Media should leave probe committee to do its job
Sep 29, 2008
KARORO OKURUT<br><b>A literary and socio-political analyst</b><br><br>One of the most disturbing issues surrounding the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) saga has been the ferociousness with which the warring sides have attacked each other in the media.
KARORO OKURUT
A literary and socio-political analyst
One of the most disturbing issues surrounding the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) saga has been the ferociousness with which the warring sides have attacked each other in the media.
All this is happening while a parliamentary committee investigates inter alia, whether security minister Amama Mbabazi peddled influence to get NSSF buy his and businessman Amos Nzeyi’s Temangalo land at over sh11b.
In the last few weeks we have seen some Members of Parliament (largely members of the ruling party, the NRM) divided into two.
There are those supporting Mbabazi and who say they do not see what wrong he has done, arguing that anybody should be free to sell his land at whatever price and it is up to the seller to take it or leave it.
The anti-Mbabazi camp are sounding the clarion call for his head to roll, saying he is a public official who ought to resign for indiscretion since he did not follow the procurement regulations. To that, the pro-Mbabazi camp is saying that should be the concern of NSSF, not Mbabazi’s, since it is not up to a seller to enforce the regulations governing the buyer’s conduct.
We await the outcome of the committee’s proceedings.
One of the most important and unfortunate results of all this has been to turn the whole event into what our American friends call a media circus.
Media circus, media orgy or media frenzy describes a news event where the media coverage is perceived to be out of proportion to the event being covered, such as the number of reporters at the scene, the amount of news media published or broadcast, and the level of media hype.
Sometimes we have had press conferences, outbursts on FM stations from either camp which border on the theatre of the absurd. All this is not right. Under the Administration of Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act all committees of Parliament have quasi-judicial powers.
This means that the committee investigating the NSSF saga has powers of the High Court and therefore all matters must not be played around with in the media since doing so is tantamount to violating the principle of sub judice.
In law sub judice, Latin for “under judgment†means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. In Britain – whose legal traditions we take after, this means that people are not allowed to discuss issues in the media regarding that case, for fear that they may prejudice the proceedings and outcome and therefore defeat the cause of justice.
In the US there are concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case.
Furthermore, there are still protections for criminal defendants and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned and a fresh, fairer trial ordered. Of course one needs to take a healthy and balanced approach to the principle of sub judice because it is one of the most vulgarised principles.
It is not an absolute provision in the sense that no one may make any comment on the “case at barâ€. The rider is that no one may make any comment if that comment is likely to prejudice the proceedings.
And whereas the debate still continues on whether there is a subjective or objective test to the above, most people choose to err on the side of caution.
In the NSSF matter, it is obvious that the handshake has gone far beyond the elbow – comments of the committee proceedings in the media by both sides have been so daring and reckless that they have broken every rule in the book.
Both sides have gone deep into the merits of the matter, coming up with pre-determined positions.
They have tended to predict the outcome of the proceedings and gone on to speculate what they will do pursuant to which verdict.
Ideally if comments are suggestive of an action that can be taken either before or after the proceedings then it is prejudicial because the judge – or in this case the committee - might be squeezed into or out of a particular position or verdict.
It would have been more useful if anybody with a comment to make went and presented it to the committee – as a witness – instead of going to raise a ruckus in the media.
It reminds one of the controversial diplomacy that has been engaged in the Middle East, where parties are deep into peace talks at the round table – while beating or blowing up each other on the battlefield at the same time!
If these were mainstream court proceedings, the spokesperson of Court would be tasked with calling the warring parties to order. But since they are parliamentary proceedings, under parliamentary rules of procedure the Office of the Speaker of Parliament (or the Chairman of this committee) ought to have called them to order, directing them to steer clear of the media.
All these are learning experiences. Next time we have something like this, the relevant committee should take pre-emptive action to avoid another Theatre of the Absurd and have an orderly inquiry.
A literary and socio-political analyst
One of the most disturbing issues surrounding the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) saga has been the ferociousness with which the warring sides have attacked each other in the media.
All this is happening while a parliamentary committee investigates inter alia, whether security minister Amama Mbabazi peddled influence to get NSSF buy his and businessman Amos Nzeyi’s Temangalo land at over sh11b.
In the last few weeks we have seen some Members of Parliament (largely members of the ruling party, the NRM) divided into two.
There are those supporting Mbabazi and who say they do not see what wrong he has done, arguing that anybody should be free to sell his land at whatever price and it is up to the seller to take it or leave it.
The anti-Mbabazi camp are sounding the clarion call for his head to roll, saying he is a public official who ought to resign for indiscretion since he did not follow the procurement regulations. To that, the pro-Mbabazi camp is saying that should be the concern of NSSF, not Mbabazi’s, since it is not up to a seller to enforce the regulations governing the buyer’s conduct.
We await the outcome of the committee’s proceedings.
One of the most important and unfortunate results of all this has been to turn the whole event into what our American friends call a media circus.
Media circus, media orgy or media frenzy describes a news event where the media coverage is perceived to be out of proportion to the event being covered, such as the number of reporters at the scene, the amount of news media published or broadcast, and the level of media hype.
Sometimes we have had press conferences, outbursts on FM stations from either camp which border on the theatre of the absurd. All this is not right. Under the Administration of Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act all committees of Parliament have quasi-judicial powers.
This means that the committee investigating the NSSF saga has powers of the High Court and therefore all matters must not be played around with in the media since doing so is tantamount to violating the principle of sub judice.
In law sub judice, Latin for “under judgment†means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. In Britain – whose legal traditions we take after, this means that people are not allowed to discuss issues in the media regarding that case, for fear that they may prejudice the proceedings and outcome and therefore defeat the cause of justice.
In the US there are concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case.
Furthermore, there are still protections for criminal defendants and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned and a fresh, fairer trial ordered. Of course one needs to take a healthy and balanced approach to the principle of sub judice because it is one of the most vulgarised principles.
It is not an absolute provision in the sense that no one may make any comment on the “case at barâ€. The rider is that no one may make any comment if that comment is likely to prejudice the proceedings.
And whereas the debate still continues on whether there is a subjective or objective test to the above, most people choose to err on the side of caution.
In the NSSF matter, it is obvious that the handshake has gone far beyond the elbow – comments of the committee proceedings in the media by both sides have been so daring and reckless that they have broken every rule in the book.
Both sides have gone deep into the merits of the matter, coming up with pre-determined positions.
They have tended to predict the outcome of the proceedings and gone on to speculate what they will do pursuant to which verdict.
Ideally if comments are suggestive of an action that can be taken either before or after the proceedings then it is prejudicial because the judge – or in this case the committee - might be squeezed into or out of a particular position or verdict.
It would have been more useful if anybody with a comment to make went and presented it to the committee – as a witness – instead of going to raise a ruckus in the media.
It reminds one of the controversial diplomacy that has been engaged in the Middle East, where parties are deep into peace talks at the round table – while beating or blowing up each other on the battlefield at the same time!
If these were mainstream court proceedings, the spokesperson of Court would be tasked with calling the warring parties to order. But since they are parliamentary proceedings, under parliamentary rules of procedure the Office of the Speaker of Parliament (or the Chairman of this committee) ought to have called them to order, directing them to steer clear of the media.
All these are learning experiences. Next time we have something like this, the relevant committee should take pre-emptive action to avoid another Theatre of the Absurd and have an orderly inquiry.