Azerbaijan: Media Law in Trouble

Wednesday, 16 June, 2004

The link has been copied

Jahan Alieva

New discussions on a controversial new media law for Azerbaijan have been delayed until the autumn after a flood of criticism from international organisations.

Last week the Azerbaijani parliament, the Milli Majlis, which had passed the new Law on Freedom of Information in a first reading, postponed further debate by several months until after its summer break.

This is giving both local and international critics of the bill a chance to air their concerns with new force – although they cannot agree even amongst themselves.

The adoption of a law on freedom of information is one of the obligations agreed to by Azerbaijan as part of its accession to the Council of Europe.

Journalists in Azerbaijan face constant problems in getting hold of information, and even getting elementary access to government.

There are countless examples. For example, Aidin Guliev, editor of the opposition newspaper Baku Khaber, has been refused entry to parliament for two months, and says that he has been given no official explanation why.

“In our country, officials think it is beneath their dignity to talk to journalists,” said Mehman Aliev, director of the opposition-leaning news agency Turan. “We haven’t even received an official answer to many of our official requests for information.”

Addressing the Congress of Journalists in April, Ali Hasanov, a senior official in the presidential apparatus, admitted that “many officials – and that includes me – often ask for journalists not be put through to us on the telephone”.

Such attitudes underlines the need for new legislation. Last autumn, a joint working group, which included representatives of government, parliament, non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and experts began work on a draft bill.

When the draft was produced, six local NGOs including three major lawyers’ groups, as well as the Internews Media Rights Institute, MRI, said that it was flawed and confused and that it failed to guarantee basic rights to information.

“The draft law contains everything and nothing at the same time,” commented Rashid Hajili, head of MRI, which was involved in the working group when the law was being drafted.

MRI has drafted its own version of the law, referred to as the Sunshine Law because it is modelled on similarly named laws in the United States designed to cast the light of day on the more secret areas of government practice.

Hajili highlighted what he saw as three big flaws in the existing draft bill, which persuaded his organisation to draw up its own version.

First, he said, the title of the law contradicted its content - the bill should be called the Access to Public Information Law, because its chief importance lies in giving people access to public records and information about they are governed.

Secondly, Hajili said, the wording of the law is problematic, confusing and open to various interpretations. The legal language of the draft law needs substantial editing to make it understandable by citizens, he said.

“Finally and most controversially, Article 20 of the law creates a kind of censorship,” Hajili said, adding that it could allow governmental entities and officials to refuse to disclose information for entirely subjective reasons.

Article 20 sets out the categories of information which may be withheld from the public. The categories are defined in terms of the damage which disclosure of information might cause to national interests such as independence, security, justice and crime prevention. For example, information may be withheld if its disclosure “can create a danger to independence”.

“Just imagine, that means they won’t even respond to your query about whether they have such information or not,” complained Hajili.

The London-based anti-censorship organisation Article 19, which took part in the consultation process around the draft, also criticised this part of the bill and a number of apparent contradictions in it.

Arif Aliyev, head of the Yeni Nasil Journalists’ Association, the main organisation concerned with the draft law, said he was disappointed that the various groups involved in drawing up the bill had not made a joint effort to influence members of parliament and the presidential administration.

“I do not really understand why Internews released their Sunshine Law only after parliament passed the freedom of information law in its first reading,” said Aliev. “This law will not be approved by parliament anyway. Wouldn’t be it good if they didn’t write a new law, but tried to work on the old one?”

Aliev, who is also head of the Baku Press Club, said the working group had won general agreement that Azerbaijan should have an information ombudsman, and that the position should not be appointed by government. However, in the middle of the discussions the government rejected the idea.

The head of the working group, Rizvan Jabiyev, who is a deputy in parliament, declined to comment on the draft law.

“I am fed up and can’t stand hearing about the draft law ” he told IWPR. “The alternative Sunshine Law appeared only because Internews received a grant from American government simply to write the law.”

Mehman Aliev of Turan believes the real problems run a lot deeper. “I’m not expecting anything good from this law. Even if an ideal law gets passed, the attitude of officials to the media has to change fundamentally.”

Jahan Alieva is a correspondent with Baku Sun newspaper.