Running head: BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 1

BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION:

REFLECTIONS ON THE COMMUNICATION

LANDSCAPE IN UGANDA

Professorial Inaugural Lecture

Monica B. Chibita

Uganda Christian University

Nkoyooyo Hall

17th January 2019

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 2

Greetings and introduction

Judges, Bishops, Clergy, Professors, partners of the UCU from within and without

Uganda, University Council and Cabinet, UCU Management and staff, Professors and staff from

different Universities, Management and staff of UCU, colleagues from FJMC, former and current

fellow Board Members, Old Boys and Girls from the many schools I have attended (including St.

Augustine’s’ Demonstration Butiiti where I completed my primary school, Namasagali College

and Mt. St. Mary’s Namagunga) and from Makerere University, Alumni of the University of Iowa

and the University of South Africa, OBs and OGs from all levels, all our partners, our alumni,

ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for choosing to be here today.

Special recognition

In a special way, I would like to recognize and thank Akiiki Zebiah Banura, my mother

and my friend; my friend and husband, My Lord, the Justice, Mike Chibita, our children -

Benezeri, Semu, Joshua and Vanessa. Apologies from Maria who could not join us because she

had taken another day off earlier this week to attend Justice Chibita’s swearing in. I take this

opportunity to congratulate Justice Chibita, Justice Tuhaise and Justice Muhanguzi upon their

recent appointment to the Supreme Court. Thank you for joining us today.

A warm welcome to all my relatives and dear friends from Fort-Portal and from Butaleja,

my brothers and sisters, cousins, friends from all stages and all walks of life. I would also like to

mention a group of special friends called the Ka-chai Group, another group of special friends

called the KBC couples’ Committee, the Kira Cell Group that meets at our home every Monday,

Pastors and members of Kampala Baptist Church, the Matures Fellowship, Women in Institutions

of Higher Learning affiliated with Higher Education Research Services (HERS-East Africa),
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 3

colleagues from all campuses and colleges of Uganda Christian University, members of the

Faculty of Journalism, Media and Communication, the Royals team of UCU and every one of you

who spared their time to come and celebrate with us today.

I am indebted to my parents, the late Ernest Balya Apuuli, and my mother, Akiiki as well

as the Late Abbooki Charles Mawenu for the many sacrifices they made to see me through school.

I am equally indebted to the Government of Uganda, The United States Embassy through the

Fulbright Programme and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Norwegian

Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education and Research for Development

(NORHED) who supported my academic progress at different stages. I bring greetings from our

partners at NLA University College in Norway and the University of KwaZulu Natal. Finally I

thank UCU for organizing such an elegant function today. Thank you to the Deputy Vice-

Chancellor Academic Affairs, the Dean of the School of Research and Postgraduate Studies and

your teams that were behind this. Finally, thank you to the Communications task-force.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 4

Ambitions

As a young person, sometimes you are not very clear what you want to be when you grow

up. I dreamt first of being a nurse because I liked their white uniform; then my Dad rebuked me

and said “why not aim at being a medical doctor?” My interest shifted and I wanted to be a lawyer

because it seemed highly prestigious and intelligent. Then I dreamt of being an altar girl because

I had watched my uncle, now Monsignor Thomas Kisembo, say Mass at our house every evening

when he lived with us briefly. Then I had a brush with real poverty, and felt called to be a Social

Worker. We all go through this. I have no reason to doubt, though, that I ended up in a good

place-Education, and that I am within my calling.

As you may have heard in the citation, I started working in Higher Education in earnest in 1994.

By that time I had had very short stints as a secondary teacher at Kings’ College Buddo (wave)

and as a Youth Worker. I did not start getting purposeful about academic growth, though, until

around 1996. At that time I was a Lecturer (the academic ranks in Uganda are Tutorial Assistant,

Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor, and full Professor). You may

have read this somewhere, but Dr. Lugalambi and I, full of ambition, each opened a file labelled

ACADEMIC GROWTH in capital letters and we vowed to hold each other accountable (thank

you, George). At that time I also got to know then Dr. Edith Natukunda-Togboa who challenged

me to begin writing papers to present at academic conferences. Prof. Abaasi Kiyimba, then my

head of Department in the Literature Department which incubated the Mass Communication

Department at Makerere encouraged me to set publication targets for each year. Dr. Jack Smith

challenged me to read widely, and to keep growing not only mentally, but also spiritually (Thank

you Jack). People like the Dick and Ivy Otto, Larry and Sharon Pumpelly and Dan Mudido
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 5

discipled me at different points. Much later on, our friend Uncle Imran Ahmed, kept asking,

“When are you becoming a Professor like my father? Thank you Imran.

Several other people have played key roles on this journey. My supervisor Prof Pieter

Fourie, my co-supervisor, Prof Murindwa Rutanga, Professor Mary Okwakol, who gave me the

courage to find a balance between family and career development instead of seeing the two as an

either/or proposition. We only had one comprehensive conversation at her home one day, but

that conversation was just what I needed at that my moment. Prof. Tawana Kupe, now Vice-

Chancellor of the University of Pretoria, my friend, Prof Arie de Beer, my colleagues at the East

Africa Communication Association, my colleague, Christopher Muhoozi, who early in my career

helped me de-mystify fieldwork. Prof. Kenneth Starck, Prof. John Soloski and all my professors

at the University of Iowa. Then there are the many partners in research, people I have co-

published with, Prof. Abiodun Salawu who shares my interest in the indigenous language media.

I want to single out Richard Kibombo with whom I worked on two major studies, the National

Electronic Media Performance Studies, one of which formed the background paper for the first

National Broadcasting Policy. There were many other people along the way, some encouraging,

others threatening, others confusing.

I mention all these people, because their input played a role in my journey to where I am

today, and I am grateful. Thank you very much.

It has been 24 years now and here we are. All I can say is “Mukama Asiimwe Praise the

Lord.”

What is an inaugural lecture?

I recently found out that an inaugural lecture is not the same as a conference paper. In

preparing for this lecture, I learnt that the purpose of an inaugural lecture is not to share specific
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 6

research results the way you do at an academic conference, crack a theory or mesmerize people

with complicated words, concepts or formulae. It is rather, to give accountability to the public for

what you have been doing all this time, what you have been thinking, speaking and writing about,

and if possible what your future plans are as an academic and to do this in such a way that it

makes sense to everyone in the audience. This is particularly important if you studied on tax-

payers money like I did.

