SECTOR 1 1.3 There are no laws or parts of laws restricting freedom of expression such as excessive official secret, libel acts, legal requirements that restrict the entry into the journalistic profession or laws that unreasonably interfere with the functions of media. There are several laws that negate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. Amongst these are the Cinematography Act, the Public Services Act, the Media Practitioners Act, the National Security Act, the Cybercrime and Computer Related Crimes Act of 2007 and the Corruption and Economic Crime Act of 1994; Sections 50 and 51 of the Penal Code on seditious offences, Sections 90 to 92 of the Penal Code containing provisions on insult laws, and Sections 192 to 199 of the Penal Code providing for criminal defamation. ‘It is a mark of authoritarianism when you have a whole list of legal instruments that take away what the Constitution attempts to entrench. According to my last count, there are about five pieces of legislation that take away what the Constitution attempts to guarantee, so that in the end there is hardly any freedom of expression,’ pointed out one panellist. While most laws have not been used; citizens have, however, been charged with sedition. Alleged defamation usually results in civil cases or administrative action, due to the fact that criminal cases are lengthy; ‘if you wait for the criminal case to take its course and complete...you may close the door’ for disciplinary action which ‘must be taken within a reasonable period of time.’ The standards of proof in a civil case are also lower. ‘If, for instance, a person is not found guilty by the court of law that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person will not be found liable in a civil case.’ In 2016, Sonny Serite, a freelance journalist ‘who was found in possession of a ‘stolen file,’ was arrested by the DISS for obtaining documents that allegedly contained state secrets from government employee Abueng Sebola. It was alleged that the file contained documents with personal information on Tsaone Nkarabeng, one of Khama’s personal secretaries at the time.7 Both alleged perpetrators ‘spent a weekend in prison...and they [later] appeared in court and were given bail. I understand an administrative decision was taken against the [government] employee,’ recalled a panellist. Sebola and Serite were charged under Section 317 of the Penal Code, which contains provisions for receiving stolen property.8 The charges against Serite were 7 8 12 http://amabhungane.co.za/article/2016-03-22-botswana-intelligence-detain-journalist-after-corruption-stories. http://amabhungane.co.za/article/2016-03-22-botswana-intelligence-detain-journalist-after-corruption-stories. AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER BOTSWANA 2018