IBA by MISA Zambia zambia

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

A SENSITISATION WORKSHOP FOR STAKEHOLDERS HELD AT NDEKE HOTEL

MARCH 19, 2004

CONTENTS 0.1 Executive Summary 1.0 Welcoming remarks by the moderator Fr Frank Bwalya 2.0 Opening Remarks by Kellys Kaunda - Chairman of MISA Zambia 3.0 Review of the Independent Broadcasting Authority – paper presentation by Patrick Matibini, Legal Consultant

4.0 Questions and Discussions 5.0 The Future of Broadcasting Under the New IBA Regulatory Framework – a paper presentation by Cephas Masiye, Assistant Controller – Radio Frequency Management 6.0 Questions and Discussions 7.0 Possible Implications for Regulating the Broadcasting Industry in Zambia under the IBA Act, a practical perspective – paper presentation by Brian Lingela MISA Zambia Broadcasting researcher 8.0 Communiqué 9.0 List of Participants 10.0 Financial report

0.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a report of a sensitization workshop on the Independent Broadcasting Authority organized by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA Zambia) at Ndeke Hotel on March 19, 2004. Nearly thirty participants from 27 Radio and Television stations attended the one day workshop. Fr Frank Bwalya, MISA Zambia chairman for Broadcasting, welcomed participants and reminded them that the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act (IBA) was enacted in 2002. He said the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services has, through a technical committee established under the old ZNBC Act, continued to regulate licensing. The objective of the workshop was, therefore, to sensitize the stakeholders on the provisions of the Act. Fr Bwalya asked the participants for their expectations. These were recorded to be discussed at the end during the evaluation of the workshop. Two facilitators were introduced lawyer Patrick Matibini and Assistant Controller Radio Frequency Management Cephas Masiye of the Communications Authority. MISA Zambia chairperson Kellys Kaunda in his opening remarks said he wanted to share the frustrations the association had experienced with the powers that be. MISA Zambia consulted the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services Mutale Nalumango and the Vice President Nevers Mumba on ways of getting the IBA off the ground, he said. MISA Zambia took this approach to avoid confrontation. Despite this, the IBA had stalled over names chosen by the Appointments Committee and this has made one feel frustrated and angry. “We are stuck because of people who literary want to appoint members of the board. So what is the way forward? I think we must devise individual or collective pressure so this law can be implemented,” he concluded. In reviewing the IBA Act Matibini explained its functions and gave a background to the Act. He said the Bill was presented in the National Assembly by then minister of Information and Broadcasting Newstead Zimba and the IBA Act number 17 of 2002 became law on December 31, 2002 when President Levy Mwanawasa gave his assent. Matibini said the IBA has to be independent in broadcasting regulation and not be part of government. Other details Matibini mentions include the composition of a part-time board, power to issue licences and the financial provisions. In conclusion Matibini said neither privatization of the media nor the establishment of many commercial stations guaranteed information to citizens. He said the challenge was the need to implement the Act because only regulation under the IBA guaranteed information to citizens. And through questions and discussion many other points were raised. For instance Francis Phiri from Chipata’s Radio Breeze in Chipata wondered why the powers of the ministers appeared entrenched in the Act while Mwembe Sichone of CASAT/TV Africa said Matibini’s presentation raised a lot of questions that he hoped would be answered by the end of the day.

In response Matibini admitted that certain sections of the IBA did indeed give the minister power on license fees and appointments of the ad hoc committee and board members. He attributed this to the history of the IBA Act in 1993. To Sichone’s question Matibini agreed that the Act had not been implemented since 2002. “The responsibility for implementing legislation lies with the executive. This process started with the ad hoc Appointments Committees who forwarded names to the minister. The minister appoints and takes them to the National Assembly for ratification. This is where we are now,” Matibini said. On whether the IBA was subject to control by the government Matibini agreed but added that only in terms of policy that the IBA is expected to implement. The idea is to make the IBA be outside government structure. Other questions related to emergency powers. Was it proper for government to take over radio stations during such emergency? Government could use the stations for propaganda and this was a threat to press freedom. Other questions were on disclosure of interest in section 14, the immunity of board members in section 15 and the term “the minister constitutes” in section 8 whether this meant that the minister became part of the committee. Matibini said emergency powers were indeed draconian and that was one of the drawbacks of the IBA Act. This was taken from the amended ZNBC Act. With regard to sections 14 and 15 members of the board are urged to declare interest – that is what section 14 does - while section 15 immunized board members from lawsuits. In the case of section 8 the word “constituting” did not mean that the minister had become a member of the committee. Gift Wamulume from Radio Lyambai observed that media associations worked very hard to move this bill and now that the process had stalled what legal provisions existed to force government to move forward? And would the roles of the Media Ethics Council of Zambia and the Independent Broadcasting Authority not overlap? On the legal position Matibini said the problem was with discretionary power which gave latitude to operate and make choices. It was possible government would find some argument including lack of finance which a judge would find difficult to ignore. On whether the IBA was a duplication of the Media Ethics Council of Zambia Matibini said MECOZ was a concept of self-regulation while the IBA had a broader mandate. The IBA is a licensing authority and the two bodies are very distinct though some issues may overlap. James Simasiku of Unza Radio expressed worry at the minister’s failure to take names to the National Assembly for ratification. He asked whether the IBA Act was in force or not? Matibini referred to the Speaker’s ruling on the provision of the Zambian constitution regards bills with financial implications. He said government assumed ownership of the bills, inserted “suitable” provisions and rushed them to the National Assembly. The ZNBC (Amendment) Act had transformed the corporation from a