It is also important for people outside the walls of the University to understand that when

we do research, we do it not just to make a name or get promotions, but to contribute to the pool

of ideas in the public square, and hopefully make a lasting contribution to the way the world

perceives and does things in our particular field. The inaugural lecture is, therefore, an

opportunity to close the gap between the ivory tower and the public square. Also, the inaugural

lecture is a joyous occasion that allows a University to “launch” its new Professor with a degree

of celebration.

I started working at the University a few months after the first private radio station (Sanyu

FM) came on air, and just over a year after the first experiment in private television. It was exciting

to be in the field of communication at that time. Makerere was the only place you could obtain a

degree in what we called Mass Communication. Journalism was not exactly the profession a

mother would recommend to her child, and people were still beginning to make sense of it.

Except for those who worked for the government outlets, there were very few journalists with

more than rudimentary training. The country was coming out of chaotic period and was trying

to recover. Already, there were tensions as the few highly trained journalists like Charles

Onyango Obbo, Robby Muhumuza, David Ouma Balikowa, Peter Mwesige, Kyazze

Simwogerere, Onapito Ekomoloit and other fought to raise the bar and to secure more freedom

for the media, while others basked in their newfound seemingly boundless freedom.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 7

Documenting the history of our media has fascinated me, and practically every

publication of mine starts with some kind of historicization of the media. Last year, I finally

compressed as much history as I could into an article and published it with the Sage International

Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society in the spirit of ne jamais pas (May we never forget). I

draw from this article in my historical overview here as well as from my work with the

Broadcasting Council and later Uganda Communications Commission, and my brief experience

in media governance with the Vision Group, and Media Development with the African Centre

for Media Excellence. I also draw from my years of teaching and my interaction with media and

communication practitioners. Finally, I draw from an article detailing a socio-history of Uganda’s

media co-authored with Prof. Fourie in 2007.i

The context of communication

Since 1993, the media sector has been liberalized, opening up to private ownership of the

broadcast media and telecommunications. Global trends such as convergence have affected the

media landscape. According to the Ipsos Connect 2017 Uganda Media Landscape report, radio by

the end of 2017 reached 90% of Uganda’s population. This figure has stayed in the 90s for many

years, and had not changed much by 2019. Television reached 35% and the print media, 15%. In

terms of preference, print is now the least preferred medium. Radio is the most preferred,

followed by television, followed by online media. There are reasons for this pattern, but we will

return to those later.

The Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, which is mandated to operate as a public

broadcaster, has fallen short of this ideal because of several problems including poor funding,

poor infrastructure, perennial mismanagement, and a lack of clarity on their editorial

independence. There seem to be serious efforts to address these challenges especially following
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 8

the Mwesige Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Review Commission Report. ii As Ugandan

journalist like to end their news items, “It remains to be seen whether….” According to the

communications regulator, there were 258 operational radio stations (mostly Frequency

Modulation (FM)); and several free-to-air, terrestrial, digital satellite, and cable TV stations by

September 2017. The numbers for radio were up to 305, and 51 for television by June 2019. These

figures are based on transmitters and therefore include booster stations. Four Pay TV service

providers had countrywide coverage while others had a more limited reach. There were seven

mobile telephone providers with a new one launching yesterday (16th January, 2020).

The predominant mode of financing for the traditional media is advertising, while

subscription plays a bigger role with the telecommunications companies. In 2015 Uganda

switched from analog to digital to meet an International Telecommunications Union deadline.

Although the implementation of this conversion has not yet reached 100%, all television service

providers are mandated to go digital and the analog signal has been switched off.

The Uganda Communications Commission further reports that in 2017, the total number

of mobile and fixed telephone lines grew from the previous year’s 23 million to nearly 25. There

was a corresponding decline in fixed line subscriptions. International and roaming traffic have

also grown steadily although WhatsApp, Viber, and Skype, being cheaper, have eaten into these.

As international data bandwidth in the country has improved, the prices of phones have dropped,

and 3G and 4G coverage has increased, there has been a corresponding increase in internet use,

as well as a drop in the price of data transmission. The country is launching 5G as we speak. By

the end of December 2019, Internet World Statistics reported Uganda’s internet penetration at

40.5%, with 2.6 million Facebook users. These figures will only hold for a while before they change.

These developments, coupled with the convergence of traditional media and

telecommunications, have had a significant impact on participation in public debate through the
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 9

media in some sectors of the population. Not only is it now easier for journalists to file local news

from anywhere to any newspaper, radio station, or TV station across the country and beyond,

but ordinary people are able to participate in programmes and contribute content with the aid of

the phone and the internet. “Traditional” media houses typically have a thread of conversation

running on the social media for any major story, or indeed for any story that the public may be

interested in. This not only boosts numbers for purposes of advertising, it also builds cohesion

among audiences. It further enables ordinary people to participate, with minimum censorship, in

debate on issues that concern them. Besides, such features as Facebook Live enable video live-

streaming. A variety of other mobile apps make TV stations accessible on mobile phones and

various portable platforms. YouTube also gives media owners additional access to large

audiences. All this has made the phenomenon of “citizen journalism” (the creation, dissemination

and analysis of news by the general public) a reality. It has also confused the regulatory space a

little, as we shall soon see.

Increased access to the internet and the accessibility of mobile phones, however, for the

most part enhances the participation of those who can afford smart phones or bandwidth or what

we call data. Also, these new communication opportunities have a tendency to fragment

audiences, making it harder for meaningful public opinion on any matter to crystallise. It used to

be efficient to make death announcement on radio when there was one radio station. This is a

practical impossibility today with the numerous channels we have. Where do you start? This is a

challenge for advertisers who need a mass audience listening to the same message. It is also a

challenge for government, and for politicians.

As noted earlier, collectively Ugandans speak a minimum of 36 languages and dialects

including English and Kiswahili, the two official languages. I keep hearing different figures on

this. Despite the historical advantage of English-language use, since the 1990s there has been a
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 10

growing emphasis on individual ethnic identity. Hence, relatively few Ugandans speak or

understand Kiswahili and I doubt that there is a single Kiswahili-only radio station in Uganda.

There is a growing number of radio and television stations broadcasting in the various indigenous

languages as well as newspapers in each of the major regional languages of Uganda. Most pay

TV is in English, and most market research so far indicates that there is on aggregate more

minutes spent using English than any of the local languages including Luganda in spite the fact

that many stations carry these languages. However, both the Vision Group and the Nation Media

Group, the leading media conglomerates, own a combination of English and local-language

stations because research has shown that particularly in the Central and Western regions, people

prefer to receive information in their language.

