Suddenly, satire in Kenyan newspapers is under attack. In a disturbing turn of events, the creative art finds itself forced into a straitjacket. Even cartoonists may now be looking over their shoulders, scared as hell of putting out a wrong foot and stepping on some law. Events culminating in a judicial encounter this week summarily threw banter journalism into jeopardy.

The Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry’s quarrel this week with a picture satire appearing in last week’s Penknife, a satirical pullout of the Sunday Standard, was the second time in as many months that satire came under the legal spotlight. Water Minister Martha Karua threatened to sue for a cartoon appearing in April 25’s issue of the same pullout, which humorously caricatured her as standing unmoved on a 10,000_C, "live media wire."

And last Tuesday, the Goldenberg Commission took issue with the edition that depicted its two Assisting Counsel, Dr Gibson Kamau Kuria and Dr John Khaminwa as taking opposing, even violently opposing, positions on rumours that the government might offer amnesty to its star witness, Mr Kamlesh Pattni. Pattni is also the de facto architect of the vast financial fraud under inquiry.

Imaginary dealing

"Restrain me before I lynch those two," a visibly unimpressed Khaminwa is depicted as telling a lawyer, Mr Pravin Bowry, in response to an imaginary amnesty dealing between Pattni and Kuria within earshot.

It is this negative depiction that the Commission found fault with last Tuesday and demanded an explanation. The Standard Group’s Managing Director, Mr Tom Mshindi, appeared in person to apologise, but defended the picture article, saying it was never intended to depict the Commission in bad light.

"The whole thing has to be understood within the context of satire," said Mshindi. "And it is acceptable within the practice of journalism that journalists sometimes depict things in a light-hearted way."

But maintaining its displeasure and reading a mockery on weighty issues yet to be ruled on, the Commission banned the Standard from covering the proceedings for two days, a sentence the newspaper obliged to without a quarrel.

Of course, the paper was flat wrong. It’s a $1,000 bet that the satirised conversation never took place. The same is true of Karua’s April cartoon. The point is that within the creative art, there is no question of right or wrong. It is the power of debate within the constitutionally endorsed quest for journalistic space that counts. Better still if that debate is provoked in humour. Naturally, law and ethics may find fault with any publication, creative or otherwise, that is premised on a wrong and a lie. But satire, which highlights practices that frequently contradict virtue, is often the extreme limit of comedy in which the difference between things as they are and things as they ought to be is deliberately exaggerated.

This is beginning to read like an academic argument. Obviously, there was no time for academic debate at the Tuesday inquiry. That is why Mshindi could not launch into an explanation of satire as being about a society laughing at itself. There was no time to explain that satire attempts to cure foolishness by making people laugh at it. No time to explain that in its purest form satire only seeks to paint the ironic view of man, never to be cynical or malicious. Neither was there time to argue that a lesson taught in humour is a lesson that lasts.

Unless Kenyan law wants journalism to be remarkably boring, the death of laughter in the trade would be a complete tragedy.

Laughter aside, the Commission’s concern with last week’s satire is particularly a wake-up call to creative journalism. Local Government Minister Karisa Maitha may have merely jeered at a recent Penknife caricature satirising him over priorities in an alleged Sh50 million house acquisition. And Karua may only have sought to sue over her April cartoon. The substantial difference now is that protests have come from the top. It is the bench – the court, if you will – that has yelled foul. The issue is a disturbing precedent because it cuts deep into the freedom of the Press to satirise public figures.

A court case that inspired the 1996 film, "The People vs. Larry Flynt," best illustrates why.

Political satire

In the famous 1988 case, Jerry Falwell, an outspoken cleric and political leader, sued the Hustler, a US-based magazine, for suggesting in a satire that the cleric preached only when he was drunk, among other things.

The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional provision for the freedom of the Press protects the right to satirise public figures, even when such satire is outrageous. The court noted that in a democracy, "graphic depictions and satirical cartoons [play] a prominent role in public and political debate".

Kenya doesn't have to borrow judicial examples from the United States. And Commonwealth tradition may frown upon such a suggestion but this example is pertinent for the reason that the United States boasts the longest tradition with media, democracy and Press freedom issues.

Independent Kenya chose to pattern its style of governance on Western democracy. Part of the package is that a democratic society must uphold the right of the Press to pursue its mission, no matter how odious that mission might seem to those in power.

Of course, good laws will impose certain limits to this liberty. But society must recognise that without an informed and free Press, there cannot be an enlightened people.

Kodi Barth teaches journalism at United States International University-Nairobi.
If you have seen questionable content in the press, write to kodi@kodibarth.com
Website: www.kodibarth.com/

Copyright © 2004 . The Standard Ltd