Summary Report on Freedom of Expression in Jordan for the year 2005

2005 was the year of heightened tension between the Jordan Press Association (JPA) and the weekly newspapers. Although press cases in courts dropped dramatically from previous years, independent journalists feel threatened by the government and their own association.

First the prime minister Adnan Badran issued a decision in May 2005 depriving weekly newspapers from government advertising. The weeklies took the case to the JPA which said it did not have time to discuss the decision in its meeting with the premier on June 14.

During the months of August and September, a fierce campaign was launched by the JPA against what it saw as “unethical behaviour” by weekly newspapers (which are privately owned in Jordan- the government owns and has shares in daily newspapers only). On August 7, 2005 the Association threatened to prosecute some journalists based on the claim that the Association received an increased number of complaints against journalists and papers that publish materials harmful to the reputation of people. 

Not only that, but the JPA attributed what it saw as unethical practices by “some tabloids and dailies to the fact that individuals were allowed by law to open newspapers.

These moves were taken by the JPA before a king made a speech on August 16, in which he criticized, inter alia, the performance of the weeklies and escalated afterwards. The king said without specifying that “weekly newspapers compete in spreading rumours and lies for financial gain even at the expense of the national interest. These newspapers attack in every direction and all those in charge. We should refrain from joining these newspapers in promoting whatever rumours, accusations and slander they circulate.”

Jordan established the individual’s right to own and publish newspapers in the 1993 press and publications law. It is the only right remaining following the series of crackdowns on the press since 1997 and until present through the introduction and imposing harsh press laws. Dangerously enough, The Association said it would study suggestions to amend the Press and Publications Law to bar individuals from obtaining licences to issue publications.[1]

The JPA itself was under attack a month later, in September, by the National Agenda in Jordan formed by the king. The agenda, though it did not tackle serious issues within the Jordanian media such as government interference in the media, censorship and government ownership of some publications, recommended that mandatory membership in the JPA be eliminated and that the Higher Media Council be abolished and replaced with a regulatory commission for the media sector.

The JPA organised a sit-in on October 4^th  in front of the Prime Ministry, where the National Agenda committee meets, to protest against the recommendation.

Access to Information

Jordan’s constitution allows in general for free access to information to all Jordanian citizens. However, there is no direct provision that insists on that right or the tools to safeguard it.

Due to Jordan’s long heritage of martial law until 1989, the culture of secrecy dominates and is reflected in almost all laws and legislation. At present, there are several ten laws that hinder access to information such as:

- Jordan Press Association Law (1998)

- Penal code (1960)

- Defense Law (1992)

- Contempt of Court Law (1959)

- Protection of State Secrets and Classified Documents Law (1971)

- Press and Publications Law (1999)

Jordanian governments control the different media means, influence their independence and make access to basic information almost impossible to journalists to be able to perform their profession in a proper manner.

In the past years, reform issues have been under the spotlight. Restructuring the media and rewording related laws were on the agenda. But changes to provisions were on the whole part superficial. In that context, the law on Access to Information appeared.

Activists admit that the mere proposition of a law on Access to Information is in itself positive and unique in the Arab region. Jordan might be the only Arab country that strongly suggested to draft and endorse the law at a governmental level.

Jordan abolished the Ministry of Information but other bodies performing the same task were created.

There is a considerable lack of credibility among Jordanians in their own media means. And although there are no accurate numbers to act as indicators of the situation, experts believe that readers of newspapers are considerably low as is the percentage of watching state run Jordan Television.

In two daring surveys carried out by the Higher Media Council on April 19, lack of access to information was the main hindrance to journalists work. The surveys revealed that almost one-third of the 765 respondents, of both journalists and chief editors of daily and weekly newspapers, experienced lack of access to information.

The surveys measured experiences of reporters and chief editors from the beginning of July to the end of December last year. Both groups were asked to respond to separate lists of 15 questions — each pertaining to what would be considered obstacles to and violations of press freedoms.

