Access to Information There was a lot of lobbying for the Access to Information Bill and general sensitisation of stakeholders, many of who erroneously believed it is meant for the benefit of the media only. Although the Minister of Information and Civic Education and the Parliamentary Committee on Media and Communication have openly supported the draft bill, it is still a long way from being tabled in the National Assembly. The Access to Information Bill is a crucial piece of legislation enabling scholars, researchers and ordinary citizens to get hold of information necessary for their work but which officials would normally want to keep under wraps. The Government has not been proactive in releasing information of public interest, except where it may be injurious to the reputation of its detractors. For instance, the State House issued a statement accusing former President Bakili Muluzi of giving aid to Sudanese rebels while he was in office. The claim was never substantiated nor was it clear in whose interest this information was being issued. One piece of excellent reporting where a public institution was forced to eat its words was the case of the leakage of the 2007 Malawi School Certificate of Education (MSCE) examinations. The Malawi National Examinations Board (Maneb) insisted its security was watertight and no paper had leaked to the public until The Daily Times published excerpts of as yet unpublished examination papers. It is not clear what secrecy code the newspaper breached in breaking this story. Other legislation There is greater danger of self-censorship than outside censorship. An excellent example was the luncheon with President Mutharika. TVM broadcast the conference live, but for whatever reason, in its evening rebroadcast the station carefully edited out all the questions, leaving the President giving answers to questions no one knew. TVM was forced to make another rebroadcast in which they took the President out of the vacuum and appropriately provided him with questions to answer. Most of the censorship we see in the press is of this kind, from overzealous editors and producers trying to carry favour with the powers that be. The courts have maintained their independence in dealing with cases involving the media. The Lilongwe Magistrate’s court ruled against Njobvuyalema in his assault on Kashoti and awarded Kashoti damages. The MP appealed against the ruling. His conviction could lead to his losing his seat in Parliament. The appeal is yet to be heard. The laws governing the licensing of radio and television stations are also unreasonable. The law under the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (Macra) Act forbids dual ownership, making it impossible for anyone to operate both radio and television. This piece of legislation, which was originally intended to check on unscrupulous monopoly in media ownership, has had the undesired effect of blocking potential investors in their tracks. Individual politicians wanted to perpetuate the myth that they are a cut above ordinary mortals and therefore above the law, but the courts often trimmed them to size, to the general acclaim of the judicial system. Broadcasting Macra remains the only regulator and its independence has been challenged by various stakeholders, especially the independent media houses, which have suffered the brunt of its terror. It is the sole authority that issues broadcast licences and frequencies. There are indications that Macra would like to see some of its draconian regulations changed. So This Is Democracy? 2007 -45- Media Institute of Southern Africa