Twenty years after the Windhoek Declaration on press freedom

mission, held from 17-23 October
2002 in Banjul, The Gambia (<strong>the</strong>
final communiqué of this session is
available at: (http://www.achpr.org/
english/communiques/communique32_en.html).
Remarkably, <strong>the</strong> commission
introduced very few changes. Some
were made to <strong>the</strong> preamble of <strong>the</strong>
declaration and, in a few cases,
language was watered down slightly.
No substantive provisions were
added and only two – calling for
<strong>the</strong> repeal of criminal defamation
laws and for states not to abuse
immigration powers to limit <strong>the</strong>
free movement of journalists – were
removed. Perhaps ironically, at its
48th Session in November 2010, <strong>the</strong>
Commission adopted a Resolution
on Repealing Criminal Defamation
Laws in Africa.
The communiqué states simply that
<strong>the</strong> commission adopted <strong>the</strong> declaration,
without providing any detail
about how that happened. However,
from <strong>the</strong> information I have
received, it is clear that discussions
around <strong>the</strong> draft declaration were
extremely difficult and that several
commissioners expressed considerable
reluctance to support <strong>the</strong> declaration.
I believe <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> declaration
was adopted is due, in very large
measure, to <strong>the</strong> emphatic, even
insistent, support of <strong>the</strong> members
of <strong>the</strong> working group. Indeed,
without <strong>the</strong>ir steadfast support <strong>the</strong>
declaration would probably never
have been adopted.
This is perhaps understandable. Few,
if any, countries in Africa, or in o<strong>the</strong>r
regions of <strong>the</strong> world for that matter,
can claim to conform to all of <strong>the</strong>
provisions of <strong>the</strong> declaration, and
many fall woefully short of meeting
<strong>the</strong> standards it proclaims. Although
commissioners are supposed to be
independent, this is not always <strong>the</strong>
case in practice. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, even
independent individuals from reasonably
democratic countries may
52 | Media in Africa - 2011
be reluctant to endorse a document
which highlights <strong>the</strong> democratic
shortcomings of <strong>the</strong>ir home nations.
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, official bodies, even
those which promote human rights,
tend almost by <strong>the</strong>ir very natures
to be conservative, especially as
measured vis-à-vis state practice.
Thus, it is rare for <strong>the</strong>se bodies to
adopt decisions which run contrary
to <strong>the</strong> practice of most states, even
if <strong>the</strong>re are strong, principled human
rights reasons for this. Yet many
of <strong>the</strong> provisions in <strong>the</strong> African
declaration fall precisely into this
category. There is nothing in <strong>the</strong>
declaration which is not founded
on a clear and strong principled
analysis of international guarantees
of freedom of expression. And yet
<strong>the</strong> practical achievement of many
of its provisions remains elusive in
many countries.
These challenges make it all <strong>the</strong>
more remarkable and commendable
that <strong>the</strong> African Commission did
adopt such a robust and forwardlooking
declaration on freedom
of expression. Years <strong>after</strong> it was
adopted it remains as relevant as
ever, providing a beacon of light
and direction to those who promote
freedom of expression – not only in
Africa but around <strong>the</strong> world.