state broadcaster to a public service broadcaster though the law has not been implemented. The Assistant Controller for Radio Frequency Management at the Communication Authority (CA) Cephas Masiye said he would deal only with the role of the CA in managing the radio frequency spectrum. He said was from the CA and not from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Any questions that would rightly be answered by that ministry should not be raised, he added. The Electromagnetic audio/video signals are the vehicle of broadcasting and it goes without saying that broadcasting is crucial to modern society because of its capacity to reach many people, he said. It is because of this capacity to reach large audiences that broadcasting has been controlled. Radio frequencies can either be in the AM or FM mode and the AM mode allowed transmission to longer distances, he said. The FM, which was developed in the 1930s, provides for a superior sound and is amenable to the broadcasting of music in stereo. Many aspects of the IBA Act have already been dealt, however, as Matibini indicated that law though in place is not yet operational. Thus regulation was still done through a ministerial committee under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. He said the committee comprised representatives from the Communications Authority, Legal Affairs ministry and the ZNBC. Masiye then discussed the procedure followed by an applicant wishing to establish a broadcasting operation. He also looked at what obtains in neighbouring countries such as South Africa which had the longest serving IBA but with no power over spectrum. Another organization – SATRA supervised the spectrum and because of the arising problems only one regulatory body – ICASA – has since been created and the IBA is just a department within this new organization. He also referred to Tanzania which faced a similar situation. In Zambia an IBA was good if it was going to be independent. However, Masiye pointed out that section 49 of the Act recognized the existence of the Communications Authority which will control the broadcasting spectrum. Masiye noted, with interest, that the same law had given the IBA power to plan the use of the spectrum when it does not control the spectrum. He said that the CA had taken note of this. In conclusion Masiye pointed to the deficiencies existing in the current regulatory situation, the limited resources – financial or manpower available to the IBA – what model could the IBA use to develop the broadcasting industry? What model can the IBA in conjunction with the CA use considering some of the bands are shared by other users? How best will the IBA meet the interests of the consumers (i.e. the people) and those of broadcasters and the government? These interests are at most times conflicting but at the same time must be met by the IBA. Several questions were asked including whether the IBA would experience growth under the IBA. Masiye said it all depended on the IBA and gave details of what could be done through charges for licences. He too emphasized the need for ‘Independence.’ Funding from government would remove the IBA’s independence. “Let government give policy and the IBA implement that policy,” he emphasized.

The need for cooperation between the CA and the IBA was raised. In this regard some conflict of frequencies between ZNBC and Health in Katete was mentioned. Also mentioned was the growth of companies using radio for internal communication and that of radio stations and whether frequencies would still be available for future development? Masiye said the CA would resolve the apparent conflict observed regards Health and ZNBC in Katete. He said the frequencies used by the two are very different and that the two organisations don’t even know there is such interference. He also said companies have a different band for internal communication. And Matibini said government should be in the forefront in promoting the IBA and the starting point is the board, without the board there is no leadership. The Appointments Committee has done its work. Discussion of Masiye’s paper showed a greater awareness of the issues by the participants especially with regard to the IBA Act and its implication. It further showed their curiosity regards the relationship between the IBA and the CA. Matibini mentioned another angle to the legal issue saying this could be followed by a question in court on the continued exercise of the functions of the IBA by a body that is illegal. “This is a different question to that of whether the minister is right not to take the names to the National Assembly. In the case of the technical committee the question is different. Does that body have legal power to give or deny a licence?” Masiye observed that for the IBA Act to be implemented there must be political will. For instance the law says local ownership of radio or television stations must be 75 per cent but at the same time government has allocated frequencies to the BBC and Radio France International. “IBA is going to be weak if it is funded by government. CA operated for three years without a board but CA had its own revenue source,” Masiye observed. Brian Lingela, the MISA Zambia researcher in broadcasting stated in his presentation that his intention was to make participants reflect on the implication of the IBA Act. He said it was not his intention to prescribe what kind of IBA or regulatory framework but to provide room for debate. Under the ZNBC Act of 1987 there was a lot of control by the minister while under the current IBA Act the minister does not have power. Applicants do not need to go through the ministry to start broadcasting because the minister does not have power to cancel or withdraw a licence. He also went through the details of section 5 and section 27. He also notes that the IBA has to observe the provision of section 49 and work in liaison with the CA for this to be implemented. He also covered issues of programming in terms of local content and the 75 per cent local ownership which Lingela observed while good may tend to discourage investment. During the discussion that followed the moderator emphasized on looking at practical issues. Some questions raised related to whether there were any advantages or disadvantages under the IBA and whether it was right for government to fund the IBA. Others raised the vexing issue of 75 percent local ownership. On disadvantages Lingela said he could not think of any while Masiye added that the IBA stands for the advancement of the broadcasting industry and as such could not have any

disadvantages. Lingela said ownership should indeed this should be for Zambians while Masiye added that the broadcasting industry called for patriotism. Participants discussed whether they could contribute some money to jumpstart the IBA but this view was later discarded as it would be illegal under the Act. After some further discussion Fr Bwalya added that once the IBA begins to operate there may be demands to change aspects of this law. A summary of the proceedings and highlights was made and a committee comprising the rapporteur, James Simasiku from Unza Radio and Mwazipeza SakalaChanda from Omega Television was set up to draft the communiqué. The draft of the communiqué was hotly debated and a final version agreed. It highlighted the following: 1. Despite the coming into effect of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Acts and the fact that the Appointments Committees have submitted names to the minister of Information and Broadcasting Services for ratification by the National Assembly, the minister has not done so to date. WE DEMAND that the minister submits these names to Parliament without any further delay. 2. We observe that the technical Committee established under the old ZNBC Act to oversee the licensing procedure has continued to operate thereby disregarding the provisions of the new IBA Act. WE DEMAND that this committee ceases to operate or usurp the functions of the IBA.

3. In the light of the delay to implement the ZNBC (Amendment) Act and the IBA Act, we demand that the government be honest and transparent to state whether the delay in implementing the Acts and the subsequent omission of the IBA from the national budget this year is due to lack of funds of not. 4. In view of government’s inertia, we call upon our member media institutions to mount a sustained public awareness campaign on the importance and advantages of having the ZNBC and IBA Acts implemented.

1. Opening remarks by Father Frank Bwalya Father Frank Bwalya welcomed participants to the one day IBA sensitization workshop. He said that the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) was enacted in 2002. However, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services has, through a technical committee established under the old ZNBC Act, continued to regulate licensing until the IBA Act is implemented. Thus MISA Zambia has organized the workshop to sensitize the stakeholders on the provisions of the Act. This is the objective of the workshop. Fr Bwalya asked participants to introduce themselves and later to be in groups of threes to discuss and determine what their expectations from the workshop were. About nine groups emerged and these provided the following list of expectations. • Implication of the IBA on how to run Radio and TV stations • Remove politics in awarding licences • Clarification on the role of the minister and the ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services in regulating the Broadcasting industry. • Learn more about the IBA • Clarification on the IBA, the role of the minister and the position of MISA Zambia with regards to the IBA • MISA Zambia to tell us the pros and cons of the IBA and where we stand as stakeholders • What is discussed at this workshop is done • Find out the position of the Communication Authority and that of the minister in the licensing process • Why minister has more powers. Should these be pruned? • Come up with something – limits and guidelines for overseers and those who implement The moderator thanked the participants for these expectations and hoped that at the end of the workshop these would be realized or answered. He then introduced Patrick Matibini, a lawyer who has been involved in the drafting of the IBA Act and Cephas Masiye from the Communications Authority. The two and the MISA Zambia Broadcasting Researcher, he said have come to share with us information on the IBA and on the role of the Communications Authority. He then invited the MISA Zambia chairperson Kellys Kaunda to make his opening remarks.

