<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

IV. The Context for Freedom of the Press in Angola

Despite the extensive obligations incumbent on the Angolan government deriving from the legal provisions described above, Angolan law and practice have in the past violated international standards on freedom of expression and information. Previous research by Human Rights Watch exposed deficiencies in press freedom legislation and relevant sections of Angola’s Criminal Code that seriously hampered the exercise of press freedom, in particular by the private media.¹⁵

The Angolan constitution protects the “right to honor”¹⁶ and the Criminal Code ensures this protection through sanctions for defamation (difamacao) and injuria (the attribution of a negative characteristic to someone that may affect the person’s moral dignity). In the past, public officials abusively invoked this legislation against journalists to silence criticism in the press regarding those public officials public and private activities. Journalists who openly criticized government officials were sometimes convicted of defamation and sentenced to prison as well as fined.¹⁷ Some of the court cases are still pending after several years. Although the journalists involved have not been arrested and continue to practice journalism, they are under a constant de facto threat that the case may be restarted and they may be found guilty of defamation.¹⁸

In one case, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) ruled that the Angolan government violated its obligations under article 19 of the ICCPR by imposing restrictions on freedom of expression that were unnecessary and disproportionate to the aims it was trying to achieve. The 40-day detention, including 10 days of incommunicado detention of the journalist in this case was ruled by the HRC to constitute arbitrary detention in violation of article 9 of the ICCPR.¹⁹  

Many other violations of the right to freedom of expression have been previously documented by Human Rights Watch. These have included arbitrary imprisonment of, and violence against, journalists or editors who published stories that reflected poorly on the government (such as corruption or mismanagement of funds or institutions). Many have also been threatened into not writing about or publishing on certain subjects. The main private radio station in the country—the Catholic Church-run Radio Eclésia—has been subjected to restrictions that have prevented it from broadcasting nationally, despite possessing the technical conditions to do so. Additionally, there have been several cases where journalists from private newspapers have been denied access to official government documents or public events.²⁰

The long civil war in Angola and the many years of one party rule have left a fear of censorship on the part of journalists that has caused many to self-censor their work even today when addressing issues that could be viewed as controversial by the government.²¹ 

Although no serious events of violence against, or arbitrary arrests, of journalists have been reported in 2006, a number of occurrences demonstrate that the environment in which journalists exercise their profession is still not completely free of government interference.

Some journalists have reported to Human Right Watch that significant obstacles exist in the circulation of private newspapers throughout the country. Paper and printing costs are too high and exacerbated by excessive taxing. Transportation is extremely difficult and costly given the degree of destruction of infrastructure in the country due to the war. These obstacles have been aggravated by instances where newspapers containing articles critical of the government have been apprehended by unidentified individuals upon arrival in the provinces or where state subsidies are provided only to state owned media.²² This situation seriously jeopardizes access to information.

Journalists in private newspapers have also pointed out that the government often releases important information on Fridays, when the weekly private newspapers are in print already and can only comment on the issue one week later, when it is already “old news”.²³ One journalist, for example, reported that this occurred a few months ago when the government released on Saturday, April 1 2006, the results of the Commission of Enquiry (sindicancia) that investigated the circumstances of the exoneration of the former head of the External Intelligence Services, General Fernando Miala.²⁴

On some occasions journalists have been forbidden to use cameras to cover news facts or had their cameras apprehended by the police. A journalist from O Angolense told Human Rights Watch that he was warned by the police not to carry his camera while visiting the neighborhood of São Paulo, where he was investigating reports of alleged police harassment against street vendors. Another journalist told Human Rights Watch that journalists have not been allowed to use cameras when covering events of forced evictions and demolitions.²⁵    

The following section analyzes the provisions of the new press law in light of international standards on freedom of expression and information.