Media Ownership

My research has also taken me into the area of media ownership because media ownership is a

major factor in creating a diverse communication environment. It is clear that the print media in

Uganda have historically mostly been privately owned. With the liberalisation of the media,

politicians, private business people, faith-based organisations, and to a limited extent,

communities joined the business. However, while there are many radio and television stations,

there seems to be little diversity in ownership. Study after study, including the two National

Electronic Media Performance Studies that I led (and which were funded by the state regulator)

shows that government still commands a big stake in the media, owning 53% of the Vision Group,

the largest multi-media entity in the country. The Nation Media Group, the second largest media

conglomerate in the country, also has significant interests in radio, television and the print media.

Several media that are called “community” media are funded and controlled by churches

or non-governmental organisations rather than the communities they purport to serve. The
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 11

number of media houses owned by faith-based organisations (mostly Christian and to a limited

extent Muslim) has been growing steadily. There are also intersections between these categories

of owners which further complicate the equation. To understand these, I have relied on the

literature of Critical Political Economy (Jonathan Hardy, Peter Golding, Robert McChesney and

Graham Murdock).

Apart from the state broadcaster, most media are based in Kampala, the capital city, or

one of the other major towns. However, due to the challenges of surviving in a fragmented market,

there are increasing instances of acquisition of smaller stations based upcountry by bigger media

entities based in Kampala. This raises the issue of how local are our local stations?

Karugire, Isooba, Gariyo and other (media) historians observe that in the early years of

Uganda’s media, entrepreneurs were allowed to set up newspapers without much interference.

As the colonial government noticed a growing political consciousness fueled mainly by the

indigenous language press and exposure to different experiences through the Second World War,

it started clamping down on “troublesome” media houses. By independence there was one state

broadcaster owned and controlled by the colonial government, and approximately three

newspapers.

Post-independence, the print media came increasingly under state control while

government cemented its influence. This was easy to justify in the interest of unity, national

integration, and development. Following the 1967 political crisis that is commonly known as the

Buganda crisis, fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, were “suspended” and

more oppressive media laws enacted. It became easy to punish errant media houses with fines

detention of senior managers and denial of advertising revenue. Parliament was also weakened

as the lines between parties were blurred by political deals. According to Zie Gariyo (1993)iii, by

the time Obote was deposed by Idi Amin in 1971, there was little public dissent, and state media
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 12

had become mouthpieces of government. Private media had been effectively silenced. Most

publications had resorted to public relations or focused on fashion and sports.

The post-independence governments took over the state broadcaster and maintained

absolute control over it. The colonial government had enacted a number of laws, some of which

were adopted verbatim by the post-independence governments. Among these were the Penal

Code Act of 1950, which criminalized causing annoyance to foreign princes and potentates; libel

and defamation; sedition and the publication of false news (the latter two have since been

declared unconstitutional). There were other laws ostensibly aimed at maintaining law and order

but often used by post-independence governments to curtail the freedom of media or media

personnel perceived to be hostile to the government in power. These included the Television

Licensing Act of 1963; the Press Censorship and Correction Ordinance of 1964; the Newspaper

and Publications Act of 1964; the Official Secrets Act (1964), the Emergency Powers Act of 1966;

and the Public Order and Security Act of 1967. Other oppressive laws came up during the reign

of Idi Amin. The most significant piece of legislation was Legal notice Number 1 of 1971, which

suspended Article 1 of the Constitution—which had articulated the supremacy of the

Constitution. This gave Amin sweeping powers to amend the constitution at will. The

Newspapers and Publications (Amendment) Decree No. 35 of 1972 mandated the minister in

charge of information to close down, “in the public interest,” any publication, with no prior notice.

The second Obote government (1980–1985) continued aspects of this approach to media freedom,

expelling foreign journalists and banning newspapers.

Museveni’s government, on assuming office, promised to restore freedoms, but the

media’s fortunes under Museveni, some argue, have been mixed. Tabaire’s article titled the Media

and Public Repression in Uganda: Back to the Futureiv expounds this point. While there has been

significant growth, there have also been instances of closure of media houses, the arrest or
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 13

harassment of journalists and the use of other extra-judicial means to regulate the media.

Nevertheless, it should be said that the NRM government, more than any other, has given

litigation a chance in dealing with errant or offensive media.

Under Museveni, the press has had a degree of editorial independence. However, the

NRM government has been uncompromising with the media when they have published stories

that are deemed to threaten “public order” and “national security.” Needless to say the

journalism fraternity has often questioned the interpretation rendered to the terms “public order”

and “national security.”

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, promulgated in 1995, guarantees media

freedom and access to information. Notwithstanding this liberal constitution, however, there are

other laws in place which often have the effect of curtailing the freedoms promised by the

constitution. The print media, for instance, are still mainly governed by the Press and Journalist

Act first enacted in 1995, soon after the liberalization of the broadcast sector. This law establishes

the Media Council as a regulatory body mandated to license journalists, promote ethics and

professionalism, and provide for the training of journalists. The law gives the minister in charge

of information powers that would make it difficult for the regulatory body to operate

independently. The need for all journalists to be licensed annually by a government body, would

not be a problem if there was trust between the journalism fraternity and the state. However,

there has not been a history of such trust. Consequently, this requirement has been resisted by

most journalists and been viewed as a possible entry point for unwarranted government control.

Although the industry in 2009 established an independent media council in a bid to pre-

empt government interference with their independence, this body has, for a combination of

reasons including inadequate funding and management, not gained much recognition by the

media fraternity. Instead the media fraternity has hatched one “professional” media organization
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 14

after another, neither one of them succeeding in entrenching a culture of self-regulation because

they too have failed to win the trust of their would-be members.

The broadcast media are currently governed by the Uganda Communications Act of 2013v,

which merged the regulatory bodies for broadcasting and telecommunications. Although this law

provides a regulatory framework for the broadcast media, the internet and mobile phones, it too

is premised on the notion of a powerful minister, who may give directions to the regulatory body

with which the latter are bound to comply. The law also seems to be more clear and

comprehensive in its provisions on telecommunications than on broadcasting (See Chibita 2010)vi.

Ideally, laws emerge out of policy and their provisions should be aligned with the parent

policy. However, this has not been the norm in the Ugandan context. For instance, the National

Broadcasting Policy (2004)vii, for instance, came into being years after the Electronic Media Statute

(1996) - which later became The Electronic Media Act Cap 104 (2000)viii. Consequently, many of

the policy’s provisions (for instance about public broadcasting and media ownership) were quite

progressive and perhaps more sensitive to the changes in the media environment than the 1995

and 1996 Laws. Until the law was repealed in 2013, however, these provisions had no legal effect.

To date, the legal standing and the application of the policy is not clear to many media

practitioners.

