocking the Social Network Facebook and Twitter on April
14, 2011 during the walk to work protest (HRNJ-U, 2011:27). According to Article 19, the
Council’s unquestioning compliance with decisions from the government poses a great threat
to free practice of media; the Council lacks independence but operates under directives from
the government through the Ministry of Information.

 The 2002 Anti-Terrorism Act

In force since June 2002, the Anti-Terrorism Act focuses on criminalizing coverage of mostly
opposition politicians, dissident, and rebels. Under section 9, it prohibits publication of items
that promote terrorism (HRNJ-U, 2011:28). It has been argued that, the definition of
‘terrorism’53 as captured in the Act is ‘vague’ and creates fear among journalists to the extent
that it becomes difficult for journalists to report any clashes between government and any
rebels without risking imprisonment (HRW, 2010: 48, ). The law does not permit any form of
coverage of organization or any group and individual suspected to be engaged in a terrorist
act by way of direct engagement or financial support 54. Section 8 and 9 focuses on
‘publishing or disseminating news or materials that promote terrorism’. This section is hostile
to media freedom because it illegitimately contributes towards restricting freedom of media
(HRNJ, 2011).

Similarly, Section 19 provides for tapping or interceptions of any communication by an

assigned officer of Ministry of Security. The implication is that no longer can the sources of

52
HRNJ-Uganda UPR Report p.3 available on http://www.hrnjuganda.org/index.htm
53
HRNJ- U (2011) captures the definition in the Act as ‘An act of terror is any act or omission aimed at forcing
government to change any thing(policy, law, practice etc) and in through doing that a person dies’ p.28
54
HRNJ- U (2011) captures the definition in the Act as ‘An act of terror is any act or omission aimed at forcing
government to change any thing(policy, law, practice etc) and in through doing that a person dies’ p.28
news of journalists be secure as there is a third party intercepting under the provision of this
law (Amnesty International, 2011: 14). A journalist can be required to reveal his sources of
information during the investigation under this Act, something that is both unethical, and
undermines the practice of journalism (HRNJ-U, 2011:28).

 The Public Order Management Act.

With the major aim of “safeguarding public order and other related matters” 55, the bill
prevents freedom of media and freedom to assemble. The proposed law is in contradiction
with the Ugandan Constitution of 1995, the Africa Charter on Human and People’s Rights,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights among other regional and international treaties on freedom of the media
(Amnesty International 2011, Article 19, 2010).

It infringes on a number of rights including freedom of speech and expression and rights to
public gatherings, and gives government through the Inspector General of Police and the
Minister of Internal Affairs unchecked powers over managing public gatherings, at which the
media are almost invariably present (An Analysis of Public Order Management Bill of
Uganda, 2009). Neither the proposed restrictions in the bill, nor its scope, match the
international standard permitted under the international human rights law of which Uganda
signed and is bound by, specifically the ICCPR and the African Charter on the right to
peaceful assembly and freedom of expression (Amnesty International, 2011:28).

The Act has far reaching consequences for wide sections of the population if passed into the
law. The effects on the peaceful assembly and expressions would be much on the media,
human rights defenders and the political parties (ibid).

 The Regulation of Interception of Communication Act, 2010

Introduced by the Minister of Security, passed into law in July and into force on September
03, 2010, the bill lacks safeguards on right of freedom of expression and privacy (Amnesty
International, 2010). Human rights activists disagree with the arguments advanced by the
government of guarding the ‘security’ of the country and dismiss such a law as contradicting

55
the Preamble of the Public Order Management Bill 2009
the rights of privacy enshrined in the 1995 Ugandan constitution 56, The law is not in harmony
with the national, international and regional treaties, (ACHR, ICCPR,UDHR) 57.

In its submission to the United Nations, Article 19 argues that the law gives too much power
on surveillance, interceptions of electronic, communications and postal mails by allowing
intrusion into communications of organizations, groups and individuals including media
professionals. The Act does not define the grounds for interceptions and gives unchecked
powers to Minister of Security over control of ‘Monitoring Centre’ 58 (Amnesty International,
2010). Where it defines, for example ‘National security’ the definition is broad, section one
of the Act says ‘national security of Uganda includes matters relating to the existence,
independence or safety of the State' (Communication Act, 2010).