2. MISA Zambia chairperson Kellys Kaunda The MISA Zambia chairperson Kellys Kaunda welcomed workshop participants. He wanted to share with them the frustrations the association had with the powers that be. He said MISA Zambia had consulted the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services Mutale Nalumango. It also consulted the Vice President of the Republic Nevers Mumba on ways of getting the IBA off the ground. MISA Zambia took this line of approach to avoid confrontation. He said the IBA had stalled over names chosen by the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee. In his opinion, he said, he thought the process should not have stalled but it had. This made one feel frustrated and angry especially that people selected by the Appointments Committee are Zambians.

“Why a small clique should decide or hold us to ransom as to who should be on the board?” he asked. “What MISA Zambia and other media associations are saying with regard to the IBA is: let us share responsibilities and power in this sector.” He emphasized that one aspect with regard to the boards is that the minister appoints the ad hoc Appointments Committee. The spirit of this approach is to share power with members of the public. Direct power for the minister to appoint board members has been removed and given to the public. And giving an example, he wondered what would happen if, in appointing judges, the president refused to appoint names recommended by the Judicial Service Commission. “We are stuck because of people who literary want to appoint members of the board. So what is the way forward? I think we must devise individual or collective pressure so this law can be implemented. If we do not do that, we will go back to the old days. So to succeed, I urge you to take initiatives at your individual stations,” he concluded.

3. Review of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act by Patrick Matibini, Legal Consultant. At the end of the chairman’s remarks the moderator Fr Bwalya asked lawyer Patrick Matibini to present his paper. Matibini revealed that his function was to review the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act. First Matibini gave a background to the Act as it was presented in the National Assembly by then minister of Information and Broadcasting Newstead Zimba. He told participants that the rapid privatization had presented the broadcasting sector with a new and challenging role for public service, commercial, community and religious broadcasting institutions. The challenge had brought diversity and pluralism in broadcasting. In moving the IBA Bill for a second reading Zimba outlined the following objectives of the Bill to: a) Establish an Independent Broadcasting Authority and to define its functions

b) Provide generally for the control and regulation of broadcasting and diffusion services and c) Provide for matters connected with or incidental to the foregoing. Zimba told the House that the presentation of the Bill was long overdue. It should have been brought to Parliament 10 years before when the Communications Authority (CA) was being enacted. Zimba also said that despite the existence of the CA the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services has continued approving construction licences. This is ad hoc arrangement and has no place in law, the minister acknowledged. He expressed his indebtedness to the House for removing broadcasting regulatory powers from ZNBC to facilitate the creation of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Zimba further informed the house that what government expected to achieve through the IBA included guidelines to the industry. Thus role of the IBA would include compliance by broadcasters to regulations that would be in place and setting broadcasting standards. The minister further said that the IBA would have total control of all broadcasting in the country. He allayed fears by the opposition that government wanted to use ZNBC as an MMD mouthpiece. He said powers to take over radio stations though draconian would only be used during an emergency. He invited the House to recall the events of June 1990 and August 1997 to defend the need for the President to retain such powers. Zimba further said that the constitution of Zambia made provision that any implementation of a state of emergency must be brought to the House, adding that absence of a regulatory authority can easily stifle the development of the broadcasting sector. Thus the intention of the IBA Bill was to create an environment where the sector is not dominated by one broadcaster whether government owned or private. Thus the IBA placed Zambia at par with other countries in Southern Africa. Matibini then turned to the IBA Act itself. He said the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act number 17 of 2002 became law on December 31, 2002 when President Levy Mwanawasa gave his assent. The Act retained the title as proposed by the media associations and it was expected to come into force either through a statutory Instrument by the minister or on expiry of six months. He then looked at the question of Independence – and asked Independent of what? – He answered by saying that the IBA has to be independent in broadcasting regulation and not be part of government. The IBA as a body corporate was expected to enjoy power and perpetual succession. The proposal by the media associations that the IBA be legally separated from government was not accepted. Matibini then outlined the functions of the IBA which in section 5 (1) is “to regulate the broadcasting industry in Zambia.” He then read through all the other functions as outlined in section 5 (2) of the Act from a) to j). He stated that the challenge that the IBA faced is to introduce diversity in broadcasting. He, however, noted the apparent desire by government to keep control of broadcasting as a propaganda tool. But the privatization and liberalization of the broadcasting sector needed an open and transparent licensing process. Before the Act, these were so far secret.

The board of the IBA, Matibini said is to be composed of nine part-time members. Again he read through the provisions of the Act in Section 8 covering the ad hoc Appointments Committee, the qualification of members and so on. “The basic idea of the IBA regulation is to be independent of government and members of the board to be independent trustees on behalf of Zambians,” he said. He also highlighted the tenure for board members in section 10 – “Members are appointed for a fixed term and through public hearings,” he said. Matibini then turned to part four of the Act that covers Broadcasting Services and Licences. He told participants that the IBA is empowered by the Act to issue licences – (commercial, community and religious). He emphasized that the IBA Act bars political parties and non-citizens from holding broadcasting licences. The licence will have conditions the board may prescribe – e.g. specify site (s), kind of broadcasting and the requirement to pay a fee. Matibini further emphasized the fact that “the primary mechanism of control is the licence under which the licensee will operate. He highlighted the complaints procedure which can be made to the IBA who would in turn investigate the complaint. He also looked at the financial provisions of the Act and the powers of the president during an emergency. In conclusion Matibini said that neither privatization of media nor the establishment of many commercial stations guaranteed information to citizens. Thus only regulation under the IBA allowed this and its establishment was imperative. He outlined the challenge ahead and the need to implement the Act. He said it was essential that the IBA be established and for this to happen, MISA Zambia, other media associations and media institutions, must launch a public awareness campaign to force government to conclude the process of appointing directors. He also emphasized that the media associations should not allow government or opposition parties to dominate the IBA.