There are also other laws on the landscape directly or indirectly affecting the working of

the media, both traditional and new. These include the Official Secrets Act 1964, the Anti-

Terrorism Act 2002, the Right of Access to Information Act 2005, the Presidential Elections Act

2005, the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005, the Referendum and Other Provisions Act 2005, the

Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006, the Interception of Communication Act 2012, the

Public Order Management Act 2013, the Uganda Communications Act 2013, and the Anti-

Pornography Act 2014, the Computer misuse Act 2011.

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 15

This array of laws may have some enabling elements, but seen as a whole, may also

potentially be confusing and constraining for journalists and communication practitioners as

these may have difficulty figuring out which law will catch them when. While, for instance, for

the most part since 1986, the government of Uganda has given journalists and media

organisations considerable latitude to execute their roles, government has on several occasions

arrested journalists, confiscated equipment, temporarily halted media operations, or jailed media

personnel for publication offenses. Some may say they deserved it, but organisations like Human

Rights Network for Journalists have been able to demonstrate where government has

overstepped or abused its regulatory mandate under the tab “media violations” at

www.hrnjuganda.org.

Similarly, while the media in the urban centres enjoy a relatively high degree of freedom,

their upcountry counterparts and especially indigenous-language radio stations, which reach the

majority of ordinary Ugandans, frequently suffer direct interference into their editorial

independence from local government officials. This may be attributed to the fact that the

Management and Staff of these stations are sometimes not armed with the knowledge to

successfully push back against such interference, or that they are too far from the capital city to

generate much public attention, or that the rural areas are far too politically important for

government to allow uncensored communication.

Media Consumption Habits

While many Ugandans say they are aware of the existence of at least one of the newspapers on

the market, a lot fewer report being regular readers of any. The practice of sharing newspapers is

also so rampant that some media houses staple the papers before selling them to compel people

to buy individual copies and hopefully read them. During these sharing sessions, often people
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 16

are reading headlines and looking at pictures. This low news reading (or news buying) culture

may be attributed to affordability, low literacy levels, or a poor reading culture. The stapling

solution seems to be Uganda’s way of dealing with this challenge.

The tabloid media (like The Red Pepper and The Sun) tend to be more popular than the mainstream

papers, despite public complaints about their ethical quality. In addition, the indigenous-

language newspapers especially in the Central region, are better read than their English

counterparts.

Radio remains the most popular medium, and is accessible to over 90% of the population.

However, Television viewing is growing steadily, particularly with digitization, but is only

accessible to one third of the population. Most people listen to radio in the course of the day

because it allows them to work at the same time. TV watching peaks towards the evening. Even

though the top two stations as far as advertising revenue is concerned are often English stations,

on average the local-language stations attract more advertising than the English ones. News is

the most popular type of programme, followed by sports.

The greatest consumption of the internet is in Kampala, where the infrastructure is

stronger and more people own mobile phones and can afford to spare some money to buy data.

While there does not seem to be any major gender or economic disparities in the use of the internet,

there are age disparities, the largest number of internet consumers (going by the latest survey

figures IPSOS 2019) being aged between the mid-teens and mid-thirties.

While it may seem like there is a lot of political debate on the internet, research conducted

in all the regions of Uganda shows that a majority of Ugandans use the internet for keeping up

social contacts rather than for research, debate, or civic participation.

Economically, the communication landscape has also changed. There has been growth

both in mobile money subscription and transactions, which has improved access to financial
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 17

services for many Ugandans. Unfortunately this has also negatively impacted the volume of

business for banks. While all this looks like basic administrative information about the media, it

has great significance for the direction of our democracy as I will soon show.

Digitisation and Convergence

Perhaps the most momentous developments on the communication landscape in the last

few years have been around the shift from the old analogue forms of communication to the digital,

and the related changes in what audiences like to consume and how they want it served. Fourie

(2017) ix argues that the digital communication culture is “a direct consequence of the rapid

development and application of ICT in post-modern society.” In trying to define post-modern

society, Dan Laughey (2009) says postmodern society is about “…mass consumerism, mass

literacy, technological innovation, globalization and populism, among other things.” I will not

allow Laughey to detain us. In particular, though, Fourie, in a chapter titled “Social media and

mediated communication in postmodern society” x talks about two important and closely related

developments: digitisation and convergence which relate to technological innovation. These, if I

may be allowed a cliché here, “throw a spanner in the works” for traditional regulation.

Digitisation

Digitisation is the process of organizing information (digitally) so that it is easier to

convert and use across different media. Such information is also better in quality in the sense that

it does not degenerate when you transfer it from one medium to another. Previously the more

times you dubbed music off a cassette tape to another one, the less clear it sounded. It was a

privilege to own the “original.” Today you can go back to the original as many times as you want.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 18

You also need much less space to store digitized information, which is why we can store so much

more on a memory card than an LP record or cassette tape.

Convergence

Convergence, which comes with digitization, refers to the coming together of what used

to be the separate technologies of broadcasting and telecommunications. This coming together

makes it possible to produce and distribute data, information and entertainment. Because of this

marriage between broadcasting and telecommunications we are able to enjoy access to vast

databases (electronic libraries or granaries of knowledge). We are able to enjoy pay television like

DSTV and High Definition television (if you can pay, that is). We can build, maintain and

terminate relationships across the world through social media (remember how long it took to

connect to a pen-pal? And how you waited to hear back from them? I also remember in the 1990s

how long-distance friendship was hard work. We were engaged to get married, and my fiancé

then and I had a disagreement over a philosophical matter just before I left to go and study in the

US. It was so complicated to resolve that little conflict. In order to advance an argument, you

depended entirely on airmail being delivered to your opponent’s physical mailbox. If one airmail

got lost, communication broke down and you had to start the conversation all over again. In the

meantime, you were accused of ignoring people or being non-communicative). Compare that to

today’s instant friending and unfriending, blocking, joining and exiting groups at the click of a

button etc. Thanks to the convergence of technologies, we now also enjoy multimedia services

(where the same information in pictures or words can be transmitted on a variety of platforms

like the telephone, television, radio, the tablet/IPad etc. In other words, we have one-stop

information markets, or indeed supermarkets.

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 19

I remember we used to have photography as one of the areas of specialisation in “Mass

Communication”, apart from print and broadcasting. Imagine if we churned out graduates of

photojournalism today, how desperately irrelevant they would be. Media need multi-taskers; but

also amateurs can take great photographs. You would need to have some other skill to be

employed in the media/communication sector today. So, just like that, our communication

landscape has changed.

We can no longer expect that a media company deals in text, video or audio alone. Most

if not all, deal in everything. Training must prepare people to be versatile. A communication

professional or a journalist should be able to attend this function and go back to his/her editor

with a story for the newspaper, a clip for radio, some footage for television, and a story to be

uploaded online. Totally unheard of 10 years ago, this is now the norm.

