Media Council's Edging to Accreditation a Deceitful Drift

Mar 30 , 2025.

When the private satellite channel, Ethiopian Broadcasting Service (EBS), aired an emotional interview last week featuring a young woman’s allegations of sexual assault, it inadvertently sparked a political firestorm. Rather than encouraging meaningful discussion around sexual violence, a persistently recurring incident, the broadcast drew swift condemnation from government officials, accusations of "misinformation," and, chillingly, the arrest of EBS staff and two of its managers.

The authorities’ swift response brought back memories of Ethiopia’s longstanding tradition of treating media disputes as criminal issues, despite recent media law supposedly ending such practices. In 2021, federal legislators passed a revised media law, removing criminal liability of defamation, safeguarding journalists' sources, and promoting the autonomy of state-owned media. These reforms were initially praised as progressive steps toward genuine press freedom. However, when confronted with politically sensitive reporting, they have proven fragile.

Central to the controversy is the media’s role in society, the state’s mandate to control media excess, and the industry’s will and ability to self-regulate its conduct. The accusations of EBS’ “wrongful coverage" should have been dealt with through a self-regulatory mechanism that is active in all but name. Crucially, this episode should bring to the public’s attention a troubling new direction emerging within the Ethiopian Media Council (EMC), which was meant to be a self-regulatory media body.

Established nearly a decade ago to mediate ethical disputes voluntarily, the Council has instead started veering into alarming territory, seeking to establish a de facto accreditation regime for media practitioners. Although its by-laws strictly make membership voluntary, the Council’s leadership is subtly pushing toward a system that may effectively become mandatory, raising serious concerns among journalists and media practitioners. Accreditation often morphs into a compulsory requirement, with worrisome implications for journalistic freedom.

International experience shows accreditation often leads to censorship.

According to the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), around 25pc of countries it surveyed globally enforce journalist accreditation linked to governments. Such systems frequently become tools to suppress inconvenient reporting, notably in countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Tanzania. Zimbabwe offers a cautionary tale. Its Access to Information & Protection of Privacy Act in 2002 mandated journalists to carry government-issued accreditation cards. Overnight, many journalists lost their legal status, effectively silencing independent media voices. Uganda similarly used strict accreditation to muzzle dissent.

Ethiopia risks repeating these mistakes, potentially silencing its fragile and increasingly embattled media scene. Its recent media record is troubling. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranked it 130th out of 180 in its 2023 Press Freedom Index, a modest improvement from 150th in 2017. Despite initial optimism following Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s (PhD) ascension in 2018, Ethiopia has been showing worrying signs of retreating to authoritarian practices reminiscent of earlier regimes.

Its history of media regulation should be instructive.

Since the fall of the Derg regime in 1991, successive administrations have swung between encouraging free expression and exerting political control. The landmark 2021 Media Proclamation No. 1238 was supposed to definitively shift toward a more tolerant media environment, protecting source confidentiality, decriminalising defamation, and encouraging independent self-regulation. Yet, barely four years later, these hard-earned gains are threatened. The Council’s subtle yet consequential push for accreditation could create a chilling environment reminiscent of the authoritarian legacy.

State misuse of ambiguous regulations against journalists is already prevalent. Under the vaguely defined Hate Speech & Disinformation Prevention Proclamation, journalists covering conflicts have faced arbitrary detention under accusations of “terrorism” or “incitement.” Journalists remain vulnerable to politically motivated charges, despite explicit legal protections.

The EBS saga should illustrate the widening gap between legal reforms and government actions. The media law explicitly denies authorities the power to detain journalists over content disputes, yet reality has proved otherwise.

Indeed, the best defense against “misinformation” and “irresponsible journalism” should be robust self-regulation and transparency, not arrests or a restrictive accreditation regime. A self-regulatory framework already exists, notably the Council’s Ethics Panel and Ombudsman. Sadly, these bodies remain largely inactive, failing to handle public complaints effectively, even from state bodies. Rather than revitalising these crucial oversight mechanisms, the Council’s leadership has prioritised bureaucratic initiatives in the guise of accreditation.

The non-statutory status of the media council was a hard-won battle for the media industry two decades ago. It emerged from a state concession in the mid-2000s under the EPRDFites, designed explicitly to prevent excessive state imposition on ethical values. Even senior politicians deemed authoritarian, such as Bereket Simon, then Information Minister, and his deputy Shimeles Kemal, had the common sense to recognise the value of self-regulation over journalistic ethics, responsibility, and accountability.

Today’s EMC, modeled after successful European and North American self-regulatory councils, was supposed to ensure accountability, peer review, and professional ethics without an attempt to coerce its members or perhaps those outside its horizons.

Alas! The prospect of introducing an accreditation regime, even if initially voluntary, presents the state with another tool to silence critical journalism. Globally, countries enforcing strict accreditation for journalists correlate strongly with diminished press freedom. With its statutory media council, even Kenya has faced intense criticism for infringing press freedom through compulsory registration.

International best practices point towards robust self-regulation, such as in Canada and Japan, where independent councils handle complaints and ethical issues, explicitly rejecting journalist accreditations.

The Ethiopian Media Council risks becoming a de facto statutory regulator, mirroring authoritarian approaches rather than democratic practice. Such a shift threatens to undermine media pluralism and public trust. Recent experiences demonstrate clearly that journalistic standards thrive best not through forced accreditation but through transparent self-regulation, peer accountability, and strong legal safeguards against state interference.

The EMC, whose leaders called a "validation workshop" a few weeks ago hoping to legitimise their intent, has neglected its fundamental roles. Most troublingly, despite numerous public grievances, it has yet to adjudicate ethical complaints against a media house. Rather than adhering to these original precepts, its leaders have increasingly indulged in their ambition to veer off to matters fit for civil society groups, such as training and advocacy. Their lack of transparency about their accreditation plans adds to the industry's unease. They remain deliberately ambiguous about implementation and enforcement mechanisms, fueling suspicion and weakening trust at a critical time. Journalists, particularly younger and digitally savvy reporters, fear accreditation could stifle their newfound space.

Maintaining an autonomous, responsible, and accountable media remains essential. However, effective accountability does not come from restrictive accreditation or bureaucratic maneuvers. It can emerge from open and transparent self-regulation rooted in democratic values.

The Council’s leaders would do the industry good to abandon their uncalled-for push for accreditation and refocus their energy instead on activating the dormant self-regulatory mechanisms. Failing to do so risks squandering a historic opportunity to press for a genuine climate of freedom of speech and the press.

PUBLISHED ON Mar 30, 2025 [ VOL 25 , NO 1300]

Share this...

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin