Redefining the public interest: the scandal of Kenyan media

On New Year's Eve, as protesters barricaded roads and civil strife was setting in, many Kenyans were outraged at the last-minute altering of election results that gave incumbent President Kibaki victory. Mass protests erupted across the country soon after Electoral Commission Chairman Samuel Kivuitu announced that Kibaki had indeed won the election.

A day earlier, the lights had literally gone out on Kenya. In what was easily the most tense and exhilarating moment in the country's history, every Kenyan with a television sat riveted in front of it. They were watching the drama of Mr Kivuitu reading out the last set of constituency results that would determine who would be Kenya's next president.

Politicians from the opposition Orange Democratic Movement were raising vigorous objections to changes in some election figures that had been agreed on jointly by all parties at the constituency level before being relayed to ECK headquarters for national tallying. Suddenly, the screens of all television channels went dark, except that of the state broadcaster, KBC. Hours later, as ODM presidential candidate at the election, Mr Raila Odinga, was doing a live press conference, the plug was again pulled. Then all live news broadcasts were outlawed.

Hours to Mr Kivuitu's announcement, independent tallying of ECK results broadcast on all media had shown Mr Odinga leading Kibaki by nearly one million votes. In its short message service, the Nation Group showed Mr Odinga leading with 4.3 million votes to Kibaki's 3.7 million just hours to the final declaration. The Royal Media Services showed a similar margin. Mr Odinga's lead was expected to fall marginally as results from some Kibaki strongholds not yet tallied trickled in.

Then the unexpected happened. The last batch of results announced at the KICC tallying centre indicated huge inconsistencies from the ones announced at constituencies. As the European Union observer mission indicated in its report, its representative in Molo in the former White Highlands witnessed the recording of 50,000 votes for Kibaki, but the result announced in Nairobi gave him nearly 75,000 votes.

Many constituency results were rigged in Kibaki's favour by simply crossing his numbers from the field and inserting higher figures. Overall, ODM said that at least 750,000 votes were stolen this way; that the 230,000 margin announced for Mr Kibaki camouflaged a 500,000 vote victory for Mr Odinga.
The announcement was followed by a hurried swearing-in ceremony for Kibaki at State House, Nairobi. Spontanous demonstrations erupted throughout the country, with youths barricading roads in Mombasa, Nairobi, Kisumu, Eldoret and other towns. They chanted pro-ODM slogans, expressing outrage at Mr Kivuitu's act and declaring not to rest until the person they believed won the election took over at State House.

At constituency level, where doctoring results is much harder, voters ejected an astounding 20 of Kibaki's Cabinet Ministers. Kibaki's own party won only 43 seats in the new Parliament, less than half of ODM's 99 in a 210-member house. To many, this was an astounding rejection of the government, and undermined any claim that it could have legitimately won the presidential poll.

In the circumstances, it was going to be difficult governing a disenchanted nation. The ban on live coverage was clearly intended to frustrate ODM whose leaders had detailed blow-by-blow the extent changes were being made to official documents at the KICC. Mr Kivuitu's behaviour during the three days of protracted counting (the exercise took a day in three previous elections) lent credence to Opposition fears that ECK was aiding the rigging. "I can't reach many of my officers from Central province, some have switched off their phones, they are cooking figures somewhere," he told an international press conference on December 29. Curiously, those very officers had released results for parliamentary and civic elections conducted simultaneously.

Gradually, the chairman himself had become something of an irritant. In response to a questioner at one point, Mr Kivuitu said that he would not fear his actions plunging Kenya into chaos, because, if anything, "I would also burn with it." Police finally evacuated the ECK offices of everybody (including journalists and observers) from the centre before Mr Kivuitu announced Kibaki the winner on KBC. Henceforth, all news was recorded by KBC for private media.

Outside the tallying centre and throughout the country, tension was rising, and the media, acting instinctively in consorts with the Commission, sudenly halted broadcasting their own tallies without explanation. In the meantime, more and more Kenyans were pouring onto the streets. They were always not going to accept that the man they are convinced won the election should be kept from assuming power. There was bitter anger in much of the republic, and violence immediately seized the nation.

Looking back now, this was just part of the problem. Almost immediately, much of the electronic media, the very media that had shown Mr Odinga in the lead, inundated viewers and listeners with repeats of the recorded swearing-in from which they were barred, music and messages of peace that singularly called on Kenyans to shun violence and accept the results. ODM and its leaders had become anathema for the media. Through to January 3, Mr Odinga had got not a single interview in local media compared to developing reports from BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN and other global broadcasters.

Most ironically, Kenya's media houses were calling for a peace whose breakdown they had not reported to begin with. In effect they became Kibaki's principal ally in the theft and subsequent suppression of freedoms of expression and assembly. The media allowed then Internal security minister John Michuki to set standards, giving new definitions of responsible journalism and incitement.

A vain explanation for the ban on live broadcasts was that editors were being empowered to check content. The Law Society of Kenya condemned media suppression, but journalists whose trade it affected appeared unable to raise issues.

Instead, the Media Council, a statutory body recently formed to police standards and arbitrate on media disputes, wrote a harsh letter to international media houses condemning their coverage of the Kenyan crisis. Of particular concern were CNN and Al Jazeera which were showing images of police shooting Opposition protesters or buildings set ablaze. The MCK also put media advertisements calling on Kenyans to observe peace. In all acts the Council's motive was clear, siding with Kibaki's standpoint of preaching peace without mention of what caused its breach.

Many journalists, including members of MCK itself did not believe the messages had indeed come from the Council. MCK Chairman Wachira Waruru, however, confirmed they initiated the calls, so that journalists could act “more ethically.”

A journalists' Code of Conduct and ethical guidelines widely used in Kenya, and supported by the Council, does not support the logic in the letter, but Mr Waruru explained that he articulated the letter and messages (both never discussed by any MCK organs) in the public interest.

The public interest was indeed ovewhelming; a valuable exercise in the country's democracy, this election costed billions of shillings precipitated debate on the conduct and performance of public institutions. The public interest for peace was concurrent with then ongoing assessment on the conduct of the Chief Justice, ECK, the police department and President Kibaki himself. Had institutions worked to the limit of their capabilities?

Mr Waruru asserted that their warning to international media borrowed on standard international practice where journalists supposedly do not air images of anguish. But he could not specify which country, only insisting, "Even on 9/11 Americans were not showed dying people or the Twin Towers coming down."
T
he conduct of MCK today concerns many journalists. But like in the election coverage no newspaper or radio will facilitate this exchange. Journalists question decision-making in the Council, its role as a professional watchdog and, sadly, even how it hires staff. But it is the Council's grandstanding on the public interest with peace messages that annoy many. In the deteriorating security situation in Kenya, how safe are journalists covering politics and events? What happened to the media's tally of the results? Who ordered journalists evicted from KICC grounds?

Mr Hassan Kulundu, a managing editor at the Kenya Times, believes MCK is "composed of people with interests who cannot help the media." Mr David Ochami, a journalist who sits on MCK on behalf of the journalists' union, acknowledges questions remain regarding the council's conduct in the matter of these elections.

Mr Waruru is the managing director of Royal Media Services, a group with multiple, mainly vernacular radio stations that put much effort campaigning for Kibaki. The MCK aims to promote professionalism, yet its chairman heads Kenya's most embedded media group. The view now popular in the media is that Kibaki and Raila bear equal liability for ongoing crisis. For good measure journalists who have attempted to interogate the crisis from its origins now face death threats from shadowy groups. MCK is yet to release a statement on the threats to journalists from the Standard Group that state-aided merceneries raided two years ago. Perhaps that is not in the public interest.