Journalism’s death knell

So says attorney Ria Mohammed-Davidson, a lecturer at the University of the West Indies Faculty of Law.

She was one of the presenters yesterday at the forum organised by the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MATT) on “Technology, media and the law: implications for journalistic freedom.” The event was held at the Ken Gordon School of Journalism and Communication Studies, Port-of-Spain.

“This Act is going to sound the death knell of investigative journalism,” she told the gathering of media professionals, adding, “And it is worrying how much intrusion it is going to permit into the private lives of citizens which is kind of ironic, because it is intended to protect your privacy, but it gives powers to the information commissioner which authorises arbitrary search and seizure.” Mohammed-Davidson pointed out that the Data Protection Act criminalises journalists who do not subscribe to a mandatory code of conduct, for the unauthorised disclosure of personal information as well as the collection and storage and disposal of personal information.

She told attendees, “Don’t let your heart be troubled” and explained that the act had not been fully enforced but was only partially proclaimed; the Data Protection Act was assented to on June 22, 2011, and has partially come into force by Legal Notice No 2 of 2012.

“In my view this piece of legislation is extremely worrying,” Mohammed-Davidson said, “Because as currently framed, not only will the Data Protection Act affect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press but it is also going to impact upon civil liberties of the individual.” She pointed out that the legislation does not require a special majority which should be the case with any legislation that infringes or derogates constitutional rights. She said the Act does not pass “constitutional muster” and she is most concerned about the intrusive powers of the information commissioner when exercising functions under Section 19 of the Act.

“Because in my view those broad powers are an affront to the civil liberties that we have in Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution,” she said.

Mohammed Davidson stressed the Constitution protects citizens from things like arbitrary search and seizure.

She said under Section 19, the information commissioner can enter premises, seize documents, require you to produce documents, question persons who are found on the premises and compel people to reveal information and can make such investigation, inspection and examinations “as he sees fit”.

“All of these things can be done without a court order and without a search warrant,” she said.

She pointed out that only where someone refuses to disclose information or allow access to premises that the information commissioner has to get a court order and the legal authority seems like “an afterthought”.

The law lecturer pointed out that the Act also affects media practitioners as well, and specifically in Section 92.

She said “most worrisome” is that breaches attract very serious criminal penalties up to a $100,000 fine or five years’ imprisonment upon indictment and for corporate bodies a $500,000 fine upon indictment.

She also pointed out that the term “wilful” is not included so someone can be convicted even if they inadvertently breach the Act.

She stressed that there is no protection for journalists and their “bread and butter” is collection information.

On the Whistle- blower Protection Bill UWI law faculty dean Professor Rose-Marie Belle Antoine said the effect of the legislation was that information from whistle-blowers must be kept confidential and it could “muzzle the press” and agreed the role of the press was not considered by drafters.