Lawsuits curtailing investigative reporting

Fifteen years ago, the Suharto government was so irked by the publication of a report on its purchase of overpriced warships that it shut down Tempo, the independent news magazine that published the story. Today the press in Indonesia is free and exposés of high-level corruption and abuse sell newspapers, rather than close them down. Tempo editors no longer worry about being padlocked by the presidential palace. It's the fear of lawsuits that gives them sleepless nights. In 2004, the magazine's chief editor received a one-year prison sentence after being sued for libel by a local tycoon. The supreme court later reversed the conviction, but since then Tempo and its affiliated newspaper, Koran Tempo, have lost two defamation cases filed by a wealthy businessman for articles alleging tax evasion and other wrongdoing. Since the 1980s, there has been a surge of exposure journalism in countries where socialist and authoritarian regimes have collapsed. It's now possible to do journalism that holds the powerful accountable in places like Indonesia, Romania or Nigeria, where checks on corruption and government abuse are badly needed. But those who set out to expose wrongdoing in high places face formidable legal risks. Journalists and lawyers who gathered at a recent conference at Columbia University's Journalism School pointed out that libel is a criminal offence in many of these countries. Journalists not only have to shoulder the cost of the lawsuits and civil damages; they could also end up in jail. Filipino journalist Alexis Adonis, for example, was released last December after being convicted on a libel charge filed by a congressman. He did not have the money to mount a proper defence. Lawsuits are costly and, in the developing world, journalists are seldom protected by libel and liability insurance. In many countries, pro bono media lawyers simply do not exist, making it difficult for journalists to get competent counsel to provide pre-publication advice and to defend them when they are sued. "Media law is not much practised for the simple reason that there isn't any money in it," said Peter Noorlander of the Media Legal Defence Initiative during the Columbia meeting. Libel, he said, remains the legal weapon of choice wielded by those who want to muzzle a critical press. In Kazakhstan, a journalist for the Taszhargan newspaper commented on the rising price of grain and noted that the leading member of the parliament's agricultural committee was also a landowner who kept many granaries. He was sued for defamation and the court awarded $25,000 in damages to the MP. The journalist appealed the case and lost again; this time the damages were raised to $250,000. In Thailand, Tesco Lotus, the local subsidiary of the UK-based retail chain, sued two journalists for articles criticising the company's "aggressive" expansion. One journalist has settled by issuing an apology. The other is still facing charges. Tesco is suing him–not his paper–for £1.6m in damages, a fortune in Thailand. If he loses, he will almost certainly go bankrupt. In Sierra Leone, Jonathan Leigh, the managing editor of the private daily the Independent Observer, was arrested and briefly detained last year on criminal libel charges. Leigh was sued for reporting that the transport minister had begun construction on two houses less than two months after assuming office. The list goes on. For sure, international publicity helps by shaming those guilty of filing harassment suits. Campaigns to decriminalise libel have had promising results in some countries, with judges opting to suspend jail terms in favour of penalties less harsh. But these do not suffice to protect watchdog journalists from legal bullying. Where courts are compromised and lawyers are reluctant to take on their cases, they barely stand a chance against tycoons and politicians. Exposure journalism has ousted corrupt officials and reformed policy. It has helped establish the press as a democratic institution and check on power. But this work cannot be sustained if lawsuits quash critical reporting. Watchdog journalists need legal support–competent lawyers, libel insurance, independent courts. Speaking truth to power is risky and those who do it deserve to be protected, not thrown into jail or forced into bankruptcy.