They also showed that officials decline to answer journalists questions over important issues, there is selectivity in forwarding invitations to press conferences and meetings, and journalists are prevented from entering certain governmental premises and refugee camps. Periodically, governments issue memos to employees not to give any statements or information to journalists. Around 13 per cent of the respondents said they experienced interference in their work, while about 11 per cent said they received unofficial threats.

The draft law on access to information presented by the government has many loopholes that prevent access to information and provide very few guarantees to journalists and citizens to ensure their right to acquire information.

Article 7 of the law prohibits public demand of information that has “religious, racial and ethnic discrimination or discrimination based on sex or color.”

This provision is very elastic and vague in content. It  might be applied to simple information on cases of discrimination against women for example or crimes of honor or status of Christians in Jordan.

Article 13 of the draft law negates the real motives behind legislating a law on access to information. It gives the authority to officials not to disclose information related to:

- State secrets and confidential documents stipulated in other legislation. (Here there is a reference to the State Secrets and Confidential Documents Law which is in blatant contradiction with the right to have access to information. The law prohibits civil servants from making public any  classified document. There are four categories of classification: ordinary, restricted, secret and top secret. All categories including the ordinary document[2] are considered secret unless authorization is obtained.

- Classified information obtained through agreements with other country.

- Secrets related to national defense or state security or foreign policy.

- Information that includes nanalyses or recommendations or propositions or consultations given to the official prior to taking decisions which include correspondence and information exchanged among the different governmental departments.

- Personal and confidential correspondance through any communication mean with the governmental departments and their reactions.

- Information, which when disclosed, influence negotiations between the kingdom and another country or another party.

- Investigations carried out by the general prosecution or security apparatus concerning any crime or case within their jurisdiction.

- Information that has commercial or industrial or financial or economic nature as well as information on tenders, scientific and technical research that leads to violation of copyright or harms fair and legitimate competition and which leads to illegitimate profit or loss to any person or company.

This article includes practically any valid information about any subject. Any demand by the journalist or the citizen for information could fall within one of these categories of article 13. Although experts and the president of the Higher Media council who prepared the draft promised in a meeting with the Arab Archives Institute that there will be a review of these provisions and others, the law does not provide an absolute guarantee to access to information in any of its provisions and has more restrictions to access information than getting it.

The law also has the following shortcomings:

- The Access to Information Board is appointed by the government and not through election by parliament to ensure independence from government’s decisions.

- The duration of the response is too long (one month). It should be maximum of three weeks and could be postponed to three more weeks in exceptional cases.

- Sanctions should be enforced on officials who destroy documents with ill-intent.

- Annual report of the Access to Information Board should be referred to Parliament and not to the Prime Ministry as is the case with the Audit Bureau report.

The Arab Archives Institute (AAI) in cooperation with Jordan Transparency Forum (JTF) organized a special conference to discuss and lobby for changing restrictive provisions from the law. The Meeting was attended by Higher Media council (HMC) President Ibrahim Izzedine, legal advisors, politicians and journalists as well as university professors. The meeting discussed in depth the draft law based on which directors of AAI and JTF were invited to discuss amendments to the draft with the HMC’s president and advisors.

Although there was some tension when discussing article 13 of the draft, the president promised to look into AAI and JTF suggestions in an amended version to be submitted as attachment to the law to the Prime Ministry.

This was the only activity in Jordan that tackled access to information draft law. It is hoped that the years 2005-2006 will witness more activities in that regard in terms of lobbying and raising awareness to the dangerous provisions in the draft.

The draft law is supposed to be discussed by the Lower House of Parliament. But due to a royal decree to postpone convening Parliament for two months, (the Parliament’s ordinary session is constitutionally slated for October 1), discussion and endorsement of pending laws will be postponed too. When House convenes, it will be time for the discussion of next year’s budget which takes three weeks followed by discussion and endorsement of draft legislation that fall under the emergency category. The law might or might not be approved this year or the next. But in all accounts, real lobbying should be carried out to ensure that restrictive provisions are eliminated or at least limited to exceptional cases.