4. Questions and Discussions Fr Bwalya briefly summarized Matibini’s presentation. He expressed appreciation for the reminder of what transpired in the National Assembly when the IBA Act was passed. He then invited questions and comments which were taken in threes. Francis Phiri from Radio Breeze in Chipata wanted to know why the powers of the ministers appeared to be entrenched in the Act while Mwembe Sichone of CASAT/TV Africa said the presentation raised a lot of questions which by the end of the day needed to be answered. Sichone asked why since the IBA Act was passed in 2002 nothing had happened. Who was blocking the process? he asked. The third question targeted part two of the IBA Act and the questioner wanted clarity regards the position of the ministry of Information and Broadcasting vis-à-vis the IBA. Does the ministry have any control over the IBA? In response to the first question Matibini said certain sections of the IBA did indeed give the minister power on licence fees and to appoint the ad hoc committee and board members. This, he said, goes back to the history of the IBA Act which

started in 1993 when then Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services Dipak Patel set up a Media Reform committee. He said government stalled on the process and by 2002 MISA Zambia and other media associations drafted the three bills. “We were on the way of introducing the bills from the backbench. This was quite embarrassing to government and they later took over the process. This is how power to the minister finally found its way in the Act,” he said. And responding to Sichone’s question Matibini said that the Act had not been implemented since being enacted in 2002. “The responsibility for implementing legislation lay with the executive. This process started with the ad hoc Appointments Committees who selected candidates and forwarded them to the minister. “The minister appoints and takes them to the National Assembly for ratification. From press reports we are told that the minister feels that the names are not sufficiently representative. This is where we are now,” Matibini said, adding that the minister issued a ministerial statement in the National Assembly. “There is need for political will to effect this change. This is lacking and this is where the problem is,” he said. On the question whether the IBA was subject to control by the government Matibini said yes in terms of policy that the IBA is expected to implement. However, the idea was to make the IBA be established outside government structure. “But you cannot divorce the IBA from government policy,” he emphasized. The next question related to use of emergency powers – was it proper for government to take over radio stations during such emergency? He further said government would use the stations for propaganda and this was a threat to press freedom. “The problem is that though they talk of compensation fear will be there in broadcasters,” he added. This question was followed by one on disclosure of interest in section 14 and board members’ immunity in section 15 – how proper was this? The third question turned to section 8 in part two and whether the term “the minister constitutes” meant the ministers was part of the committee and if so whether this did not cause any imbalance. Indeed the emergency power was draconian, agreed Matibini and that was one of the drawbacks of the IBA Act. Hon Dipak Patel in his debate in the National Assembly put up a spirited fight against this provision. This was taken from the ZNBC Act as amended. As already indicated, the minister was alive to this and he emphasized that this power could only be exercised during an emergency that the MPs would sanction its implementation. “All things being equal, its absence would have been preferred especially in this day and age of democracy,” Matibini added. With regard to sections 14 and 15 members of the board are urged to declare interest – that is what section 14 does while section 15 immunized board members from lawsuits – that they should not be held liable for their actions as board members.

In the case of section 8 the word “constituting” did not mean that the minister had become a member of the committee. “It merely means that he/she establishes the committee,” Matibini said, adding – Nalumango was gracious enough to allow the NGOs to nominate names. There is need to mention here that the names of committee members were of very high caliber – that is why we have this current problem that has arisen. Again problem is independence – that is where the problem is, he said. “We have these laws in place but the question is, hey, what happened?” he asked. Mwazipeza Sakala-Chanda from Omega Television compared the issue of emergency powers as it obtains in the United States where both state and federal authorities have similar powers in times of emergency. She observed that maybe that was the reason why the Zambian government included the provision. Gift Wamulume from Radio Lyambai observed that the media associations had worked very hard to move this bill and now that the process had stalled what legal provisions are there to force government to move forward? The third question was on the role of the Media Ethics Council of Zambia visavis the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Would their functions not overlap? On Ms Sakala-Chanda’s observation Matibini said indeed this was more of a comment. He added that such provisions do exist elsewhere but asked whether it was necessary to take over a radio station in an emergency. The view of the media association was that it was not necessary. But that is the problem of polity and thus we must be careful when we compare with other countries, he said. “The problem with this part of the world is abuse especially in the use of discretionary powers. Application and practice of discretion is always abused,” he said. For instance under the IBA the appointments committee recommends to the minister and the minister appoints and takes to the National Assembly which ratifies the names. But the minister has right to accept or reject – and hence abuse through claims that names are not representative. Obviously this claim is questionable. On the legal position should you decide to go to court – the problem of discretionary power is that it gives latitude to operate and make choices. It is possible government would find some argument including that of lack of finance which the judge would find difficult to ignore. Thus court may say this is/will be in the ambit of government to implement. However, and as I have mentioned before there is need to launch a sustained public awareness campaign. This is very likely to succeed because for media associations to reach where they did required a lot of campaigning and not legal action. Law has its own limitation. And is the IBA a duplication of the Media Ethics Council of Zambia which has been created by the media industry. MECOZ is a concept of self-regulation while the IBA has a broader mandate. The IBA is a licensing authority which currently is still exercised by the executive. But apart from licensing the IBA will superintend

over the broadcast industry, receive complaints (adjudicate) and have advisory opinions. Thus the two bodies are very distinct though some issues may overlap. The next set of questions started with Sichone. He observed that when media associations came up with the IBA they carried out wide consultations before going to the National Assembly where the IBA Act was passed and the president assented in December 2002. What was the aim? Is the IBA part of government? I thought this body was independent. Why is this confusion? Before the IBA was passed did MPs look through it? he asked. James Simasiku of Unza Radio expressed worry at the failure by the minister to take the names to the National Assembly for ratification. As this has not been done, is the IBA Act in force at this time? he asked. A third questioner raised the citizenship issue in section 19 (3) of the IBA Act – is the 75 per cent ownership conducive to investment in the industry? Why should government still be involved? Matibini started his response by referring to the background to the bills. At the end of the day there were two sets of bills and because of the Speaker’s ruling media associations engaged in negotiations with government. Originally appointments of board members were to be done by a select committee of the National Assembly. The Zambian constitution says you cannot pass a bill through private members if the bill has financial implications. Thus government got the bill that was prepared by the media, inserted “suitable” provisions for government and rushed it to the National Assembly. “We did try to ‘tutor’ MPs before they debated. In the context of the ZNBC Act we wanted to transfer licensing function so we prepared a Broadcasting Bill – it was very progressive. Those amendments were made and the minister withdrew his bill and included our changes,” he said. Thus the new ZNBC (Amendment) Act has transformed the corporation from a state broadcaster to a public service broadcaster. Legally that has happened and if the executive had come along very well they should have been in the forefront of implementing the IBA Act. Right now there is no reasonable explanation. In my view the minister’s reasons are idle. Officially they insist they will implement the IBA Act but on the ground the IBA has not been established. Presently government is giving some names for the Appointments Committee to look at but why should that be so? I think we don’t use the MPs as effectively as we ought to. Recently I told some MPs that they were part of government and they were astounded by the assertion. But the National Assembly or Parliament is the other arm of government. Now why pass the law? Why not implement it? This is very serious lag between what is stated on the platform and reality. The net effect – this law is shifting power from the executive to the people. Slowness in implementing the law is because of the changed dynamics. My view is that as long as you, the operators do not take this as your struggle nothing will happen because this law is about shift of power. Even the Freedom of Information Bill – the issue is the same because the FOI provides for an Information Commission. This will empower the people to get information they need – now government says it cannot move forward because of September 11, 2001.

