Editor's note
Mathilda Twomey and the threat to press freedom
TODAY is very concerned about the statements made by Chief
Justice Mathilda Twomey yesterday morning on Bonzour Sesel, statements that
reflect the judiciary's repressive tendency since Mrs Twomey was appointed
Chief Justice.
In trying to justify her decision to grant an order
effectively gagging the press in the Damienne Morel murder case, Mrs Twomey
said "if they don't want to learn the lesson, we'll have to make them
learn the lesson".
 |
| Mathilda Twomey; the sister to one of James Michels advisers |
She cites the fact that this newspaper sends supposedly
inexperienced journalists to cover court stories, stating that several stories
have been misreported, to explain her repressive stance towards TODAY, which
Mrs Twomey seems to have singled out.
It is regrettable
that Mrs Twomey feels that it is her job to make the press "learn
lessons". It is not, we can assure her. The Chief Justice's role has never
been to control the press.
When mistakes do occur, TODAY always rectifies the errors:
we have never shied away from our responsibilities. But what Mrs Twomey needs
to understand is that mistakes are more likely to happen when information is
hidden and not readily available, as is the case with the judiciary and many
ministries and parastatal bodies.
We have covered countless court stories because tragedies
are played out every day in the country’s courtrooms and it is only when the
press shines a light on the workings of the judiciary that we can ensure that
the courts perform their duties in a satisfactory manner. Regardless of what
Mrs Twomey may feel, the courts are accountable to the public and it is our
role as an independent newspaper to bring to the fore the way cases are dealt
with by lawyers, juries and judges alike.
The Chief Justice's reflections on SBC yesterday show that
she does not fully comprehend the role of an independent press in a democracy.
Her solution to the fact that the public will be deprived of information if she
gags the press is baffling - "the public can come and follow cases if
they're interested. Even if we do not have enough space to accommodate all of
them".
The accepted - and reasonable - way to deal with factual
mistakes in newspapers in all democracies around the world is to request that a
rejoinder is published, as unsatisfactory as this recourse may seem. The
solution is not and never has been to gag the press.
Hinting at some form of bad faith on our part, Mrs Twomey
says that to ensure no mistakes are made, "it would have been so easy to
call the person responsible for media relations at the judiciary". Yet,
Mrs Twomey regretted, in a correspondence to TODAY recently, that the judiciary
did not have a media officer. A week ago, when we learnt that lawyer Anthony
Juliette had asked for a gagging order against TODAY, we wrote to the judiciary
to ask that a copy of the court proceedings be made available to us. Our email
was ignored.
Judgments and court proceedings are not readily available to
the press in Seychelles. In fact judgments, which are meant to be public
documents, are only available at a fee, sometimes days after they have been
issued. The press cannot wait for when the judiciary is ready to communicate.
This is not how it works. We have a duty to our readers to inform them of what
is going on as the workings of the judiciary affect many ordinary people. Our
duty is to them.
Fittingly, the 2015
Ibrahim Index of African Governance shows a dramatic deterioration in the
country's performance in the freedom of expression index. Mrs Twomey should
reflect on that instead of trying to stifle freedom of the press and of expression,
let alone alienate the local press corps and its "inexperienced"
journalists.
Source: Today in Seychelles