As argued by many journalists and in agreement HRW, 2010; Article 19, 2010; UHRC, 2010
and Amnesty International, 2011, what constitutes ‘national security’ has been termed
‘vague’. Analysts look at it as a deliberate attempt to suffocate and stifle media freedom in a
free democratic society; even the Johannesburg Principles on national security re affirms that
such security concerns should not be generalized to include ‘protecting a government from
embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing’59.

Although intensions of the Act may be to protect ordinary citizens through utilizing legal
avenues, it does not state for example, the issues which a judge should consider before the
interception warrant is issued. The implication could mean a judge may not be required by
law to consider specific human right issues before issuing the warrant of interception and this
is likely lead to gross human rights violations. And yet, the warrant issued may also not
conform to the international standards (Amnesty International, 2010). The interpretation of
this law for the media practitioners and human rights defenders is that, they can no longer be
secure, because their sources of information would be easily accessed by the government
through the government interception centre that is granted the legal authority to tap
communication.

56
Report of the sessional committee on Information and communication technology (ICT) on the regulation of
interception of communication bill 2007, June 2010 available in the office of Clerk to parliament Uganda.
57
As Amnesty international puts it, this right is also provided for under Article 29 of the Ugandan Constitution,
Article 19 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 9 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR). Uganda is party to both treaties. Article 27 of the Ugandan
Constitution guarantees the right to privacy which is also provided for under Article 17 of the ICCPR.
58
Section 3 (1) (a) (c) & (4) of the Act.
59
Johannesburg Principles, principle 2
 The Press and Journalist Amendment Act.

The Act among other things, proposes who may practice journalism, reduction in the number
of public and media representatives on the media council, gives more power to the Minister
of Information and introduces stringent licensing procedures. CPJ, Free House, Amnesty
International, Article 19 and HRW all described the bill as a ‘draconian’. Article 19 for
example argues that the international guarantee of the freedom of expressions which applies
to every citizen does not in any way provide for limitations on the practice of journalism as
per African declaration principle X (2). This is reinforced by the 2003 joint declaration by
special international mandate which reaffirmed that, individual journalists are neither
required to get licenses in order to practice and nor to register with anybody. It provides that
there are no legal restrictions on the practice of journalism in any country. (Article 19, 2010:
8) As this Act is a new law, the researcher administered questionnaires to lawyers and Human
Rights Network Uganda (HURINET –U) to try to find out more about the Press and
Journalist Amendment Bills (2010) introduced two years ago. The findings revealed that not
only does the bill curtail freedom of media but also the daily enjoyment of fundamental
human rights across many categories of people.

The key weaknesses identified in the Act include the following. Firstly, much as the law
focuses on professional journalists, it neglects others in the media work such as Disc Jockeys
and Master of Ceremonies, Television and Radio presenters. Likewise, there is no provision
for registering untrained journalist under the proposed bill and in the event of unprofessional
conduct, it becomes impossible to reprimand or hold them accountable (HURINET –U, 2010;
Lugalambi, 2010). Ambassador Blay-Amihere during the round table discussions on
Ugandan media laws in Kampala on 31 of May 2010 disagreed with the degree requirement
in this law for professional journalists. He argues: ‘………the degree requirement does not
meet universal standards, and also goes against the Ugandan constitution that talks about
freedom of association’60.

The proposed law gives much power to the Minister of Information to appoint and dismiss
members of the Broadcasting Council. This makes the Council less independent and merely
an implementer of the directives from the Minister. Increasing the number of members in the
disciplinary committee seems a good idea but, reducing the number of media professionals

60
Round table P and J rapporteur report 2010.
and public representation from three to one and from two to one will limit the journalist and
public from controlling and regulating the media (Analysis of clause 4 section 8). Section 6
gives the Media Council the power to register and license the print media however; it is silent
on the requirements and procedural matters (Article 19, 2010).

