COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

NKUMBA UNIVERSITY – KAMPALA CAMPUS

Communication Regulation and Policy

a) Commentary on one of the defamation cases shared – 20 marks
b) A reflection article on the key laws and regulations affecting PR
communication in Uganda – 20 marks.

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

MAPRSC
2200102488
DR. JB IMOKOLA
APRIL 2022
COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

A. Commentary on one of the defamation cases shared – 20 marks

Introduction

Defamation cases in Uganda against Journalists are on the rise. It is essential for journalists to
know that legally, every person is entitled to his/her good name and to the esteem in which
he/she is held by others. It does not matter whether the ‘person’ is a natural or artificial one (e.g.
a company). In defamation suits, the burden of proof lies with the defendant who has to prove his
innocence by showing that; the statement was a matter of truth/fact (or justification), the
statement was actually a fair comment on a matter of public interest and that it was made on a
privileged occasion.

Background/ Facts of the case

The plaintiff (Bigirimana Pius) contended that between the year 2012 and 2015, the
defendants ( The Monitor Publications Ltd, The Managing Director, Managing Editor/Executive
Editor/Editor-In-Chief, The Editor, Sunday Monitor and Andrew Bagala) continuously made
numerous malicious, spiteful, untrue and defamatory publications against him in the daily
Monitor, Saturday monitor and the Sunday monitor under the following title heads;

 Auditors target Bigirimana in cash probe; a publication of 14th October

2012;
 MPs Order Government to remove Bigirimana; a publication of 2nd November 2012;
 Government remains undecided on calls to suspend Bigirimana; a publication of 5th
November 2012;
 MPs give ultimatum over PS Bigirimana; a publication of 7th November 2012;
 Law makers want First Lady to defend self in OPM scam; a publication of 9th November
2012;
 The Treasury Officials accuse OPM PS of covering money scam; A publication of 16th
November 2012;
 Bigirimana contradicts himself on purchase of Ministers’ cars; a publication of 30th
November 2012;
 Bigirimana’s wife acquires shs 250m Mercedes Benz; a publication of 4th December
2012;
 Police to question Bigirimana today; a publication of 28th December 2012;
 Bigirimana refuses to meet detectives; a publication of 29th December 2012;
COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

 OPM inquest hits new set back; a publication of 21st February 2013;
 OPM officials survive lynching; a publication of 7th March 2013;
 Denmark warns of aid cut over OPM scandal; a publication of 26th March
2013;
 Money, Drugs eat up police Force; a publication of 5th November 2017;
 Corruption Ledger; a publication of 10th March 2013-.

Agreed Facts:

The defendants made publications about the plaintiff.

Agreed Issues:

1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants.

2. Whether the defendants’ publications about the plaintiff were defamatory
3. Whether the publication was made on account of qualified privilege.
4. What remedies are available?

The defendants contended mainly that the publications complained of were made on accasion of
qualified privilege which, when established is a complete defence to defamation and libel in
particular for this case.

“Qualified privilege is when a person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty,
legal, social or moral to make it to the person to whom it is made and the person to whom it is
made has a corresponding duty to receive it”. Qualified privileged operates only to protect
statements which are made without malice.1

Analysis

It can be seen that the plaintiff’s counsel provided all the publications that he felt were
defamatory and only concentrated on the most damaging stories in the amended plaint by setting
out the specific words that are defamatory. The amended plaint did not introduce any new cause
of action as the defence counsel seems to suggest but provided further and better particulars to
the original plaint.

The defendants’ in their amended Written Statement of Defence never objected to the amended
plaint as introducing new causes of action outside the limitation period. The court did not agree
with the defence counsel contention and argument that the stories as set out in the amended
plaint were time barred.

1
On the test of the decision in ADAM -vs- WARD [1917] AC 309, as per Lord Atkinson, at
page 334:
COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

The defence counsel submitted that the publications are not defamatory since the defendants had
a social, moral and legal duty to make the publication in that respect to the public which also had
a corresponding moral and social duty to receive the publication and therefore each publication
was made on an occasion of privilege and is not actionable.

In addition the evidence on record clearly shows that the defendants sought to report specifically
about the plaintiff in a way that would show him as the key suspect in the financial scam which
was under investigations. The publications seem to excite the public against the plaintiff to form
bad opinions or exposes him to hatred or ridicule, or injure him in his employment and thus to
cause him to be shunned or avoided in society.

The intention of the defendants in trying to leak what was to be in the final PAC Audit report
before it is tabled in Parliament cannot be taken as an innocent reporting intended to inform the
public under the duty to inform or fight corruption as they have argued. This and other reporting
about the plaintiff where they failed to verify from him implies bad faith and malice that was
intended to impair his reputation in the eyes of the public and thus lower him in the estimation of
the ordinary reader as a corrupt person.

Conclusion

These were the discoveries I made from this defamation case against Monitor and 4 others;

13 of the 15 publications were time barred that is the latest time that a cause arising out of the
publications should have been filed within 6 years of the date of publication based on the
amended plaint. The court however did not agree with the defence counsel argument that the
stories as set out were time barred.