Fr Bwalya called for the end of the session and asked the MISA chairperson to make some comments. Kaunda started by saying that the impression MISA Zambia had when they consulted the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Mutale Nalumango and the Vice President Nevers Mumba was that the world was closing in because of September 11, 2001. We asked the Vice President that a committee of experts be formed to look at the contentious issues in FOI but nothing has happened yet. It is interesting that in the United States after the Oklahoma bombing former United States President Bill Clinton’s response was to sign an amendment in 1996 to the FOI to allow access to electronic files. So what is our basis? We need to define our security problems. In my view poverty is our main security problem. After September 11, 2001 Europe and America share information from surveillance etc. At the moment 53 countries in the world have FOI, some date back to 1966. Resolution 59 of the United Nations in 1948 upholds right to information and yet we want to move backwards. It is important that the leaders realize that we must rule this country together.

5. The Future of Zambian Broadcasting under the New IBA Regulatory Framework – presentation by Cephas Masiye, Assistant Controller Radio Frequency Management, Communications Authority. At the end of the discussion of the issues raised in the first session the moderator invited the Assistant Controller for Radio frequency management, Cephas Masiye, to address the participants. Masiye informed the participants that since Matibini’s paper has extensively covered the legal provision under the Independent Broadcasting Authority he would ignore that aspect of his paper. Instead he would deal only with the role of the Communications Authority (CA) in managing the radio frequency spectrum. Masiye warned the participants that he was from the CA and not from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Therefore, any questions that would rightly be answered by that ministry should not be raised. He would share, as much as possible, how the CA looks at broadcasting from the radio frequency spectrum. Electromagnetic audio/video signals are the vehicle of broadcasting. And it goes without saying that broadcasting is crucial to modern society because of its capacity to reach many people. It is because of this capacity to reach large audiences that broadcasting has been controlled since this recognition. In Zambia the national broadcaster ( ZNBC) has infrastructure located across the country. Some of this infrastructure is held and or owned by ZNBC but others by affiliates. Radio frequencies can either be in the AM or FM mode. The AM mode allows transmission to longer distances while FM, which was developed in the 1930s, provides for a superior sound and is amenable to the broadcasting of music in stereo. Commercialization of broadcasting allows the possibility for agencies to produce programmes. These use the size of audience and hence, the idea of ratings in the United States.

Masiye said that many aspects of the IBA Act had already been dealt with by Mr. Matibini. However, as he has indicated that law though in place is not yet operational. Thus regulation at the moment is done through a ministerial committee under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The composition of this committee includes representatives from the Communications Authority, Legal Affairs ministry and the ZNBC. Since the inception of the IBA Act this committee is running broadcasting on an ad hoc basis. Masiye outlined the procedure followed by an applicant wishing to establish a broadcasting operation. First the applicant purchases a form from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services. After filling this form he submits it to the committee. The committee scrutinizes the form and makes recommendations to the minister. The minister then gives the applicant a construction licence. After 18 months the applicant writes to the minister who sends a technical committee to inspect and evaluate the facility before a full broadcasting licence is granted. Further Masiye emphasized that in his opinion, the committee has never favoured any one applicant. He then looked at what obtains in other neighbouring countries. South Africa had the longest serving IBA which did not have power over spectrum. Another organization – SATRA supervised the spectrum. Thus problems arose and now only one regulatory body – ICASA – has been created and now the IBA is just a department within this new organization. The next example he gave is that of Tanzania where a similar situation developed. Tanzania too, has now formed a single institution to control licensing and the spectrum as well. Masiye observed that the United States presented a peculiar system because the spectrum in that country is auctioned and the person owning the spectrum does not need to be a broadcaster. Locally, the idea of an IBA is good if it was going to be independent. However, Masiye pointed out that section 49 of the Act recognizes the existence of the Communications Authority which will control the broadcasting spectrum. It is interesting that in the same Act the IBA has been given power to plan the use of the spectrum. Masiye wondered how the IBA would do this if it does not control the spectrum. He said that the Communications Authority had taken note of possible problems that would arise from this anomaly. He said that the CA was in the process of reviewing its own Act to see how best it can meet the challenge created by the establishment of the IBA. In conclusion Masiye posed a number of questions for the participants to think about: • What are the deficiencies that exist in the current regulatory situation? • Seeing that there will be limited resources – financial or manpower available to the IBA – what model can the IBA use to develop the broadcasting industry? • What model can the IBA in conjunction with the CA use considering some of the bands are shared by other users? The two will have to ensure that development of the industry is not impeded. • How best will the IBA meet the interests of the consumers (i.e. the people) via-vis those of broadcasters and the government? These interests are most times conflicting but at the same time must be met by the IBA. In the final analysis the IBA must examine its role to develop sustainable growth of broadcasting in Zambia.

