House should not pull back access to information gains

It is becoming hard for the media to access and report on Parliament not because of legal changes but some staff at the August House who seem to believe administrative fiat overrides constitutional provisions on access to information and media freedom.

Since the 13th Parliament opened under the leadership of Speakers Moses Wetangula and Amason Kingi, staff have issued several edicts and administrative codes to the media about requirements to access and cover Parliament that are inconsistent, rushed and a violation of the rights of the journalists to execute their duties as protected by the Constitution.

The demands include two separate names of reporters to access the Senate and the National Assembly from each media house. Then there's approval of the names through a vetting and accreditation committee and arbitrary denial of access on grounds of security and lack of space.

The work of accrediting journalists and the media is done by the Media Councill of Kenya through the Media Council Act of 2013, and this secondary accreditation being demanded by institutions is purely misplaced practice.

Once a media is accredited by the country's regulator, that's enough proof with a staff and National ID to allow them access - see national public events, State House, UN meetings and visa applications - and where there are genuine fears about a particular individual, such isolated cases are dealt with.

Parliament is well secured with a police station located within it and Sergeant-at -arms, MPs have bodyguards and there's NIS.

Some of the MPs are journalists and media owners. And being politicians, MPs want to be heard across the country specifically by their constituents, thus limiting media coverage is not helpful. Newsrooms are going through lean times with reduced staff. Requiring them to provide two sets of staff to cover the Senate and National Assembly differently and to expect permanently assigned technical crew to cover Parliament and create a position of rooster manager to be daily changing names of duty reporters in Parliament is not practical.

Wetangula should ensure the media is not harassed. Some of the actions emanate from people who are oblivious of the current constitutional expectation of accountability and opennes. Parliament has the responsibility to ensure security for legislators and staff, space for the public and media to interact with its activities.

The issues being used to denied and limit media access to Parliament are routine excuses from colleagues who don't want to be innovative. The number of MPs has not increased after the 2022 General Election, and the size of the media center at Parliament is an old fact. What should concern Parliament is to innovate including creating digital space and links to accommodate journalists, with a dedicated channel provided to them.

The action by the parliamentary staff is a violation of the journalistic privilege. Journalists enjoy constitutional protection which guarantees them access to information as provided by Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act 2016.

It is disheartening when journalists and communication professionals harasses the media through denial to access to information and exercising control of power. We see this even at the counties, Judiciary, and other places. When you deny journalists access to courts, they must depend on third parties to get information, which sometimes is difficulty but jail them for contempt.

This does not exonerate journalists from blame in some cases that lead to their harassment. Journalists must conduct themselves profesionally at all times.

The writer is Director, Media Training and Development at the Media Council of Kenya