A recent judgment by Justice Ijaz Nisar of the Lahore High Court has warmed the cockles of many hearts in the press. Adjudicating as a referee in a case of alleged defamation of a politician by a newspaper, the good judge brushed aside the complaint on the basis of a number of weighty considerations.
Justice Nisar’s brilliant conclusions bear reporting because they are a blow in favour of press freedom and public interest. First, a distinction has been made between alleged defamation of politicians (who lie in the public domain and who have been offered a chance to rebut the allegations in the media) and others (whose livelihood depends on their professional work which is alleged to have been damaged). Second, in order to prove defamation, the complainant must also demonstrate malice or personal ill-will on the part of the press. Third, since public men are public property, a discussion or criticism of their public conduct in the press is to be welcomed in the public interest instead of being curbed or restrained in any manner. Fourth, the right of the people to speak through a free press is a hallmark of democracy. Fifth, those who seek financial compensation against proven defamation cannot claim any right to a “bounty”, especially if they are unable to explain or justify the computation of financial damages demanded.
This judgment will have an important bearing on all cases where the press is simply a public purveyor of the charges and counter-charges traded by politicians against one another. It means that if a politician accuses another of anything, and the press reports the allegations faithfully, it is the accusing politician and not the press who can be charged with defamation.
If this judgment is seen in the context of the Supreme Court’s recent intervention to cut down the executive to size, it is clear that the judiciary now intends to stand up boldly and uphold the cause of press freedom and public accountability. This is exactly the way the framers of the constitution would have wanted these two pillars of the public interest to act in the face of innately despotic and corrupt “public representatives”.
The Pakistani press, however, needs additional protection by the judiciary if it is expected to play its true role as a guardian of public interest. In the tug-of-war between the press and the executive, the latter is constantly trying to browbeat, cajole and bribe the press into submission. Although we have bravely tried to hold our own, the ground is slipping from our feet once again. Let us refer you to some ominous developments.
1. Ms Benazir Bhutto, Mr Asif Zardari, and members of the ruling party have been quick to despatch legal notices or initiate proceedings against a number of independent papers and journalists. In some cases, they have even had the gall to use the official resources of the state to do their personal bidding.
2. In 1994, the Bhutto government tried to chain the press by proposing a new law on a so-called “code of conduct” by the press. Outraged, the press vowed to defy such a law if it were passed. Our argument was that in the absence of a specific law on the code of conduct of politicians, there was no need for such a law relating to the press.
3. Since it was rebuffed, the government has opened new fronts against us. It has outrightly denied advertisements and newsprint to papers it doesn’t like. Now it appears set to implement a far more dangerous policy. Far from taming the press, it wants to positively harness it for its own vested interests. This is to be done, for example, by linking implementation of the Wage Board award to the grant of advertisements and newsprint. The Wage Board militates against the letter and spirit of free enterprise in a market economy. There is no Wage Board in any industry except the newspaper sector. It is time the existence of the Wage Board was challenged and the government stopped from using it to control the press.
4. Pakistan’s leading newspaper — “Dawn” — faces a life or death struggle. A dastardly attempt is underway to sow doubt about its ownership and transfer control of the paper to a group backed by a notorious VVIP in Islamabad. All sorts of vicious pressures are being brought to bear on the owners and their families, leaving no doubt about who is behind it all. If, God forbid, “Dawn” should fall into the wrong hands or be forced to compromise its editorial independence, it will only be a matter of time before this marauding VVIP strikes against some paper or the other in the Punjab by bringing the same strategy to bear upon its owner.
The press and the judiciary must therefore make common cause to resist encroachments on their integrity and freedom. Both institutions are defenders of the public interest. Together they must shoulder the responsibility of holding power-hungry politicians accountable. And damned be him who first cries “Hold. Enough!”