Iraq27 March 2004
Reporters Without Borders calls on the US Army to investigate death of Iraqi ABC cameraman
Reporters Without Borders has called on the US Army to open an immediate investigation into the death of Iraqi cameraman Bourhan Mohammad al-Louhaybi, who was shot in the head while working for the American ABC television network. The cameraman was killed while covering clashes between US forces and groups of armed Iraqis in Falluja, 50 kilometres west of Baghdad on 26 March.
The international press freedom organisation, which expressed shock and anger at his death, said that a doctor at Falluja general hospital had told Agence France-Presse that the bullet that killed the cameraman was "identical to those we have seen in other cases of people wounded by US soldiers".
ABC News confirmed the death of al-Louhaybi, 34, on its website. The cameraman had reportedly wanted to go on filming the clashes against the advice of some of his colleagues. Four other Iraqis were killed during the combat.
Calling for an immediate US Army investigation into the circumstances of this very serious incident, Reporters Without Borders said that if it turned out the cameraman had been hit by an American bullet it would bring to seven the number of journalists killed by US forces in the last year.
The organisation called on the US Army Chief of Staff to promptly send very clear orders to its troops about protection of civilians, particularly journalists, during clashes.
Elsewhere, the US weekly Time Magazine has confirmed the death of one of its Iraqi interpreters, Omar Hashim Kamal, who died in Baghdad on 26 March after being shot in circumstances that are still unclear.
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION – A CLEANSING EFFECT
E.C. Thomas*
The fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression is meaningless without authentic requisite information about issues and subjects on which opinions are to be formed and expressed. The right to information is, therefore, implicit in the right to free speech and is as much fundamental. Parliament has now enabled the citizens to exercise their fundamental right of free speech and information.
Therefore, there are reasons to cheer the passage of the much awaited Freedom of Information Bill – 2002, an important landmark in the history of Indian democracy. The Bill grants statutory right to the citizens to access information from the Government. The legislation is in accord with both Article 19 of the Constitution as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Piloting the Bill in the Rajya Sabha on December 16, 2002, the Minister of State for Personnel and Public Grievances allayed apprehensions expressed by some members that the new law was in conflict with the Official Secrets Act and that the measure would mean little in the absence of an independent and accountable body. The two-tier departmental appellate authority would address grievances and, in addition, its decision would be open to challenge in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
With the passage of the Bill, India is now among the 20 countries to have legislated a measure, which is in the direction of providing transparency, openness and accountability in government functioning. Even though the need for right to information has been widely recognized in the country, there was no specific law to assure the public access to information. In many quarters, fears have been expressed about the possible impact of such a law and the costs if might impose on public agencies in terms of time and money.
Background
The legislation is the result of a long and consistent effort to make the citizens’ right to know a reality. Of late the demand for greater openness and transparency in administration has gained momentum. Further, a consensus was evolved among the political parties on the need to legislate on the right to information. The Common Minimum Programme of the present Government specifically mentions its commitment to introduce a legislation on freedom of information. Moreover, some of the State governments including Goa, Rajastahn, Karnataka and Delhi had already enacted legislation for right to information.
The need to enact a law on the right to information was recognized by the Chief Ministers’ Conference on "Effective and Responsive Government" held in early 1997 at New Delhi. In its 38th Report relating to Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs recommended that the Government should take measures to enact such a legislation. The Government appointed a Working Group on Right to Information and Promotion of Open and Transparent Government under the chairmanship of Shri H.D. Shourie. The Working Group was asked to examine the feasibility and need for either full-fledged Right to Information Act or its introduction in a phased manner to meet the needs of open and responsive governance and also examine the framework or rules with reference to the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and Manual of Office Procedure. The Shourie Committee submitted its Report in May 1997 along with a draft Freedom of Information Bill to the Government. The draft Bill was subsequently deliberated upon by a Group of Ministers constituted by the Central Government to ensure that free flow of information was available to the public, while protecting the national interest, sovereignty and integrity of India.
In our present democratic framework, free flow of information for the citizens and non-government institutions suffers from several bottlenecks including the existing legal framework, lack of infrastructure at the grassroot levels and an atitude of secrecy within the civil services as a result of the old framework of rules.
Provisions
The legislation now enables the citizens to have access to information under the control of public authorities on a statutory basis. Under Clause-3 of the Bill, every citizen has the right to freedom of information. Some intelligence agencies, however, are exempted from providing information. Obligation is cast upon every public authority under Clause-4 to provide information and to maintain all records consistent with its operational requirements, duly catalogued and published at such intervals as prescribed by the competent authority.
The Bill also provides for appointment of one or more officers as Public Information Officer to deal with requests for information by the citizens on payment of a certain fee. Information means any material in any form relating to the administration, operations or decisions of a public authority.
