Tanzania New Media Law The year under review also witnessed the enactment of the new media law in Tanzania - the Media Services Act (MSA) no. 12, 2016 and its regulations of 2017. This long-awaited law comes with stiff challenges and even bigger threats to the entire media industry, and this has triggered a national outcry from both media and human rights defenders and the public at large. The MSA also introduced a new element - which gives the Director of Information Services under section 5(i) the mandate to coordinate all government advertisements and he has a power to determine where to publish on the same. This is excessive power he might use against private media if he feels they are not publishing stories which pleases the state. The MSA has created a number of bodies which in one way or another to undermine the freedom of the media. The Journalist Accreditation Board, whose members are appointed by the Minister under section 12 of the Law has the mandate to accredit and discredit journalists. This body however, works under the instruction of the Minister responsible for information. This is open to abuse, in that, a journalist critical to the government can be removed from the journalists’ roll at any time. Section 52(1) which then talks about “seditious intention” also punishes journalists who publish stories which are regarded seditious.The term is open to interpretation. This could have detrimental effect on investigative journalism. Another body created by the Act is called the Independent Media Council under section 24 of the Act. On the surface it would seem that this body is run by journalists themselves and it has been given powers to, amongst other issues, develop a code of ethics and promote ethical and professional standards. However, all these duties have to be undertaken in collaboration with the Accreditation Board. In the other words, the Accreditation Board, which is under the Minister responsible for Information will act as overseer of the Independent Media Council. In addition to the contentious clauses, the Media Services Act, 2016 and its Regulations have several areas which add value to the media industry. The Act also recognises journalism as a profession by setting standards for the qualifications of journalist. The minimum standards for one to be recognised as a journalist under this Act are to possess a Diploma in Journalism from a recognised institution. Under Section 50(2) of the Act a journalist who operates without accreditation or who has failed to renew his or her license on time due to financial grounds will be liable to a fine of not less than five million shillings or a jail term of not 104 less than three years. The act provides for minimum penalties and fines. So This is Democracy? 2016 The MSA criminalises defamation and this part of the law has been copied from the repealed News Papers Act, 1976. The intention of criminalization of journalists and media fraternity is built under part VII - Offences & Penalties. The Act sets obligations for the print media - e.g. Journalists are required to uphold Tanzanians natural sovereignty, unit, security and both economic and diplomatic interests. The Act requires media to preserve Tanzania cultural value, identity and observe good taste and decency and public morality. Journalists are also required to exercise great care when reporting incidents of torture, ill treatment of people or animals, dead or mutilated bodies, people in extreme pain or at the point of death, molestation or abusive treatment against children. Culture, Artists and Sports, under Nape Nnauye and of Justice and Constitutional Affairs under Dr Harrison Mwakyembe were eventually able to table the two bills in 2016, and have them approved by Parliament and eventually passed. The Media Services Act, 2016 and its Regulations has a number of problematic clauses and numerous stakeholders which include the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) and the Union of Tanzania Press Clubs, have filed a Constitutional case before the High Court of Tanzania and the East African Court of Justice to challenge the constitutionality of the Media Services Act. Despite the fact that the two laws are not of the exact quality that stakeholders wished for, they do have certain sections that have somehow included stakeholders opinions. . . . this has triggered a national outcry from both media and human rights defenders. In 2015, after a silence of almost a decade, push and pull between the media stakeholders and the government, there was a move by the latter to enact two bills, namely the Access to Information Bill 2015 and Media Services Bill 2015 under a certificate of urgency. This move was vehemently opposed by stakeholders, and eventually the Parliament refused to continue with the enactment processes and asked the government to use normal route for enactment of laws which involves public consultations. It was through these consultations and pressure from both within and outside that the Ministries of Information, Free Expression Online Under Massive Scrutiny “Any person who publishes information, data or facts presented in a picture, text, symbol or any other form in a computer system where such information, data or fact is false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate commits an offence, and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not less than three million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than six months or to both”. This is the infamous Section 16 of Tanzania’s Cybercrime Act of 2015. Two citizens who know this law rather intimately are Maxence Mello of Jamii Forums and netizen Isaac Habakuk Emily from Arusha. The two and countless others have appeared in courts on charges of “insulting” the country’s president, John Magufuli or for allegedly misusing the social media. Surprisingly, it has been hard for the state to prove malice in most of these cases, and subsequently their cases have been thrown out by the court. Undoubtedly, 2016 was the year of court cases related to online content. So This is Democracy? 2016 105