SECTOR 1 enabling any other thing to be done which promotes or preserves the national interest in general. Unlike the generally agreed principle which considers the constitution as the supreme law, panellists pointed out that when it comes to rights and freedoms, the Tanzanian Constitution was incapacitated. They repeatedly cited Section 30 (5) of the constitution, which they said made it difficult to claim constitutional rights and freedoms as it gives judges the power to overrule the constitution where there is perceived conflict of interest. The section states that: Where in any proceedings it is alleged that any law enacted or any action taken by the Government or any other authority abrogates or abridges any of the basic rights, freedoms and duties set out in Articles 12 to 29 of this Constitution, and the High Court is satisfied that the law or action concerned, to the extent that it conflicts with this Constitution, is void, or is inconsistent with this Constitution, then the High Court, if it deems fit, or if the circumstances or public interest so requires, instead of declaring that such law or action is void, shall have power to decide to afford the Government or other authority concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned within such a period and in such manner as the High Court shall determine, and such law or action shall be deemed to be valid until such time the defect is rectified or the period determined by the High Court lapses, whichever is the earlier. In addition to loopholes in the constitution, panellists noted that numerous pieces of legislation have been passed and are frequently enforced that infringe on constitutional provisions granting freedom of expression. The most notorious include the Cybercrimes Act and The Prisons Act. Some of these laws have emerged more recently and notably include the Media Services Act of 2016, which has reintroduced crimes of sedition and criminal defamation, including the defamation of dead persons. Panellists said the general trend has been the enactment of more repressive laws that stood in the way of the full exercise of freedom of expression and of the media. Citing the Media Services Act as an example, one panellist said, ‘The Newspaper Act (1976), which was considered repressive, was replaced with an even more repressive Media Services Act. We asked for bread and got a snake instead.’ In summary, panel discussions revealed that even though the constitution recognises freedom of expression as a right, it fails to protect these rights, does not account for freedom of the media and has left room for other legislation that can infringe on these rights to flourish. A more progressive constitution, which grants freedom of the media, has been locked away and holds little promise of changing the landscape anytime soon. Scores: Individual scores: 12 AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER TANZANIA 2019