There was a conflict between freedom of expression and the right of the individual to his or her
good name. The court seemed to agree that freedom of expression and the press are effective and
very important instruments for the creation and maintenance of a democratic society. However
the court rejected “press exceptionalism” emphasizing that, because of the critical role that the
media play in modern democratic societies, the law of defamation must leave them free to speak
on matters of public importance- though no more free than other citizens – as fully and openly as
justice can possibly allow.

The defendants did not reach out to the plaintiff for a comment about the articles. This is
standard procedure for any publication about an individual or company to be asked to comment
about the story about them.
COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

B) A reflection article on the key laws and regulations affecting PR communication in

Uganda

Public relations communications are efforts intended to help build trust in the organization and
develop a widespread positive reputation for its brand. These include Public Releases, Public
events, private events, Social media, video content, print material etc.

In researching about the key laws and regulations affecting PR Communication, one thing that
stood out is the fact that I was bombarded with a plethora of laws, policies and regulations which
seem to make PR Communications work rather difficult. However, I will discuss the key ones
below.

Section 180(1) of the Penal Code Act defines a defamatory matter as, “… matter likely to injure
the reputationon of any person by exposing that person to hatred, contempt or ridicule or likely
to damage any person in his or her profession by an injury to his or her reputatation.”

There are three defenses to defamation; Truth; fair comment or privilege.

a. Truth (or Justification) for a defamatory statement to be actionable, is that it must be

false. If statement is a fact then there can be no action for defamation. According to
section 182 of the penal code, “Any publication of a defamatory matter concerning a
person is unlawful within the meaning of this Chapter, UNLESS (a) the matter is true and
it was for the benefit that it should be published.”

This therefore means that the defendant has the burden of proof to prove that the statement made
was true, rather than on the claimant to prove that it was false. This calls for the public relations
officer to ensure that all communications are truthful and able to be defended in court.

b. Fair comment is designed to protect statements of opinion on matters of public concern

and ensures that the public can express themselves freely on matters that affect their
livelihoods.

The defence only applies to comments made on matters of public interest, such as comments on
works of literature, music, art, plays, radio and television; and the activities of public figures. A
four-point test for fair comment has been developed to provide some guidelines. The statement
in question must have been: an opinion, relating to an action, not made against an individual;
and the reader can see the factual basis for the comment and draw his or her own conclusions
and of course lastly; that it relates to a matter of public interest.

c. Privilege recognizes the importance of freedom of expression in certain situations

regardless of how false or malicious the defamatory statement is, it cannot be actionable.
COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

According to section 183(1) of the penal code, “The publication of defamatory matter is
absolutely privileged, and no person in any circumstances be liable to punishment under this
code in respect of such publication, in any of the following cases

 If the matter is published by the President, the Government or Parliament;

 If the matter is published in Parliament by the Government or by any member of that
Parliament or by the Speaker;
 If the matter is published by order of the President or the Government;
 If the matter is published concerning a person subject to military, naval or air force
discipline for the time being and reduces to his or her conduct as a person subject to such
discipline, and is published by some person having authority over him or her in respect of
such conduct and to some person having authority over him or her in respect of such
conduct;

However, that law is increasingly being abused to limit media freedom and silence critical voices
according to a new study by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.The study says among the many
and wide-ranging threats to media freedom that have proliferated in recent years is the mounting
number of legal attacks on journalists and journalism, often used to silence public interest
reporting and exert control.

The report found that defamation remains one of the most serious threats to journalists. It says
defamation laws, both criminal and civil, continue to be used all over the world to prevent open
public debate and shield powerful individuals from legitimate criticism.The Daily Monitor has
just paid three hundred million shillings to President Museveni in settlement of a defamation suit
arising from an article during the COVID-19 pandemic. Museveni donated the money to his
Party NRM.

President Yoweri Museveni signed into law the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022 that
could see citizens who violate the privacy of others, or tarnish their reputation online, sent to a
five-year jail term.According to Nation Media Group journalist Raymond Mujuni, the law will
also affect journalism work, especially investigative journalism.“For investigative reporters, the
law targets secret filming, even if it’s done in public interest. In that regard, it makes a core
component of investigative reporting, which is recording public interest information, illegal,” he
said.

In General it appears that the government is using these laws and policies to protect themselves
to stay in power. Speaking after news came in that the President had signed the Bill into law, Mr
Ssemujju said that President Museveni is always scared of social media because it was used in
Egypt, Tunisia and Sudan to cause regime change. He added that this is the reason social media
is switched off every time there is a general election.

The possibility that these Penal Code provisions regarding defamation may or may not be
constitutional will not stop the state or individuals from suing. It is therefore crucial that
COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND POLICY

MURUNGI JOANNA BAKIMI

journalists and public relations employees in Uganda notify themselves with what constitutes
defamation, even as efforts are underway to decriminalize defamation.