By providing the new stringent conditions for licensing the newspapers, it will not only scare
away investors from the media industry but will also affect the production given the fact that
the licenses can be removed by the government at any time and at will (HURINET-U,
2010:4). This will likely have a long term effect on the job market for those in the media
profession as employees will be uncertain of the future of their jobs until such a time when
the license of their media outlet is renewed. Further, the media industry would turn to
employing the journalists on contract so as to be able to meet the operational cost; this creates
job insecurity because of unpredictability of the whole media industry (p.7).

The restrictive licensing condition was lamented by one respondent interviewed who said:
The proposed law says you can appeal if you have been denied the license to operate, but
given our slow legal processes it may take between two to five years before such appeal is
heard by our courts and this is unfair as many employees will be denied their livelihood as
they wait the pending court decision.

The Act further proposes for punishment of both journalist who writes an article and the
Editor who reviews it, this create a situation of double punishment which is against criminal
law doctrine of punishing individual twice for the same offense committed (HURINET-U
2010: 4) In addition, the Act lacks definitions of certain terms, for example what amounts to
‘economic sabotage’, and ‘prejudice to state security’. This will makes it difficult for the
members of the media to publish news about the state for fear of being reprimanded (An
analysis clause 6 and 9). It is difficult to determine what will be considered sabotage under
the new proposed law until a particular news item has been broadcast.

In its present state, it gives power to the Minister of Information to determine what
‘sabotage’ is. The Minister is likely to abuse this power to please the appointing authority. As
summed up by HURINET-U (2010:6) ‘Dummy report’: Even if such media could determine
what constitutes sabotage, censoring themselves to appease the interests of government
parties is anathema to the free-flow of information and the spirit of Ugandan democracy. A
critical analysis of the ‘Dummy’s Guide to Press and Journalist Bill 2010’ by HURINET-U
reveals that, the bill has long term effects on students’ writings at higher institutions of
learning like Universities.

The implication of this law as analyzed by a lawyer interviewed from HURINET-U is that,
all reports, opinions, dissertations, thesis, articles to be published for public consumptions in
journals and academic papers could be censored as they have to be scrutinized to ensure that
they do not compromise state security and economic interest. The implication is that even
students’ research findings, may not be published and shared with the public basing on this
law. This will stifle the work of researchers because they would find it hard to access
information that would be useful for their work (2010:7). CSOs’ publications, newsletters,
annual reports, periodicals with the new proposed laws will have to pass through scrutiny.
This means that, depending on the content, whatever analysis CSOs’ make on government
policies and programmes may not be published due to the strict proposed law (p.8). In
general, the bill limits accountability and transparency because the government will not be
liable to scrutiny by the media with the new law in place.

4.6 Politics and the Mechanics of Media Suppression

In Uganda, as in any other country, the media plays a role in shaping the political landscape;
it informs and educates citizens. The research findings indicate that media attempts to
perform this function on eve of 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections met stiff
resistance from the state. This resistance came either from politicians or the regulatory bodies
with connections to the ruling government and their security agents (HRNJ, 2011:7). Yet this
was a vital time when ordinary citizens were to evaluate the performance of their elected
political leaders. Vital and sensitive information was censored by way of denying media free
reporting (ibid, p.7 and 8).

As HRNJ- U (2011) notes, the media objectives of empowering and educating citizens about
their rights towards 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections achieved little due to
massive censorship of media by the ruling government and its security agents. The citizens
were not able to make the fully informed choice of candidates that would have been possible
if they were informed and educated by the mass media (HRNJ-U, 2011).

The study revealed that political threats, Intimidation and harassment were the common
methods used to silence the media in Uganda. As Lugalambi and Tabaire, (2011:15) observe,
the state used some of the crude measures against media. It is reported that the incumbent
President Museveni hosted media owners and editors at the ‘State house’ and warned them of
the dangers of hosting the opposition leaders who abuse him on radio stations. One journalist
explained ‘He threatened to shut down radios which are opposed to government, the most
notable and singled out by the president are the Monitor newspapers, The Observer and the
Red paper’61.

The ‘open threats, harassment and intimidations’ by the head of state does not only
undermine media freedom but it affected the quality of the news reported as journalists opted
for ‘self-censorship’ rather than critical reporting. Access to media, especially radios was
highly influenced by which political party the candidates belonged to. Opposition politicians
faced more difficulties in accessing media outlets and coverage compared to the politicians
from the ruling party. This is contrary to the Electronic Media Act, chapter 104 which
provides that ‘A broadcaster shall ensure that…….(c) where a programme that is broadcast is
in respect to a contender for a public office, then each contender is given equal opportunity
on such a programme……’.

To illustrate this, below are the realities of what transpired during the 2011 presidential and
parliamentary elections. While on his campaign mission in Bunyoro region, Dr. Kizza
Besigye the opposition presidential candidate for the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC)
party was denied access to all airtimes in the region. King’s Broadcasting Services, Radio
Kitara, Spice FM, Hoima FM, Bunyoro Broadcasting Services, and Liberty Broadcasting
Services are the stations that refused to host FDC party president. Surprisingly, the reasons
given were not convincing ‘All Station Managers were under instructions from the NRM
political leadership in the region not to give air wave to any politician unless such politician
was cleared by office of RDC and since Dr. Besigye was not cleared he was denied airtime.
Another FDC politician had this to say: Opposition candidates were denied airtime as the
radio Station Managers said they were under strict instructions from the Directors not to avail
airtime to the opposition candidates especially Forum for Democratic Change.

In Karamoja region, FDC Campaign messages were aired on Nena FM owned by RDC of
Moroto, a retired media practitioner. He subscribes to the ruling party and because of this, he
ordered his radio station to stop the advert for FDC campaigns (HRW, 2010:42). Access to
61
HURINET, 2010 observes that the lack of definitions in the Act Violates article 28(12) of the Ugandan
Constitution, which states that every offence must be defined and its penalty provided for in the law
other air waves by opposition varies; in another incidence in Jinja, the National Broadcasting
Service (NBS) FM refunded FDC money paid for the advertisement under unclear
circumstance. A former Health Minister, Mike Mukula who owns two radio stations Voice of
Teso (Soroti) and Voice of Busoga (Jinja) instructed to his radio station not to host any FDC
politician during the 2011 campaigns. He argues that, he was at liberty to determine how to
operate his business and therefore would determine who to do business with. In Pader district,
Dr. Besigye was scheduled to hold a campaign talk show on Luo FM but was refused when
his agents went to make payment for booking on what the Manager said were orders from
above (URNJ- U, 2011). I made a booking on Luo FM two days ago, but today when I came
to pay bill for the said show, the Managers refused the money saying the RDC Santa Okot
had instructed them not to host Opposition FDC party in Luo FM63 In Lira district, the Voice
of Lango owned by the NRM leaning Member of Parliament for Dokolo County and former
Youth Minister Hon. Okot Ogong Felix had to apologize to the State House for hosting
Uganda People’s Congress Presidential Candidate Ambassador Dr.Olara Otunu (HRNJ 2011,
IFEX 2011. Dr. Otunu made comments on a live show that President Museveni and his ruling
government committed genocides in Northern Uganda. In Hoima the RDC Assimwe Martha
instructed the management and owner of Radio Hoima Canaan Kyanku not to host FDC
Leader Besigye; in Kampala, Dembe FM Managing Director turn away the advert paid by
FDC for their campaigns; while other media outlets which got paid never relayed FDC advert
and never refunded the money some were taken to court by FDC for breach of contract
(HRNJ–U, 2011:12).

The study revealed price discrimination in the payment for airwaves to the radio station, with
opposition politicians being charged higher than the NRM politicians: We pay 400,000
Uganda shillings approximately (200USD) for one hour show and yet the ruling party pays
150, 000 Uganda shillings (75USD) on the same stations, even the president is hosted free of
charge on the same radios Such political acts that threaten free media in Uganda to the
disadvantage of opposition parties are many and cannot be exhausted in this thesis. The
above are example to shows the extent to which media freedom is restricted in Uganda.

