SECTOR 1 “The government and head of state are concerned about their public image.” One reason for the general lack of vocal lobbying on issues of freedom of expression is the “very real risk of losing our own freedom”. “We will always choose to stay out of jail so our presence as activists is very superficial.” Scores: Individual scores: 1 Country does not meet indicator 2 Country meets only a few aspects of indicator 3 Country meets some aspects of indicator 4 Country meets most aspects of indicator 5 Country meets all aspects of the indicator Average score: 2.5 (2005: 2.1; 2007: 2.3; 2009: 2.2; 2011: 2.2) 1.11 Media legislation evolves from meaningful consultations among state institutions, citizens and interest groups. In general, there is no meaningful consultation on media legislation among state and civil society actors, including media advocacy groups. “Apart from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, the five other media-related bills formulated in 2006 (of which only one has been passed, see indicator 1.3) came from the top, with no consultation. Even so, the consultation is just about the state ‘ticking the box’ and civil society suggestions were not taken on board. The final product was not a true reflection of the discussion.” However, intervention from media stakeholders prevented the passing of the Media Commission Bill, which if legislated would have created a statutory media council. This bill was endorsed by Cabinet and opened to parliamentary debate in 2011. Media stakeholders objected to the Bill and drafted a charter for selfregulation, which led to the establishment of the self-regulatory Swaziland Media Complaints Commission that same year. The Standing Orders of the House of Assembly in relation to parliamentary procedure on public Bills state, “…No bill except an appropriation bill originating AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER Swaziland 2014 27