On February 2, 2006 Angola’s National Assembly approved a new press law, which entered into force on May 15. The law regulates the activity of media companies and professionals in television and radio broadcasting and in the written and electronic press. Given the Angolan government’s poor record in protecting freedom of expression, the press law is especially crucial in the current pre-election period to ensure that the press can report freely in the run-up to national elections, tentatively scheduled for 2007. Notwithstanding this, the new law still contains elements that fall short of international human rights standards. It defines certain conduct as “criminal” in unclear and sweeping terms, and establishes excessive penalties for those crimes, including defamation; it includes provisions that may result in excessive limitations on media freedom; and it provides for the establishment of licensing procedures for private television and radio broadcasters that are largely subject to the discretion of governmental bodies. In addition, too many key principles and procedures of the law are left for further implementing laws and regulations and no transitional arrangements are defined to address problems that may arise in the application of the law pending adoption of the implementing legislation. The lack of such laws and regulations makes several provisions of the new press law largely inoperable. The debate around South Africa’s Film and Publications Act is set to proceed in 2007. Media freedom watchdogs have warned that print and broadcast media could be the subject of strict censorship if changes to the act proposed by the home affairs department became law. The Film and Publications Act regulates films and publications by censorship, and currently has a clause that exempts the news media from its provisions, enabling print and broadcast news to operate without interference. The proposed amendment includes bringing news media under the act, which means both print and broadcast media would be subjected to the dictates of the Film and Publications Board, a censorship body. As such the effect of the amendment would be the subjection of the media to prepublication censorship. Putting our houses in order The preoccupation of SADC governments with perceived declining professional media standards – a clear attempt to exert more control over the media – was reported throughout the region. Such threats were most evident in Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland and, while they should not translate into a frantic rush for the formulation of codes of ethics and establishment of self-regulatory bodies, such mechanisms do ultimately benefit the media and potentially regain deteriorating levels of public confidence in the sector. In Zimbabwe, despite attempts by the government to impede the launch of a voluntary media council, journalists have expressed their commitment to a process that began in 2005, spearheaded by the Zimbabwean Union of Journalists (ZUJ) under the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ). The MAZ alliance unites MISA Zimbabwe, the Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe, the National Editors’ Forum and ZUJ. In contrast, the prospects for unity over issues like a code of ethics and a media council remain in doubt in Namibia. This despite recurring indications by government that it would consider legal controls if the media did not ‘put its Annual Report 2007 21