Preliminary response on Parliaments statements about the media

Today [Thursday, 15 September 2016] from the press gallery, I

watched with dismay as parliamentarians debated and hatched a
plan to not only trample media freedoms in Parliament but also
attempt to set the agenda for journalists who cover them.
The genesis of the over two hour debate were particularly stories
that were published by Daily Monitor, about MPs getting Shs200M
for cars and the Shs68M to be spent on each MPs funeral.
The Observer published a story that 78 MPs had travelled to attend
the UNAA convention in the USA.
Parliament argued that the stories were false and depicted the
institution in bad light and that journalists who cover Parliament are
working with enemies of Parliament to taint its image.
Therefore, they want to bring a stringent law to control the media,
they want journalists to take an oath (I dont know whether of
allegiance or secrecy) before being accredited to cover Parliament,
but most importantly, the Speaker ordered the Parliament rules
committee to investigate the journalists who authored the stories
with the goal of charging them with contempt of Parliament.
I respond as follows:

It is wrong for parliamentarians who are supposed to make laws that

protect fundamental human rights to be the same people hatching
plans to muzzle media freedom simply because a story has annoyed
them.
As legislators, they should actually know that there is nothing like
false news in our law books. Let them ask themselves a question;
were the stories true or false? On our end, the stories were well
sourced and represent the truth.
As journalists who cover Parliament, we subscribe to the Journalists
Creed and the Journalists Code of Ethics. We are not paid to publish
stories and we challenge any MP who has ever paid for a story to
come forward.
We strongly oppose the plan to have journalists swear oaths and we
actually describe it as laughable.
We will continue doing that which is right as we execute our mandate
as journalists and [continue] protecting the publics right to know.
We are representatives of the public in Parliament. We are not in
Parliament as a show of courtesy from Parliament. We are in
Parliament as a right. We are legally protected.
It is not our role to ensure that Parliament has a glittering public
image; that is for those who are paid by the institution to do. We will
not allow Parliament to set the agenda for us.

If Parliament or any individual is aggrieved by a story, the best option

is to go to court and challenge the story. Controlling the media,
through stringent and draconian laws, as a show of power and might
will only boomerang because the public and the media will always
win.
About appearing before the Rules committee, we shall [do so] when
invited and we shall argue the case for the media.
For God and Journalism
Isaac Imaka
President, Uganda Parliamentary Reporters Association