We now talk about the “new media” to mean all internet-enabled means of

communication. You may have noticed that just as the technology has changed and is able to do

more and more amazing things, key audiences, like the youth have also “moved on.” By their

sheer numbers, the youth have become a factor that media owners, advertisers, church leaders

and yes, politicians cannot ignore. Any media research on audience patterns must pay special

attention to the youth category.

If you check properly, your media consumption habits have changed as well. So have

mine. If I know I can read about the cabinet reshuffle on my phone before I go to bed, why wait

for the paper tomorrow? I may eventually read the paper, but it will be for analysis, profiles etc.

not just for the facts, because I got those before I went to bed last night.

Today’s audiences have also changed. They know the capacity of the “new” media, so

they expect more. They are demanding, they are impatient, they are unforgiving, and they are

bold. Most importantly they are no longer just consumers of content packaged by a professional
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 20

in a media organization, they are producers or co-producers of content themselves in form or

blogs, posts, tweets, and volunteer media content sometimes referred to as citizen journalism. If

you want to know about citizen journalism watch Bukeddexi and notice how the camera person

manages to capture the exact moment when a domestic fight breaks out in some remote village;

or as a witchdoctor’s mayembexii are being “ unveiled”; or just as an arsonist sets a house ablaze.

Bukedde is there to bring you the story. This is often because, using modern communication tools,

someone on the scene has tipped a journalist off, or has collaborated with someone on the scene

and in the know who has used their mobile phone to take dramatic video which they then share

or sell to media houses. This story could reach millions of people in seconds as well. Of course

there are unresolved ethical concerns with such journalism. The accompanying dramatic

narrative could be off target, and the damage would be that much more complicated to undo

because of how fast and how far the story has moved.

The other major change that has taken place with audiences is that they expect their media

to be interactive and responsive. They expect feedback and they expect it now. If it is news, they

have an opinion on it, and they want all their friends to agree or disagree with them. If it is a post

they want you to like it, retweet it, share it, anything. So we have groups, we have chat-rooms,

we have fora and so on and these are all part of the pool of information available to the public.

The changes in audiences I have described (and there are more) are not only a reaction to

technological advancement, but also an outcome of broader societal changes. One may argue that

Ugandan society is still, in many ways, a traditional society. But it seems to me that there is a

social shift that is not limited to the urban areas any more but is fast penetrating the rural areas

which used to be the headquarters of “traditional society.”

The reason these changes interest me is not because people can now have 4 million

followers on Twitter, or thousands of friends on Facebook. It is because the way this emerging
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 21

communication landscape is managed potentially has a bearing on our democracy. People need

information to participate meaningfully in debate and in decision-making. Joseph Stiglitz xiii

argues that without information, “people cannot demand change or accountability. They know

no better.” In other words, “if you do not want people to ask questions, deny them information.”

A free communication landscape should contribute to a more informed society. Such a

society should then be better equipped to hold their representative accountable. I have argued in

most of my publications therefore, that is difficult to have democracy without a free flow of

information and accountability. I now invite you to join me on a tour of the last part of this paper

which focuses on the implications of all these changes for our democracy.

The media and democracy

In 2015, I published a chapter titled “Indigenous Language media and freedom of

expression in Uganda” in a book co-edited with Prof. Abiodun Salawu.xiv In it I tried, like many

scholars before me have tried, to make a connection between the media and democracy.

Defining democracy

There have been many attempts at defining democracy, but there are a few elements that

most scholars seem to agree on. Diamond and Morlino (2005, p.ix-xliii)xv called them Lowest

Common Denominators of democracy and they summarise them as follows:

i. Democracy means greater equality of opportunity;

ii. Democracy means strengthening the rule of law;

iii. Democracy means greater citizen participation in all aspects of government

decisions;

iv. Democracy means all sound (maybe not frivolous) political proposals are free to

compete on a level playing field

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 22

v. Democracy means there is vertical accountability (people holding rulers

accountable) and horizontal accountability (different arms and agencies of

government holding each other accountable) to improve levels of stewardship of

public resources.

The media, if properly regulated, can play a key role in delivering the above six Lowest

Common Denominators. They do this by:

i. Being a watchdog over those in power (see also Leibman 2005 xvi; De Barros et

2017)xvii

ii. Facilitating open political debate on issues of governance (Mwesige 2009 xviii ;

Turner 2018)xix.

iii. Setting the agenda for policy-makers, i.e. tipping them off on what to prioritise

because they are in touch with the ordinary people (Nowak 2018).xx

For the media to play these roles optimally, it is important that they are structurally

diverse and permit the expression of diverse political and cultural perspectives. This has not

changed even with the advent of the new media. Structural diversity relates, for instance to who

owns the media, who controls them, how they are distributed (spatially), who they reach with

what technical quality etc. It is also important that the media are regulated. Content diversity is

different from structural diversity, but the two are inseparable. There may be plenty of content,

but is there real variety?

Current regulation debates rotate around not just how the media are regulated, but who

regulates the media: the state, the media industry which includes media owners, journalist

associations, the community, all media producers (bloggers, tweeters), or a combination?

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 23

Media freedom, media diversity, and democracy

Most of my research has concerned itself in one or another, with the concepts of media

freedom, media diversity and democracy, with regulation as a cross-cutting issue. The modern

channels of communication sit at the centre of debates on media freedom, freedom of expression

and democracy.

Media freedom

Media freedom is closely linked to media diversity in terms of both content and access.

Media freedom in our field is understood by many to mean freedom of the media to operate

without undue interference from government, from big business or from other powerful forces.

This freedom is seen as central to the media’s role in supporting democracy. Media freedom

makes it possible for voices which are not all singing one chorus to be heard in and through the

media. It facilitates the co-existence of divergent views (i.e. diversity). One might think of an

orchestra, but orchestras usually make an effort to harmonise their voices before the performance.

In the context of democracy you may not achieve harmony, but the orchestra should be allowed

to go on. Media are considered diverse if:

i. The media are able to freely reflect the preferences of the population and

ii. Populations of divergent preferences have equal access to the media.

Media diversity therefore is dependent on a degree of media freedom.

I must agree with Van Cuilenberg McQuail (2016)xxi, therefore, that for us to be able to

say the media, which dominate our communication landscape, are diverse, there should not just

be an improvement in technology, or an increase in number of channels on and offline, but there

should be evidence of tolerance of difference in the media. Otherwise we might as well go back

to having one radio station, one TV station, and possibly one newspaper.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 24

In this regard I have also, together with my former student, Njonjo Mfaumexxii, written

about the fact that perhaps it is no longer a viable project to force all debate into one unified public

sphere but rather allow for multiple and parallel little spheres. Perhaps these little spheres would

eventually identify a few things on which they all agree and stop focusing on their differences.