4.7 Uganda Media Freedom Rankings 2011.

The media ranking for Uganda has fallen among the countries surveyed in 2011. The research
found out that, according to the latest survey of the world ranking of media freedom by
Reporters Without Borders, Uganda has dropped from 96 to the 139th position out of 170
countries (Article by Bagala Andrew in the Monitor, January 26, 2012), While in 2009,
Uganda was placed 86th position out of a total of 175 countries and in 2008 it got position
107 out of 173 and 96 out of 169 in 2007 (Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index
in Lugalambi and Bernard Tabaire (2011)). Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press
Rankings, put Uganda at 110 position of the 196 countries surveyed in 2010, 109 out of 195
of countries surveyed in 2009 and 110 out of 195 countries in 2008 (Freedom House’s
Freedom of the Press Rankings in Lugalambi and Bernard Tabaire (2011)).

Perhaps, the 2012 ranking would have even been worse if it was not because of concerted
efforts by various stake holders like journalists, Amnesty International, HRW, UHRC, and
Article 19 to fight for the promotion of rights of the media in Uganda. The ranking reveals a
significant problem in Uganda in the area of freedom of expressions and speech.
CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion and Recommendations:

5.1 Conclusion

This study analyzed the level of freedom of expression in Uganda; it looked at the hindrance
to free practice of media among the Media outlets in Uganda; and how the both domestic and
international legislations impacted on the level of freedom of expression within Ugandan
Context. The communication theory remains central in guiding this study with the concept of
power and mass media being analyzed in the literature review.

Besides this, the international and national legislations and their clauses were reviewed from
the contents of various legislations and it provided a basis for the analysis, discussions and
recommendations of this study. Using interviews and content analysis, the study produced
various findings; restrictions of media freedom in Uganda takes various forms; ranging from
threats, intimidations, harassment, enactment of new sub laws, criminal charges.

Consequently it has led to self-censorship as discussed by this thesis. The ultimately cause of
this, is an attempt by the regime in power to consolidate and retain power under all means
and the effects has been denying people the information that they would have got through the
mass media.

The Ugandan Constitution is well streamlined with good clauses that are aligned along the
international legislation, however; the challenge is the implementation of the law in practice.
The action of the security organizations, the media regulatory bodies and the government at
large has reduced freedom of expression and media in practice. Government attempts to ban
or restrict freedom of expression through the introduction of many media sub laws and the
use of security agencies has instead ended up with great impact on journalists who have
fallen victims of such security torture and intimidations. The research findings still portray
lack of freedom of expression in Uganda as highlighted in the analysis and discussions in
chapter four. A concerted effort by both international bodies and CSOs is vital in reviving the
freedom of expressions in Uganda. Media domestic laws need to be aligned to the
international standards.
The use of security to intimidate, threaten and scare journalists as they make coverage remain
one way through which the media freedom suffers.

Government monopolies in controlling the media through owning and regulating the mass
media has eroded the quality of the materials that mass media produce for fear of
repercussions and consequently leading to self-censorship. The introductions of draconian
laws and rampant amendment of the media laws has perpetuated government interest as far as
the practice of freedom of expression is concern than protecting the free practice of media.
5.2 Recommendations From this study, and basing on the objectives and findings, the
followings form part of my recommendations that need to be adopted and implemented to
realize free practice of media in Uganda and in any democratic state.

The 2010 Press and Journalist Amendment Bill should not only be revised, but should be
repealed and withdrawn in its totality because it gives more threat to the freedom of
expression in Uganda. The overwhelming powers given to the Minister to appoint members
of the regulatory bodies of the media should be reduced with self-regulatory system taking a
central role as far as the regulatory mechanism is concerned. Individual clauses for the laws
should be directed to the media industry rather than to individual journalists who are
employees only in their capacity. The appointments of members of the Media Council should
be done in an open and transparent manner involving all the stake holders in the media
industries. The proposed registration and licensing of print media should be repealed from the
Act to give room for free media practice; it should be streamlined to match the international
standards of freedom of expression.

There should be a comprehensive revision of the media laws in Uganda including the
electronic media Act of 1996 to provide for full independence from the government control.
The twelve months period for licensing is very short that the media owners cannot access
bank loans with such duration of license. This may also discourage foreign investors who
have interest in the media business.