6. Questions and Discussions At this point Masiye invited questions from the floor and the moderator, after consulting Masiye indicated that the procedure for questions would be one question at a time. The first questioner wondered whether the broadcasting industry was going to experience growth or not in the light of the IBA. Masiye said it all depended on the IBA. For commercial stations the IBA could charge 3 per cent less VAT while for those investing in rural areas they could be given zero fees licensing for five years. After five years then they could be eligible to pay fees. Presently the Communications Authority does not get any funding from government. ‘Independence’ is important. Funding from government removes that independence. “Let government give policy and let the agency or in this case the IBA implement that policy,” he emphasized. The second questioner observed that it will be important for the CA and the IBA to work closely. This would safeguard against conflict of frequencies as was the case with ZNBC and Ministry of Health in Katete. Then he wondered whether with the growth of various companies using radio for internal communication and the growth of radio stations frequencies would be available for future development? Masiye said the CA would be able to resolve the apparent conflict observed regards Health and ZNBC in Katete. He said that the frequencies used by the two are very different and that the two organisations don’t even know there is such interference. He emphasized that companies have a different band for their communication. In Uganda the Communications Authority does not benefit because it does not charge any fees. It analyses and gives to the IBA Commission. On the question of capacity because of mushrooming stations we are operating according to Geneva 89 Plan. An FM Station transmitter has the radius of 139 km thus the same frequency can be repeated. Under the Geneva 89 Plan there were six FM frequencies per site. If the site is near the border one goes to the ITU for clearance. Lusaka has 14 FM frequencies under Geneva 89. Europe uses Stockholm 61. However with the new technologies including Digital African met to plan for a conference in May 2004 in Geneva. Digital has more spectrum but how many African countries would be ready for this? In Japan FM radios do not go beyond 89 FM because from 90 FM upwards those frequencies are used for aircraft. At this point Matibini joined in to explain the background to section 49 of the IBA Act. He said in drafting the original Bill we were mindful of the technical aspects of regulation. Thus to follow the South African model it would be inappropriate to vest power into the IBA. Thus section 49 acknowledges the Communications authority and its functions. This means that there should be close liaison between the Communications Authority and the IBA. And over spectrum control the CA and the IBA must work together. He did not have problems with the technical committee under the ministry of Information and Broadcasting operating outside the IBA. He felt it was important for the CA to

assist government to understand the need for implementing the IBA. Masiye added that once operational the IBA would need to consult stakeholders. Francis Phiri from Breeze FM then asked what the way forward was. When would we likely have the IBA in place? To this question Masiye emphasized that the IBA was now the law and it was indeed in place. “Anything else is outside the current law. This is where the stakeholders, you sitting here, come in,” he said. Here Matibini added that the issue is what is to be done and by whom? Government should be in the forefront in promoting the IBA. Thus first is the board, without the board there is no leadership. The Appointments Committee has done its work. Difficult arose over names which came up through a democratic process. There is no need to embrace a democratic process and later refuse to accept the results because these are unpalatable. Sichone observed that Masiye, through his presentation, had come out of the cocoon. Why does the minister have the IBA in place? It is not the CA; it is the ministry of information and Broadcasting Service. Can you ring the ministry? Who are the members of the licensing committee? he asked. Masiye responded by saying that the CA runs the spectrum and the CA is a member of the technical committee. At this point Lingela warned against confusing the two committees. One committee, the ad hoc appointments committee under the IBA - this committee submits names to the minister who appoints and then takes them to the National Assembly for ratification. The other is the radio and television licensing committee where the ministry of legal affairs, the CA and the ZNBC are represented. Matibini then talked about the legal issue he had raised earlier. He said another angle that could be followed is to question in court the continued exercise of the functions of the IBA by a body that is illegal. “This,” he said “is a different question to that of whether the minister is right or not to take the names to the National Assembly. In the first instance the attitude of the court is not to give an order but in the second case regards the technical committee the question is different. Does that body have legal power to give or deny a licence?” The next question was why should ZNBC sit on the committee when it is also a broadcaster? To this Masiye said as far as he was concerned the committee was just incorporated to operate as an ad hoc organization. Matibini said the committee exists in the ZNBC subsidiary Act. The question is why this committee should be involved. Another questioner asked about the CA. He said the participants needed more information about the CA. Masiye said the CA is situated in Lusaka at the corner of Buyantanshi and Lumumba roads. It was created by an Act of Parliament – number 23 of 1994 when then Posts and Telecommunication Corporation was split into three – Postal, Zamtel and the Communication Authority in radio

frequency management. What is now CA was a section in PTC regulating walkie talkies? Now the CA has five departments – licensing consumers, radio frequency management, legal, engineering and finance. The organization is self-financing. Asked how the CA costs frequencies, Masiye said the Ca does not make profit from the broadcasting spectrum. The CA provides services to the general public. Masiye revealed that it was not possible to charge Multichoice Zambia any fees especially on its digital transmission because its transmitters are based outside Zambia. Another reason, he said, was that Multichoice came in as a partner of ZNBC which virtually made it a partner of the Zambian government. Thus Multichoice has no competition. However, how Multichoice will be controlled is the work of the IBA. “We wanted to regulate DSTV but the law does not allow. In Namibia Multichoice are paying fees,” Masiye said, adding: “Please read the IBA Act very carefully.” How can we contribute with regards to this Act? Matibini recognized that indeed the IBA Act is a new law. Despite its apparent weaknesses, the attitude adopted by MISA Zambia and other media associations was to have the law passed and revisit the weaknesses later. “It is not healthy before implementing legislation to take it back for amendment,” Matibini advised. Masiye then observed that for the IBA Act to be implemented there must be political will. For instance law says ownership of radio or television station must be 75 per cent but at the same time government has allocated frequencies to the BBC and Radio France International. In Kenya after government allocated a frequency to the BBC, a local station also wanted to have an FM frequency in London but was not granted. “IBA is going to be weak if it is funded by government. CA operated for three years without a board but CA had its own revenue source,” Masiye observed. Matibini repeated his view that the IBA has ushered in “a radical change in managing broadcasting. “The changes have taken place legally but have not fully been accepted politically,” he said.

7. Possible Implications for Regulating the Broadcasting Industry in Zambia under the IBA Act – a practical perspective - presentation by Brian Lingela MISA Zambia Broadcasting Researcher In the afternoon the moderator invited Brian Lingela, the MISA Zambia researcher in broadcasting to present his paper. Lingela started his presentation by stating that the intention of his paper was for the participants to reflect on what implication the IBA Act will present. He said it was not his intention to prescribe what kind of IBA or regulatory framework. After presentation it was important that we debate. He then referred to the South African example. “I do appreciate that the economic and social environment in Zambia differs from that which obtains in South Africa,” he said. Under the ZNBC Act of 1987 there was a lot of control by the minister. In the current IBA Act the minister does not have power.