Perhaps then, we would have an idea what the true public interest is.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression, which is related to media freedom, on the other hand, goes one

layer deeper than media freedom. It refers to the actual freedom of individuals or groups to

communicate or exchange information through a variety of channels. It refers, if you wish, to

agency. There may be 303 radio stations, 51 TV stations and many internet-supported channels

to enable people to give, receive or discuss information in Uganda. But what kind of information

is available in the mainstream media which the majority access? What kind is available only via

the new media which only a few access? What is the quality of that information? How sharable

is that information? To what extent is the average person, or the average journalist able to share

that information without fear of negative consequences?

Another question I have battled with focusing on the Ugandan context is: does the

political act of liberalizing media space alone mean we now have expanded opportunities for

diversity and freedom of expression (Leslie 2017)xxiii. Does an explosion in technology mean the

majority of Ugandans access and use it for communication of things that actually matter? I have

also tried to address the obstacles to freedom of expression. In more economically advanced

contexts, people may have many communication channels, but they have no time, no internet

skills; what are the obstacles in our context? In the two National Electronic Media Performance

Studies xxiv , (see also Chibita 2006) xxv poverty features prominently. People cannot afford the
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 25

devices, the airtime, and the data. Other obstacles include: skill (people do not know how to open

a Facebook account, or to use Twitter or Instagram, or to call into a talk-show) (here I also refer

you to the work of Mwesige on talk-shows and democracy under the interesting topic: can you

hear me now?xxvi It might also be that there are cultural obstacles, like age or gender. There may

be infrastructural challenges like lack of access to electricity, poor bandwidth etc. Access could

also be hindered by lack of a realistic language policy (a large part of my research has been on

thisxxvii. Finally, some members of the audience may feel defeated by the dominant culture across

the available channels and become “conscientious objectors” and I have met a few of these. When

you have issues like these, it is then imperative to also speak about regulation.

Regulation

So a related area that has been of interest on my academic journey has been the regulation

of communication, or what we used to call media regulation. In trying to look comprehensively

at the regulation of the communication space in Uganda, I started off in 2010 with a journal article

titled: “The evolution of media policy in Uganda”.xxviii In this article, I examined patterns in the

regulation of the media in Uganda since independence and the policy behind these patterns. At

this stage, even though it was already clear that digital was the future, I did not examine the

regulation of digital spaces. I did this in a later article.xxix My major reflections at this point were

that:

The broadcast media were more deliberately regulated than the print media. This has been

discussed widely, and attributed to the relatively larger reach of radio and increasingly television.

As you may know, illiteracy is not an absolute obstacle for radio or television, while it is for the

print media. The paper notes that there has been a lack of consistency and clear articulation in

media/communication policy over the years. In this paper, I point out examples in the Press and
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 26

Journalists’ Act 1995 and the Electronic Media Act (since subsumed under another) where there

are contradictions between the Broadcast Council’s Mandate and UCC’s mandate. Luckily many

of these have now been resolved, thanks to convergence. I also note ambiguity in language which

makes enforcement unpredictable; a tendency to bring back through the back door laws that had

been struck off the books by the courts of law, or to apply them in getting people arrested, even

if briefly to make a point; a pattern of continuously chipping away at editorial independence

contrary to public pronouncements to the contrary; a tendency to protect public officials from

scrutiny under the guise of protection of privacy and the huge fines imposed on journalists who

lose defamation cases against senior government officials xxx ; and leaving a window for the

executive to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the media which potentially undermines the

independence of the media. One also notes that media regulation in Uganda has tended to change

with seasons, with regulators seeming to be on heightened alert at peak political moments. There

are seasons when the law on anything is rarely invoked, then there are others where if there is no

law, one will be found.

The argument that runs through my work on freedom of expression (and media freedom)

in Uganda, therefore, is that it is free, but it is not to be taken for granted. Indeed journalists and

lately other media users and producers are once-in-while reminded “whence their freedom

cometh.” In all fairness, though, this may partly be consistent with Article 43 of the constitution,

which sets the limits for the enjoyment of these freedoms. The article states:

1. In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person

shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or

the public interest.

2. Public interest under this article shall not permit—

(a) Political persecution;

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 27

(b) Detention without trial;

(c) Any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by

this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and

democratic society, or what is provided in this Constitution.

Focus on popular media and popular culture

I also tackle regulation in complex situations in another book chapter (Chibita 2011).xxxi

This chapter focuses specifically on popular media and popular culture. The new media

environment has boosted popular culture and given birth to a wider range of popular media

content. This chapter takes an Africa-wide perspective, but has a lot to say about the Ugandan

communication space as well.

The major reflections of this chapter were inspired by the popular Luganda phrase:

“abadongo mwefuge.” In Buganda, the largest region of Uganda, when a party warms up, the

entertainers usually get excited and noisy, and you will frequently hear the Master of Ceremonies

say, “abaaye abadongo mwefuge.” [Come on, entertainers, exercise some self-control]. One popular

musician, Paulo Kafeero, actually composed a popular song with this as the refrain.

I have had a fairly close relationship with abadongo (broadly meaning entertainers)

because one of them lived in our house for five or so years. This was a young and upcoming rap

artist named Benezeri. He hated to be called upcoming, by-the-way. Benezeri, our son, is now 26,

but there were five intense years in his life and ours where the word abadongo was not a casual

word. Benezeri has since moved on to other things even though he remains passionate about

music and very supportive of musicians and the music industry. For details of his work, perhaps

the best known being Zukuuka [sic]xxxii, I refer you to YouTube.

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 28

Popular media

Even though popular media (along with their content, called popular culture) tend to be

taken lightly, they potentially have a powerful political contribution to make. These are media

that represent culture from the “ordinary people”. This could be music, poetry, drama etc. They

are not mainstream. They originally served a specific group of people with a common culture and

understanding. In some ways, popular media and popular culture tend to merge, and to be

associated with a form of protest against mainstream media and the mainstream culture it carries.

In this regard I also refer you to another chapter titled “Digital Activism in Uganda”xxxiii where I

discuss how people who feel they cannot adequately express themselves through the mainstream

media and other available channels of communication use the new media to mobilise against and

to frustrate systems they are opposed to.

It used to be that popular culture targeted what some refer to as “omuntu wa wansi” (the

ordinary, even downtrodden) as opposed to the elite of society. This has changed. Popular culture

can get as sophisticated and as loaded as Shakespeare. Popular media are also now intertwined

with new media as they depend on them for circulation.