It is a recommendation of this study that, the government should consider extending the
period of license to a more realistic period of at least more than 3 years. The international
bodies like African Union, European Union, Amnesty International, US Government, Donor
Agencies and CSOs should join in advocating and campaigning for fair media law and task
Ugandan government to recognize that freedom of expression are paramount for any
democratic society and more specifically for the citizens of Uganda. Constitutional and
Supreme Courts should be an option used by the CSOs and media advocacy organizations to
challenge media draconian laws.

A comprehensive media law reforms therefore should be done with the constitutional
guidelines and experiences from other Commonwealth countries should guide such reforms.
There is need for the government to respect Article 29 (1) (a), Article 20 (2) of the
constitution of Republic of Uganda, UDHR Article 19, and ICCPR Article 19 plus other
regional laws by allowing opposition to freely express their views without much censorship
and interference from the government security agents like police and army. This means, the
voices of the Uganda’s opposition politicians should not be excluded from the Uganda
political, economic and social development process by compromising their freedom of
expressions during vital political stages like during campaigns for political offices.

The Parliament of Uganda should desist from passing laws that curtails universal freedom of
human rights as declared by the United Nations in 1948. The domestic laws like the 2010
Press and Journalist Amendment Bills that are inconsistent with the constitution and the
international legal instruments should be rejected by the parliament. The 2002 Anti-terrorism
law should be aligned in a way that protects human rights including freedom of expression.
Media law reviews by the parliament should take into consideration the principle of pluralism
and diversity without offending the owners of the media outlets.

The Uganda journalist through their association should come up with a non-statutory
regulatory body that is independence from government control and such a body should
perform the function of monitoring journalism practices, trainings and performance in the
whole media sector in Uganda. In case the government, wish to continue with its current
Broadcasting Council, Media Council and UCC then, it should be empowered to perform its
functions without government interference.

Lastly, the security should restrain from violating the rights of journalists as they perform the
daily work of coverage. Instead they should create a free environment where journalists and
other media practitioners are able to carry out the work without any form of harassments,
intimidations and threats. This means strict guidelines should be developed by both the
Ministry of Internal Affairs in collaboration with the Inspector General of Police, Army
Commander, and Directors of both Internal and External Security Organizations of Uganda
on how to protect journalists especially during riots and demonstrations.
BIOGRAPHY
Altschull, J.H (1984) Agent of Power: The roles of the News Media in Human affairs. New
York: Longman.

African Union (Banjul), (1982) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27,
1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force October 21,
1986, ratified by Uganda May 10, 1986.

Bagala, A (Thursday, January 26, 2012) ‘Uganda drops in press freedom ranking’ The Daily
Monitor Publications; Kampala.

Donald, A.D (1983) ‘Mail and other self-administered Questionnaires’ In Hand Book of
survey Research, ed Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright, and Andy B. Anderson (Orlando, Fla:
Academic Press.

Erwin Atwood, Ardyth B. Sohn and Harold Sohn, (1978) 'Daily Newspaper Contributions to
Community Discussion', Journalism Quarterly, 55, 570-6.

Gurevitch M. and Blumer J.G (1990) ‘Political Communication System and democratic
Values’, in Lichtenberg (ed) Democracy and mass media, p. 269-289 Cambridge, Eng
Cambridge University Press.

Hammersley, M. and Akinson, P (1995) Ethnography; Principles in practice. 2 nd (edn)

London: Routledge. Iyengar, R. and Richard Reeves, (1997) Do the Media Govern?
Politicians, Voters, and Reporters in America Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage (eds).

Kahn and Cannell (1957) the dynamics of Interviewing: Theories, techniques and cases, New
York. p.149. Krosnick, J. A. & Kinder, D. R. (1990) ‘Altering the foundations of support for
the President through priming’ American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.

Lugalambi, G.W (2010) A report on Uganda; A survey by the African Governance

Monitoring and Advocacy project (AfriMAP); Open Society for East Africa; Open Society
Media Programme, Public Broadcasting in Africa series; Nairobi Kenya.