“I will not go into reasons why the implementation of the IBA Act has stalled as these have already been advanced.” Thus the present set up has no legal mandate. Applicants do not need to go through the ministry to start broadcasting. In this regard it must be emphasized that power by minister to cancel or withdraw is not there in the new act. It is therefore important that as an industry we must get involved or else we will get no where. Present environment where there are political situations for involvement is therefore essential. Lingela then turned to section 5 of the Act. This provides for granting and withdrawing of licences in a transparent manner. The South African Act has similar openness and transparency – an applicant has a right to ask why he/she has not been given a licence. “It is my hope that under the new framework we will have such a situation as well,” he said. Licensing conditions are provided for in section 27. At the moment information ministry uses information supplied by an applicant to give licence conditions. Recently the ministry of Information and Broadcasting used such information supplied by an applicant to stop Breeze FM from re-broadcasting BBC during their off-air time at night. “In the South African Act there is freedom to do so. In Zambia it is not easy,” Lingela observed. Furnishing detailed information as required by section 27 is common practice among regulators. Some have gone to the extent of demanding CVs of those involved, Business Plan etc to satisfy whether the applicant will really establish a station or not or indeed whether it is a community or commercial station that will be established or not. “You may spend a lot of time writing CVs and other document requirements but in Zambia we have a small sector which needs to be developed,” Lingela observed. He referred to Masiye’s paper with regards fees charged but Lingela’s view was that there must be a differentiation in charges of such fees, to different licensees. He also notes that the IBA has to observe the provision of section 49 and has to work in liaison with the CA for this to be implemented. Under this Act licensing may not be according to first come first served, since frequencies will be advertised by tender. Lingela further noted that under the IBA the promotion of pluralism in the broadcasting sector as described in section 5 presented a big challenge. For instance Lusaka has now more commercial operators than religious ones. And in looking at some regulations and policies as provided for by the IBA Act, Lingela referred to section 5 (2) and mentioned issues of advertising, local content guidelines and programming. In South Africa they use a quota system and this is linked to times of broadcasts that percentages of local content has to be met, he said. There is need for everything to be done for the benefit of the industry. “In the process broadcaster will help local music grow. Local music has been neglected for a long time,” he said, adding: “It is, however, expensive to produce local content.” In South Africa it costs US$300 per minute compared to US$30 per minute to produce similar programmes. In Zimbabwe it costs US$6 million annually. In South

Africa legislation is deliberate on funding local productions. In our IBA Act there is provision for commercial broadcasters to produce local content and not just the public broadcaster. This is provided for in section 21 of the Act. On the question of media diversity and ownership section 5 covers this. It s provisions discourages monopolies. All these guidelines will have to be developed with stakeholders being involved once the IBA is in place. He recalled that Uniholdings – owners of Radio Phoenix were denied a TV licence because of the provisions that discouraged a monopoly. And turning to the provision for 75 per cent ownership by Zambians, Lingela observed that while this was good, it however tended to discourage investment in the industry. He too pointed out the anomaly where the BBC and RFI have been given FM frequencies. The challenge is to complement on information needs where we are. “It is good that investments are taking place,” he said, adding: “The IBA Act is good for us. Look at it from the way it is structured on paper, How it will develop in reality when the IBA starts operating is something else.” MISA Zambia has had meetings with officials at the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting including the minister, discussing especially on the composition of the boards. The ministry has indicated that investment in the sector must be made through some of the fees that will accrue to the IBA. “But licence fees are unlikely to cover costs,” Lingela observed. There is need, in view of convergence in technology, to come up with a joint broadcasting and telecommunication regulator.

8. Questions and Discussion In the question and answer session that followed the moderator emphasized the need for looking at practical issues. The first question raised related to whether there were any advantages or disadvantages under the IBA Act. And John Chola from Radio Choice asked if it was not right for government to fund the IBA – is there a way for MISA Zambia to find ways and means for the board to be funded? What channel should be used and how do we guide this? The third question was more of a comment regards the rejection by the United Kingdom government having rejected the Kenyan request for an FM frequency in London. “We should also have total ownership of radio stations,” the question said, adding: “We must also follow suit.” In response to the first question Lingela said he could not think of any disadvantage of the IBA. Masiye chirped in saying that the IBA Act “cannot tell you any disadvantage because the Authority is for the advancement of the broadcast industry.” He added that any grants to the IBA could be given locally as donors cannot be able to fund the IBA because they have to inform government before doing so. He reminded participants that the country’s budget for 2004 did not include the establishment of the IBA. On the question of ownership Lingela said this should, indeed, be for Zambians. To this Masiye added that in the broadcasting industry there was need for patriotism. “This industry is very sensitive, so local participation is very important, it is interesting that NGOs put this at 75 per cent and this is what is contained in the

Act,” Masiye added. He repeated his example about Kenya, adding that the law in the United Kingdom did not allow foreigners to own a radio station. “So 25 per cent provided for in our law is enough for our friends,” he added. Sichone then asked how we operate with such existing constraints. Should the stakeholders who will benefit from the existence of the IBA contribute? Lingela pointed out that initially it is important that the board is set up. Once in place the board can, under the law, look at fundraising. At this point the moderator added it was also important for stakeholders to contribute – amounts would be small and would not allow the IBA to survive. “At this time we are not sure on the kind of budget that the IBA will have and besides the Act gives other avenues for funding,” Bwalya said. And Sichone reiterated that his view regards other avenues are the small amounts that stakeholders would contribute – K200, 000 or K2 million for some per month. But then Wamulume added that he was looking at the other side with regard to such contributions. The IBA has been created under an Act of parliament, he said. There is no membership fees involved. “If we subscribe to the IBA will the IBA not be compromised? What if the IBA has a complaint against one of the main contributors – what happens then?” he asked. The moderator indicated that there would be other legal implications while Masiye reminded participants that once the IBA came into force it will find a way of finding money. Subscriptions paid by operators are not legal, he added. Then who supports the IBA, asked Sichone. The moderator told participants that they needed to look at various costs. He drew their attention to section 13 of the Act which talked about allowances of board members. Sichone also reminded participants that if the IBA was funded by government then it would be another arm of government. He said we should not talk about donors. “We are the stakeholders and we must start on our own,” Sichone added. But Masiye cautioned participants about costs of the secretariat and not just the allowances of board members. “We are talking about the secretariat,” he said. “The costs are higher than those covered by allowances.” The moderator then proposed that the issue is left for the moment. “This is one of the things we may have to come back to,” he added Lingela reminded participants that the IBA has to be independent from the players – that is broadcasters and also from the state. “That does not mean money from the state will not be acceptable through Parliament. Our contributions may not be sustainable. Government has already said that money for sittings of the board is there. It is money for the whole operation of the IBA that is not there,” he said. One participant asked how Lingela saw the South African operation. An IBA Act was passed in 1993, Lingela said. But the IBA and SATRA ended up merging. As regards money the South African IBA was funded through Parliament. At one time