Popular media bring into public discourse topics and often styles that were previously

considered off-the-limits and not worthy of the public sphere, or simply uncomfortable for some

people both socially and politically. Kadongokamuxxxiv is a safe example. Hip-Hop is another. A lot

of music falls into this category, because people more easily summon up the courage to sing their

discontent than speak it out. This is especially true if speaking up is known to have negative

consequences. It should be noted that popular culture content tends to be either in a “local”

language. This may be an ethnic language, or a language coined by and used in a specific sub-

culture (for instance, boda-bodaxxxv riders have their own slang, sports people their own, market

vendors their own etc.). So through popular culture, a person or a group can be systematically
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 29

included, or excluded. A mini public sphere can take shape and begin having its own private

conversation. A group with common interests can be mobilized. It is important to realise,

therefore, that popular culture represents an important communication channel when the

mainstream channels are for economic, social, religious or political reasons, out-of-bounds.

Furthermore, in the current communication environment, when there is so much culture coming

into Uganda in form of music and movies, sometimes popular artists are the local answer to what

they perceive as “invasive” foreign cultures.

However, it is also important to realise that popular media can have a dark side, as for

example when they take advantage of their space to be vulgar, or when they are used to incite

hatred, prejudice or violence.

New media, new dilemmas

I have met very few people who would disagree that even in a free communication

environment, some level of regulation is necessary for:

i. Protecting vulnerable groups, like children.

ii. Preventing hate speech

iii. Protecting of reputation

iv. Regulating media ownership and distribution to enhance diversity,

v. Promoting linguistic diversity

vi. Ensuring affordability (services and content)

vii. Protecting and promoting useful local content

viii. Safeguarding fair competition

These are not the problem. The problem is how do you regulate these things when the

landscape for which current regulation was designed has changes so fundamentally?
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 30

In recognition of the changes in our communication environment that I described at the

start, in 2017 I did some work with a Kenyan colleague, Wilson Uganguxxxvi. This was a textbook

chapter. I treasure this particular piece because the book in which it was published is part of a

series edited by my supervisor (Promoter), Prof. Fourie. It is also exciting because it was touching

on an emerging area whose regulation (or not) continues to baffle many scholars. Finally, it is in

a textbook that my bazukulu (grandchildren) might one day use. The book covered the dilemmas

of regulation the communication landscape in light of the social (new) media. I recognise that we

still have a long way to go in finding a solution for the regulation of the current communication

environment in the public interest. Whether we choose to regulate or not to regulate, we risk

throwing out the baby with the bath-water.

Freedman (2012:97)xxxvii captures this dilemma, and I paraphrase him:

i. Digital information is intangible, yet is easy to manipulate so evidence gets

complicated

ii. It is cuts across geographical boundaries

iii. The infrastructure of the new, digital media is global

iv. The purpose of internet communication is to make information available to as

many people as possible, not to manage information

It has become difficult for regulators to identify who or what to regulate. If someone picks

up a damaging story on the internet and sends a tweet about it off his/her phone. Then thousands

of his/her followers read and retweet it via different devices (phones, tablets, desktop computers

etc.). Then I pick it up and use it as an illustration in the class. If someone then complains that in

in process, their reputation was damaged, who is liable for damaging that reputation? How do

you regulate Google which aggregates data and information and avails it for people to apply as

they please? As a newspaper or as a broadcast medium? What about Google’s sources? How do
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 31

you regulate these? How does the regulator deal with services such as YouTube, where a lot of

business is transacted, but where no one nation can be held liable should something go terribly

wrong and threaten the sovereignty of a nation (for example, videos posted on the internet by

“terrorist” groups)?

Print used to be less heavily regulated than radio or television. But then the content was

also easy to distinguish. One was text, the other was video or audio. Does that change now that

many newsrooms are moving towards converged newsrooms and sharing content across what

used to be totally different silos?

Blogging has been hailed as the ultimate symbol of free expression. Is thinking aloud or

free expression in a blog or on Twitter as much a concern as thinking aloud on national television?

Should bloggers be regulated for thinking aloud about their political or religious views or is this

within the boundaries of freedom of expression? (This is not a hypothetical question any more.)

Today, you are a good journalist if you can tell a story in print, but also insert a hyperlink

to video or audio, or to a completely other source of additional data. How do you extend

regulation from the original silo (print) to everything else that this single journalist touches? How

do you deal with the damage that results from the metamorphosis that this text undergoes as it

is shared? How do you identify the “author”?

My point is that if the regulatory environment is changing, the approach to regulation

must also change, but must do so without encroaching on those freedoms already guaranteed in

our constitution. The current media environment calls for innovative regulation, not repression

and not resignation. It is Chinua Achebe who said, citing an endangered species of a bird, that

“since man has learnt to shoot without missing, I have also learnt to fly without perching.xxxviii

Many countries in the North have had intense discussions, and have started changing their

approach to regulation to suit the times. In East Africa, Kenya is experimenting with a model
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 32

called co-regulation.xxxix This model recognizes that regulators of communication must work with

all stakeholders to reach an understanding, guided by genuine mutual trust and an

understanding of what used to be called the “public interest.”xl

The Media Council in Uganda has started discussing this, and the Uganda

Communications Commission a year or so ago held some dialogue with a number of industry

players about how to regulate in the new environment. Perhaps it is time to begin breaking down

the walls between the regulator and the regulated. It may also be time to intensify dialogue with

the people who shape tomorrow’s media users, as well as researchers to find a model that works

for Uganda. While I do not advocate for totally eliminating state regulation of the communication

sector, I am persuaded that it is time for the state to begin engaging partners to manage the new

communication space more efficiently and in a way that fosters a free and diverse communication

environment, for the sake of our democracy.

Thank you.