The provisions of Official Secrets Act of 1923 and every other Act in force shall cease to be operative to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the provisions of Freedom of Information Bill.
The Bill provides numerous exemptions which place unreasonable restrictions on the right to information. These exemptions include various aspects of decision making and execution which should be open to public review because they affect the lives of people and involve the way their money paid as taxes is spent. In no way they compromise the security, integrity and sovereignty of the nation or its external relations.
Benefit
The right to information will be an important aid in ensuring transparent administration of public affairs and will help expose corruption and nepotism to ensure a clean administration. It will strengthen the mechanism of accountability of those using public funds and exercising public power. The media, the social activist groups, the Lokpal and the judiciary will be able to discharge their duties as watchdogs of the society effectively. This will also strengthen and make the working of the democratic regime in the country efficient.
It is now widely recognized that openness and accessibility of people to information about the government’s functioning is a vital component of democracy. In all free societies, the veil of secrecy that has traditionally shrouded activities of governments is being progressively lifted and this has had a salutary effect on the functioning of governments. In most democratic countries, the right of people to know is a well established right created under the law. It is a right that has evolved with the maturing of the democratic form of governance.
Democracy is no longer perceived as a form of government where the participation of people is restricted merely to periodical exercise of the right of franchise, with the citizens retiring into passivity between elections. It has now a more positive and dynamic content with people having a say in how and by what rules they would be governed. Meaningful participation of people in major issues affecting their lives is now a vital component of the democratic governance and such participation can hardly be effective unless people have information about the way government business is transacted. Democracy means choice and a sound and informed choice is possible only on the basis of knowledge.
Modern democracy embraces a wider and more direct concept of accountability. The trend is towards accountability in terms of standards of performance and service delivery, of public agencies to the citizens they are required to serve. Such accountability is possible only when public have access to information relating to the functioning of these agencies. Finally, transparency and openness in functioning have a cleansing effect on the operations of these agencies. As such, it has been aptly said sunlight is the best disinfectant. (keralamonitor.com)
*Freelance Journalist
Iran: Press Crackdown Intensifies
(New York, January 15, 2003) — Human Rights Watch today deplored Iran’s closure of two leading independent newspapers on Saturday and called on the authorities to permit them to reopen without delay.
“Iran’s remaining independent press has been a key public forum, such as the public debate about parliament’s efforts to limit the power of the Council of Guardians,” said Joe Stork, Washington director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch.
On January 11, 2003, branch 1408 of the Tehran Public Court ordered the suspension of Bahar (Spring), a daily newspaper, “until further
notice.” In a letter to Ahmad Majed Jamei, the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the court stated that the newspaper “insulted the
authorities,” without any elaboration. The managing director of Bahar, Saeid Pour-Azizi, is the General Director of President Khatami’s Office
on Information and News.On the same day, the Special Court for the Clergy ordered the closure of Hayate-No for publishing a caricature showing former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt pressing his thumb to the head of a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The cartoon was originally published in the United States sixty-five years ago. The court claimed that the image of the judge—who is elderly, bearded and wearing a black robe—bore a resemblance to the late leader, Ayatollah Khomenini.
The cartoon was published last week with little reaction but in response to the court decision, hundreds of conservative seminary students in Qom, a religious city in central Iran, demonstrated to condemn publication, and religious seminaries throughout Iran were ordered
closed on Sunday to protest the alleged insult. “The conservatives have seized on any pretext to shut the forum provided
by the press down,” said Stork. Stork noted that before its closure, Bahar had reported on funding of Iran’s television broadcast organization, which is accountable only to the Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Another recent Bahar report concerned the purchase by the Alzahra Society, a charitable foundation whose board includes two high ranking members of the Council of
Guardians, of hundred millions of rials of stocks.The public court summoned for hearing the managing director of Bahar, Hadi Khamenei, himself a cleric and parliamentarian and a strong
opponent of the policies of his brother, the Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.The Special Court for Clergy also ordered the prosecution of all involved in publishing the cartoon. The Iran New Agency (IRNA) has
reported that on Sunday, two members of the editorial board of Hayate-No, Alireza Eshraghi and Rahman Ahmadi, had been arrested. Their
whereabouts are not known. Under Iranian law, only the Press Supervisory Board within the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance can order the closure of newspapers and magazines. However, in practice since April 2000, more than 90 newspapers have been closed on the orders of judicial officials. “Iran’s Judiciary continues to restrict free expression in violation of Iranian law and international human rights law,” Stork said. “Bahar and Hayate-No should be permitted to reopen immediately and those arrested in connection with these bogus charges should be released.” (keralamonitor.com)