they ran out of money but a mandate to go direct to the treasury for funding. The broadcasting component of the spectrum cannot sustain itself. This offers challenges in Zambia as well. It may be necessary considering merging but at the moment the law is clear. Another participant then proposed that new applicants should apply for licences through the ministry of Information and Broadcasting. What would happen if one started a new station without applying to the ministry? Lingela said when he mentioned this possibility he wanted to provoke the issue of advocacy. Francis Phiri from Breeze FM wondered how the IBA will address the issue of local content to dissuade broadcaster from using foreign materials. Would local content be cheaper to produce? “It is a difficult question if there is no investment,” Lingela said. “The IBA may allow this once there is investment. In South Africa the Nation Film and Video Foundation is a statutory institution.” Emphasized Lingela: “It requires a political will by government to put in place such an institution.” Masiye added that the “IBA will need to ask itself the question – what are we trying to promote as an industry? This should be in the guidelines the IBA will put in place.” He then referred to the fact that Radio Chikuni was promoting local music industry in Southern Province. Thus the bottom line is that it was up to us as operators to “promote our own industries.” Commenting on production of local content material Simasiku from Unza Radio observed that it was impossible to have local production cheaper than an imported one. The IBA has to promote such production there are a lot of foreign programmes that may be given to local stations to broadcast free of charge. “So regulation has to be there to help us,” he concluded. The moderator then added that once the IBA begins to operate there may be demands to change aspects of this law. “It is not a perfect law as it is,” he concluded. He then asked the rapporteur to read a summary of the proceedings highlight areas that should be included in a communiqué. When the summary was ready there was discussion on which points to include in the communiqué. For the final drafting of the communiqué the rapporteur was joined by James Simasiku from Unza Radio and Mwazipeza Sakala-Chanda from Omega Television. The draft, once completed, was again discussed and the final version accepted.

9. CommuniquĂŠ issued by Participants to an IBA Sensitisation Workshop Organized by MISA Zambia on March 19, 2004 at Ndeke Hotel, Lusaka

WE THE STAKEHOLDERS in the broadcasting industry having met in Lusaka at Ndeke Hotel on March 19, 2004 at an IBA workshop organized by MISA Zambia do hereby make the following observations and demands: 1. Despite the coming into effect of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Acts and the fact that the Appointments Committees have submitted names to the minister of Information and Broadcasting Services for ratification by the National Assembly, the minister has not done so to date. WE DEMAND that the minister submits these names to Parliament without any further delay. 2. We observe that the technical Committee established under the old ZNBC Act to oversee the licensing procedure has continued to operate thereby disregarding the provisions of the new IBA Act. WE DEMAND that this committee ceases to operate or usurp the functions of the IBA. 3. In the light of the delay to implement the ZNBC (Amendment) Act and the IBA Act, we demand that the government be honest and transparent to state whether the delay in implementing the Acts and the subsequent omission of the IBA from the national budget this year is due to lack of funds of not. 4. In view of governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inertia, we call upon our member media institutions to mount a sustained public awareness campaign on the importance and advantages of having the ZNBC and IBA Acts implemented. Signed on behalf of participants by Father Frank Bwalya Chairperson for Broadcasting on the MISA Zambia Governing Council.

List of Participants to the Sensitization Workshop on the IBA Act held at Ndeke Hotel on March 19, 2004

NAME ORGANISATION ADDRESS Focus Phiri Radio Mphangwe Box 550073, Katete Fastone Phiri Radio Chikaya Box 530290, Lundazi Wilson M. Phiri Explorer 88.3 FM Box 560341 Petauke Francis Phiri Breeze FM Box 511178 Chipata Bernard Sakala Pasme Community Radio Box 560157 Petauke Fr Mathias Mchona Phiri Radio Maria Box 510307 Chipata James Simasiku Unza Radio Box 32379 Lusaka Mwembe Sichone CASAT/ TV AFRICA Box 51061 Lusaka Francis Chapota Mobitel Box 31679 Lusaka Sinkamba Jelasi Radio Phoenix P/B E702 Lusaka Fr Freeborn Kibombwe Oblate Radio Liseli Box 910066 Mongu Terry Mugonde Kafubu Radio Box 90395 Luanshya Henry Muloongo Radio Musi-oTunya Box 60217 L/stone Henry Lupiya Radio Mano Box 410577 Kasama Gift Wamulume Radio Lyambai Box 910240 Mongu Mwazipeza Chanda Omega TV P/B 51271 Lusaka Bellon Chintombwa Radio Mazabuka Box 670259 Mazabuka Fr Tadeusz Swaderski Radio Chikuni Box 6600239 Monze Matteo Phiri Radio 5FM Box 33332 Lusaka Sr Celine Namalambo Yatsani Radio Box 329147 Lusaka Kellidah Mwanza Sky FM Box 31165 Lusaka Elizabeth Pemba Radio Phoenix P/B E702 Lusaka Ester Nyoni Radio Phoenix P/B E702 Lusaka Sylvia Mweetwa Times of Zambia Box 30394 Lusaka Irvin Mulenda Daily Mail Victor Mwila Trinity Broadcasting Network Box 50768 Lusaka John Chola Radio Choice FM Box 35681 Lusaka David Bweupe Radio Q FM Tel 01-221441 Abel Mwambwe Freelance Box 32295 Lusaka Simeon Kaleji ZNBC Union Box 50015 Lusaka Oliver Ngoma Hot FM Radio Box 38031 Lusaka

RESOURCE PERSONNEL Patrick Matibini Patmat Box 30031 Lusaka Brian Lingela Misa Zambia Box 32295 Lusaka Kephas Masiye Communications Authority Box 36871 Lusaka RAPPORTEUR Masautso Phiri Today Newspaper

MISA ZAMBIA Kellys Kaunda Fanwell Chembo Davies Tembo

Misa Zambia Misa Zambia Misa Zambia

Box 32295 Lusaka Box 32295 Lusaka Box 32295 Lusaka