###
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 33

Footnotes

i
Chibita M. and Fourie P. 2007. A socio-history of the media and participation in Uganda. Communicatio:
South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research. 33(1). 2007:1-25.
ii
The “Mwesige” Review Commission was set to review the operations of the Uganda Broadcasting
Corporation with the goal of revamping it to make it more efficient and bring it in line with Public Broadcasting best
practices.
iii
Gariyo, Z. 1993. The Media, Constitutionalism, and Democracy in Uganda. Kampala: Centre for Basic
Research.
iv
Tabaire, B. 2007. The Press and Political Repression in Uganda: Back to the Future? Journal of East
African Studies. 1(2). 193-2011.
v
Uganda. 2013. Uganda Communications Act [CAP 106]. Entebbe. Government Printer
vi
8. Chibita M.B. 2010. The evolution of media policy in Uganda. African Communication Research. 3(1).
Pp. 85-119.
vii
Uganda. National Broadcasting Policy. 2004.
viii
The Electronic Media Act has since been subsumed under the Uganda Communications Act [CAP 106].

x
Fourie, P.J. 2017. Social media and mediated communication in postmodern society, In Fourie, P.J (Ed).
2017. Media Studies. Media Studies: Volume 4 - Social (New) Media and Mediated Communication Today. Cape
Town: JUTA.1-37.
xi
Bukedde TV, part of the Vision Group, is the leading local language television in Uganda, famous for its
titillating, tabloid-type news and entertainment programming.
xii
Luganda word approximating the meaning “spirits”. Amayembe are believed by some to possess secret
powers that traditional healers claim to invoke to visit suffering upon their targets.
xiii
Joseph Eugene Stiglitz is an American economist, public policy analyst, and a professor at Columbia
University.
xiv
Chibita, M. B. 2015. “Indigenous language media and freedom of expression in Uganda,” in Abiodun
Salawu and Monica B. Chibita (eds). 2015. Indigenous language media, language politics and democracy in Africa.
London: Palgrave: 28-56.
xv
Diamond, L. J. and Morlino, L. (Eds). 2005. Assessing the Quality of Democracy (A Journal of Democracy
Book). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
xvi
Liebman, B. L. 2005. Watchdog or Demagogue? The Media in the Chinese Legal System. Columbia Law
Review, 105 (1), 1-157.
xvii
De Barros, de Barros, Camará, da Fonseca, Grätz, Lima, Manjate, Margoso. 2017. Media Freedom and
Right to Information in Africa. Centro de Estudos Internacionais.
xviii
Mwesige, P. 2009. The democratic functions and dysfunctions of media in Uganda. Journal of African
Media Studies, 1(2). 221-245.
xix
Turner, B. 2018. The media and democracy in the digital era: is this what we had in mind? Media
International Australia. 168 (1). 3-14.
xx
Nowak-Teter, E. (2018). "Agenda-setting theory and the new media." 33.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322602862_Agenda-setting_theory_and_the_new_media.
xxi
Mcquail, D and Van Cuilenberg. 2003. Media Policy Paradigm Shifts: Towards a New Communications
Policy Paradigm. 18 (3). 181-2007
xxii
See Chibita M.B. and Mfaume, N. 2011. “Language policy in Uganda and Tanzania: public sphere or
public sphericules? Mawazo: The Journal of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. 10(3): 236-256.
xxiii
Leslie, M. (2002). Media and Democracy in Africa. New York: Routledge,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203785980.
xxiv
Uganda. 2004. Chibita, M.B. The National Electronic Media Performance Study: A Broadcasting Council
Report and Uganda 2004. Chibita, M.B. The National Electronic Media Performance Study (II).
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 34

xxv
Chibita, M. B. 2006. Indigenous language study and citizen performance in Uganda’s broadcast media:
an exploratory study. Doctoral dissertation. University of South Africa
xxvi
Mwesige. P. 2004. "Can You Hear Me Now?": Radio Talk Shows and Political Participation in Uganda.
Indiana University. Indiana University. Doctoral dissertation, and Mwesige P. 2009. The democratic functions and
dysfunctions of political talk radio: the case of Uganda. Journal of African Media Studies. 1(2). 221-245.
xxvii
Relevant works include: Chibita, M. B. 2015. “Indigenous language media and freedom of expression in
Uganda,” in Abiodun Salawu and Monica B. Chibita (eds). 2015. Indigenous language media, language politics and
democracy in Africa. London: Palgrave: 28-56.
Chibita M.B. and Salawu, A. 2015. “Introduction: language, structure and agency: optimising media diversity
in Africa using the indigenous languages,” in Abiodun Salawu and Monica B. Chibita (eds).Indigenous language
media, language politics and democracy in Africa. London: Palgrave: 1-9. 4. Salawu, A. and Chibita, Monica B. (Eds).
2015. Indigenous language media, language politics and democracy in Africa. London: Palgrave.
Chibita M. B. 2012. “Multiple publics, multiple languages: Radio and the contestations of broadcasting
language policy in Uganda,” in Liz Gunner, Dina Ligaga, and Dumisani Moyo (Eds). 2012. Radio in Africa: Cultures,
publics, communities. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Pp.27-285 6. Chibita M.B. and Mfaume, N. 2011.
“Language policy in Uganda and Tanzania: public sphere or public sphericules? Mawazo: The Journal of the College
of Humanities and Social Sciences. 10(3): 236-256. 7.
xxviii
Chibita, M.B. 2010. The evolution of media policy in Uganda. African Communication Research. 3(1).
Pp. 85-119
xxix
See Fourie 2017 (Ibid)
xxx
For a detailed discussion of this, see Jjuuko, F. 2015. 4 th Estate: Media freedom and rights in Uganda.
Kampala: Fountain Publishers.
xxxi
Chibita M. B. 2011. “Policing popular media in Africa”, in popular media, democracy and development,
Herman Wasserman (ed). London: Routledge: 268-281.
xxxii
Zukuuka is a Hip-hop piece decrying systemic corruption. While the song is in English, its main call,
“wake up” (Zukuuka) is in Luganda.
xxxiii
Chibita M.B. (2016) Digital Activism in Uganda. In: Mutsvairo B. (eds) Digital Activism in the Social
Media Era. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 69-93.
xxxiv
Kadongokamu is a popular music genre based on a single guitar and dependent on extensive story-telling.
xxxv
Boda boda in East Africa refers to motorcycles used as a convenient substitute to cars. They tend to park
at different stages, and each stage tends to develop a sub-culture of its own over time.
xxxvi
Chibita, M. B. and Ugangu, W. 2017. Social Media Regulation in Africa, in Pieter J. Fourie (Ed.). 2017.
Media Studies: Social (new) Media and Mediated Communication Today. Volume IV. Cape Town: JUTA. (Media
Theory textbook chapter).
xxxvii
2016. National Media and Regulation in the age of convergence. In Flew, T., Iosifidis, P. and Steemers,
J. (Eds). Global media and national policies: the return of the state. London: Springer. 1-15.
xxxviii
Achebe, Chinua. 1959. Things Fall Apart. London: Anchor Books.
xxxix
See Lunt P and Livingstone, S. 2011.
Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers. London: SAGE, for a detailed
treatment of emerging regulatory models.
xl
Hitchens, L. 2011. Media Regulatory Frameworks in the Age of Broadband: Securing Diversity. Journal
of Information Policy, Vol. 1, pp. 217-240.