Lugalambi, G.W. (2006) An Assessment of Democratic Deliberation in Uganda: A Case

Study of the Framing of Key Political Issues in the Press. Diss. The Pennsylvania State
University. Larry, M.B (1993) ‘Messages Received’ The Political Impact of Media Exposure
American Political Science; Review, 8 7 (1993), 267-85.
Lasswell, H. (1948, 1960) The structure and function of communication in society; In L.
Bryson (ed.), the communication of Ideas (1948); New York: Institute for Religious and
social studies. Reprinted in W. Schramm (ed) (1960), Mass Communications. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press. Merton, R. K. & Kendal P. L (1946) ‘The Focused interview’
American journal of Sociology, 51(1946) 541-557.

Nachmias et al (1992) Research Methods in Social Sciences, 4th edition, St Martin Press,
New York. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997) ‘News values and public opinion’: A
theoretical account of media priming and framing; in G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.),
Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 173-212).

Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Punch, K.F (2005) Introduction to Social Research, Qualitative and
Quantitative approaches, Sage publication limited, London. Payne, G and Payne, J (2004)
Key concepts in Social research, Sage Publication London.

Saunders, M.N.K. et al.., (2007) Research methods for Business students (4th Edition),
Pretence Hall. Severin Werner.J. and Tankaro James W (1997) Communication Theories,
Origins, Methods and uses in mass media, Forth Ed, University of Texas at Austin.

Smith R.K.M (2010) Textbook on International Human Rights (New York: Oxford
University Press. Spindler, G. and Spindler, L. 1992 ‘Cultural process and ethnography: an
anthropological perspective’ in M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy and J, Preissle (eds), The
Handbook for Qualitative Research in Education.

San Diego, CA: Academic. Pp 53-92. Siebert, F.S.T and W. Schramm (1956) Four theories
of press; University of Illinois Press. Sieber J. (1993) The Ethics and Politics of Sensitive
Research’ in Renzetti C and Lee RM (eds), Researching sensitive topics, London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2005) Doing Qualitative Research, Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Sreberny-
Mohammadi, Annabelle; Mohammadi, Ali. (1994) Small Media Big Revolution:
Communication, Culture and the Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of
Minnesota Press, 1994. p.28.

The Ugandan Parliament, (2010) Report of the Sessional Committee on Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) on the Regulation of Interception of Communication Bill
2007; June 2010 Kampala.

Tabaire, B. (2007) ‘The Press and Political Repression in Uganda: Back to the Future?’
Journal of Eastern African Studies, 1: 2, 2007: 193-211.
The United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52,
U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, acceded to
by Uganda June 21, 2005, art. 19.

The United Nations, (1948) The Universal declaration of Human rights; 1948 The Uganda
Penal Code (1950) Kampala, Uganda: Reproduced by the Law Development Centre, 2002.

The Anti-terrorism Act, (2002) Kampala, Uganda: Reproduced by the Law Development
Centre, 2002.

The Public Order Management Act, (2009) Kampala, Uganda: Reproduced by the Law
Development Centre, 2009.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, (1995) Kampala, Uganda: Reproduced by the
Law Development Centre, 1995.

The Press and Journalist Statute, (1995) Kampala, Uganda: Reproduced by the Law
Development Centre, 1995.

The Electronic Media Act, (1996) Chapter 104, Kampala, Uganda Reproduced by the Law
Development Centre, 1996.

The Electronic Media Statute, (1996) Kampala, Uganda: Reproduced by the Law
Development Centre, 1996.

The Regulation of Interception of Communication Act, (2010) Kampala, Uganda:

Reproduced by the Law Development Centre, 2010.

The Judgement of Mulenga, J.S.C.(2008) in Onyango-Obbo and Mwenda v. Attorney

General, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002, Supreme Court of Uganda, 11 Feb. 2004;
Kampala, Uganda; Reproduced by the Law Development Centre, 2008.

UHRC, (2010) Regulation of Freedom of the Press and Other Media: The Human Rights
Considerations; Paper presented at a Panel Discussion on Ugandan Media Laws. Kampala.

UHRC, (2010) Regulation of Freedom of the Press and Other Media:

The Human Rights Considerations; Paper presented at Consultative meeting on Uganda

Media Laws, Kampala.