Reviewing this year’s alerts, it can be said that democracy is being enacted within reasonable standards where the media is concerned, because, any intimidations, violations of journalist’s rights or abuse of freedom of the press have been taken to appropriate proceedings. The ruling press laws in Mozambique didn’t permit any closure or withdrawal of an operating licence. Legislative Environment In 2003, there were no changes on the legislation related to the media. The gaps identified in the Press Law, concerning the need to have specific laws and regulations for broadcasters, advertising and community broadcasters continued being subject to debate, and there are no apparent disagreements between government entities, and professional organisations on the subject. Of more interest in the relationship between the media and Government is freedom of speech and the continuing dialogue between media practitioners and the constituted powers, which will lead to a more informed public opinion capable of applying pressure for citizen interests. The term “legal threat” to the media does not characterize the conflicts that occurred in 2003. This is due to the interventions on the part of the media themselves, on one hand and, on the other, to growing recognition and public opinion, that media practitioners are part of the democratic process and have the task of being alert to social problems and human rights violations with the purpose to inform the public. Constitutional Liberties Freedom of speech and of the press achieved unprecedented growth, and enhanced the demand and enjoyment of other rights and fundamental liberties of the citizenry. This in turn contributed to the emergence of a more informed public opinion. The media performed a So This Is Democracy? 2003 54 Media Institute of Southern Africa BOTSWANA LESOTHO MALAWI MOZAMBIQUE NAMIBIA However, these cases should not be confused with the consequences faced by journalists for having clearly offended and defamed individuals and institutions, under cover of professionalism. In the latter category of offences, a Savana journalist was assaulted and a Imparcial journalist was detained at Maputo Airport and later sued (see 2003 alert). SOUTH AFRICA Worrying aspects during this period were acts of aggression against and the detention of media practitioners while performing their duties, perpetrated by the ruling party’s militants in the election campaign and, in other circumstances, the obstruction of coverage of public interest events, as well as intimidation and persecution against journalists following “hot cases”. SWAZILAND The ensuing dialogue between the media and the High Court brought into the public domain the conflict between the institutions. The Zambeze brought into question the mandate and competence of the CSCS thereby justifying its non-attendance to appear before the Commission and in so doing, averting much-needed discussion of professionalism and ethical conduct in the media in Mozambique. TANZANIA The High Court, on 2003 judicial opening, on the CSCS summoning on the weekly Zambeze editor, concerning the publication of a text, which was proved to be a false sentence of the “Carlos Cardoso” case. ZIMBABWE ZAMBIA During 2003, the Mozambican Government didn’t assume any overt posture that could be seen as a direct confrontation or concealment against the media and there is no record of a publication or journalist having been taken to court for supposed offences. Certain sectors of public opinion however did consider that there were indeed violations on freedom of the press. ANGOLA State of the media in Southern Africa - 2003