Tajikistan: Conditional Welcome for New Accountability Policy

Journalists in Tajikistan welcomed a presidential decree last month obliging officials to respond to media criticism of their actions.



But some in the media community are voicing concern that the measure will have the opposite effect, making journalists fearful of saying anything that might embarrass officials and prompt them to retaliate.



The decree, signed by President Imomali Rahmon on February 7, requires cabinet ministers and the heads of government agencies, state enterprises and institutions, and local government bodies to take “immediate and specific measures” in response to complaints about them printed in the media.



Officials who are criticised in the media must respond to any complaints about them, and then inform both the president’s office and the media outlet concerned of any remedial action they have taken, within a set period of time.



A high-ranking official from the presidential administration has been appointed to monitor the way the new rules are put into practice.



Rahmon’s decree reinforces existing legislation on handling complaints from the public, which specifies that these must be dealt with within a month if an investigation is required, or two weeks if none is necessary.



At a roundtable with media representatives following the announcement of the presidential order, the head of Rahmonov’s information department Saidali Siddikov said officials who failed to respond would be answerable under the existing law, although he did not say what penalties would be applied.



Many hope the new requirements placed on officials will lead to greater accountability in government.



“It’s very good that all officials have been placed under an obligation to pay attention to critical articles in the Tajik media, to react to them, and to take action and fix things where necessary,” Umid Babakhanov, the head of the Asia Plus media group, told IWPR.



“On the other hand, it naturally places a greater responsibility on us journalists [to get things right]. This decree doesn’t open the way to unbridled abuse or unfounded criticism of every single official.”



The presidential order urges journalists to ensure their reporting is accurate, and as Babakhonov and others note, the media themselves will be under greater scrutiny than ever before.



Political analyst Abdullo Rahnamo praised the initiative as an acknowledgement of the influence the media could exert. But he added that the fact a presidential decree was needed to force officials to respond to criticism was a sign that this influence was currently limited.



In other countries, he said, officials sometimes resign after the media uncover wrongdoing. This is currently inconceivable in Tajikistan, since many officials simply do not take the media seriously.



Some journalists and media-watchers are concerned that officials might seek to launch preemptive attacks on their critics by seeking prosecutions under libel legislation. Such prosecutions have always taken place, but the tendency could be exacerbated now that officials are to be put on the spot.



Tajikistan continues to list defamation as an offence under criminal law as well as making it actionable under the civil code, meaning that anyone found guilty can face up to two years in jail or a fine of up to 17,000 US dollars. Libel is covered by two articles in the Criminal Code relating to the dissemination of malicious and false information and to reputational damage.



In addition, Tajik law contains separate provisions that deal more seriously with the defamation of senior officials. A conviction for libelling the president in the media can lead to a five-year sentence or a hefty fine, while anyone who insults a government official in a public manner can find themselves paying a fine of 34,000 dollars or spending two years in jail.



Khurshed Atovulloev, the head of the Centre for Investigative Journalism, said officials – especially in local government and in the security services – are highly sensitive to criticism and quick to push for legal action.



“I think that in many cases local authorities, the police, the interior ministry and the security service will react to criticism of their work in bringing libel charges under the Criminal Code,” he said. “As long as these articles exist in the criminal code, they will be used to bring criminal cases against the media for critical reporting.”



The head of the National Association of Independent Media in Tajikistan, Nuriddin Karshiboev, agreed that current libel laws would reduce the chances of the new decree being a success.



“As long as libel remains a criminal offence, this decree will lead to more legal cases against media outlets and journalists, and will have a negative impact on freedom of expression,” he said.



Karshiboev explained that it was much harder to contest libel in the criminal courts than in a civil case, because the defendant is up against the full weight of the state.



“Of course, legal cases in civilised countries are a normal occurrence, but under a criminal prosecution… the burden of truth becomes more difficult,” he said.



The effect of the new decree might be to curb rather than encourage frank reporting, as journalists might think twice before writing a critical article that goads an official into seeking a prosecution. The result would be greater self-censorship and less critical reporting, said Karshiboev.



Khurshedi Atovullo, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Faraj, agrees that libel issues will constrain the effectiveness of the president’s directive.



Despite his concerns, Atovullo has introduced a new column where readers’ complaints about the government will be posted. At the same time, he is hiring a staff lawyer to fight any future libel actions brought against the paper.



Daler Gufronov is a journalist with the Asia Plus newspaper.