TINYANGA, CHURCHES SLAM ESCCOM BROADCASTING CODE

MANZINI – Churches and traditional healers have fired back at ESCCOM’s proposed Broadcasting Code, which, if approved, could be a nightmare to their businesses.

The Eswatini Communications Commission (ESCCOM), through a General Notice No.4 of 2020, published a proposed decision in terms of Section 32 of the ESCCOM Act of 2013; the ESCCOM Broadcasting Code for consultation.

Churches and traditional healers have viewed the draft of the Broadcasting Code as a move by ESCCOM to ban them from airing their programmes on electronic media.

Unethical

This is because of sections in Article A  four of the Code, which talks about advertising.  Article 4.1.13 says it is unethical and not allowed for certain professions to advertise. The professions, as listed in the Code are physicians, lawyers, dentists, osteopaths, chiropractors, herbalists, traditional doctors, occultists, optometrists and others of a similar nature. 

Again, Article 4.1.14 says commercial communications for fortune tellers, magicians, psychic services, among others, are acceptable where the service is evidently for entertainment purposes only and this is made clear in the communication. 

Meanwhile, Article 4.1.15 says claims that future events may be predicted, other than as a matter of opinion, are not permitted. 

“Claims to make contact with deceased persons are not permitted and claims pertaining to matters of health, cures, curing and/or healing are not permitted,” reads Article 4.1.16 and 4.1.17 of the Code respectively.

Once more, Article 4.1.18 reads: “No broadcasting service provider shall promote the use of witchcraft.”

Furthermore, Article 4.1.19 says no broadcasting service provider shall host a witchdoctor for purposes of promoting his/her witchcraft practices, while Article 4.1.20 is to the effect that no broadcasting service provider station should be used to advertise the services of a witchdoctor or giving directions to people to visit a certain witchdoctor.

Moreover, in Article 4.1.21, the draft of the Broadcasting Code says no person shall use a broadcasting service provider station to use witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, conjuration, knowledge of an occult or crafty science to tell fortunes, recover stolen property, give luck and wealth, cast out misfortunes or curing certain diseases.

“No broadcasting service provider station shall broadcast a programme that promotes the practice of necromancy (the supposed practice of communicating with the dead, especially in order to predict the future),”reads Article 4.1.22 of the proposed Code.

As per Section 32 of the ESCCOM Act of 2013, stakeholders and interested persons were allowed to make comments on the proposed decision of the commission. The deadline for the written submissions was August 28, 2020.

When reacting to the proposed Code, the Witchdoctors Association said it overlooked their constitutional rights. In that regard, they called upon the commission to take the proposed Code and go back to the drawing board in order to align it with the Constitution.

In their submissions, which were signed by their national chairman, Makhanya Makhanya, the traditional doctors said while the commission was enjoined to develop certain regulatory standards of the broadcasting industry by enabling statute, such functions should be executed within the confines of the law.

They said it was correctly stated in the Notice that the proposed Code would act as a gap filler in the regulatory regime, they were of the view that it would have been in the interest of parties to introduce a legislative amendment to the principal law, rather than to present a Code, which they termed controversial.

“The limitations are serious and border on unconstitutionality,” the traditional doctors said.

They argued that the broadcasters’ freedom to broadcast would be affected and likewise the stakeholders’ rights, who use the broadcasting houses to promote or share their practices and trades.

In fact, Articles 4.1.13 and 4.1.22 were the most controversial ones, according to the association. They said Section 23 of the Constitution makes provision of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. They said it was on the basis of such constitutional provisions that they felt the commission ought to have initiated a legislative approach to enable the Legislature to ventilate the limitations contained in the draft of the Code.

Again, they said Section 24 of the Constitution provides for the freedom of expression and opinion. They said it also provides for freedom to communicate without interference to the public generally or to a class of people. “Section 14 states that fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution are declared and guaranteed. Therefore any attempt to tamper with these rights and freedoms, is viewed as contrary to public morality in the first place and unconstitutional in the main vein,” the traditional doctors submitted.

Discrimination 

Furthermore, they argued that in Section 20 (3) of the Constitution, there is a definition of ‘discrimination’ for the purposes of equality in their enjoyment of the above mentioned rights and freedoms, especially to practice their trade and religion.

In that regard, the traditional doctors said they hoped their contribution would warrant a further consultative process with all the affected stakeholders, either as individuals or group formations. However, they said a survey or study would be more effective, especially during the COVID-19 period.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: