• Neither the existing NCC Act, not the Draft Communications Bill, make provision for an independent mechanism for hearing public complaints about broadcast media, as envisaged in the AC Declaration. Both the existing Act, and prospective Bill, provide for the broadcast of counter-versions in the event that something aired by a private broadcaster is false, but nothing more. Protection of sources (see Table 8, Appendix 3) The main principles of the Protocol and Declarations with regard to this theme are as follows: • • Protection of sources goes hand in hand with access to information. For there to be effective public access to information held by public bodies, those working for public bodies need to feel free to disclose information to the public in general, and the media in particular, if it is in the public interest so to do. With the media being a main conduit for information, the AC Declaration also states that journalists should not be required to reveal confidential sources of information unless in accordance with principles outlined in the Declaration. The main findings in the analysis are that: • • • • There currently exists very little protection for those disclosing information on legitimate grounds outlined in the AC Declaration. The 2003 Anti-Corruption Commission Act protects witnesses from having to disclose the identity or address of anyone who helps the Commission in an investigation. However, this protection appears only to apply to those assisting the Commission with their official investigations, and does not seem to extend to protecting the source of a journalist who may have uncovered corruption independently of the Commission. In terms of the 2004 Criminal Procedures Act, a court can summarily sentence a witness to a jail term of up to five years for refusing to answer questions or to produce documents without “just excuse”. “Just excuse” is open to broad interpretation, and provides little protection to, for example, a journalist wanting to protect a confidential source. In this respect, the 2004 Act is similar to the 1977 Criminal Procedures Act, under which journalists were threatened with imprisonment when refusing to disclose confidential sources of information. Therefore the Act does not conform to the clearly defined conditions laid down in the AC Declaration that determine the circumstances under which a journalist may be required to disclose a confidential source. Similar powers to direct a witness to disclose confidential sources of information are afforded to the Minister of Mines and Energy by the 1999 Diamond Act, and the Security Commission in terms of the 2001 Security Commission Act. Again, no protection is given to journalists not wishing to disclose confidential sources of information. Conceivably, other legislation may likewise give Ministers and Commissions the power to conduct inquiries and hearings into matters affecting their ministries. However, the Diamond and Security Commission Acts were the only such law to come to light during this study. Public meetings and open government (See Table 9, Appendix 3) The main principles of the Protocol and Declarations with regard to this theme are as follows: • Again this is linked closely with the issue of disclosure and the right to access information, in that making the meetings and proceedings of government and other public bodies open assists members of the public to enjoy their right to access information. The main findings in the analysis are that: • Existing legislation governing public bodies tends to be silent on these issues. There are few – if any - laws requiring public bodies to hold their meetings in public. Namibia Media Law Audit – report final draft 27