Who to blame for story on fish kill?

Honourable Folks, there is no denying that the sight of dead fish in Lake Malawi in December agitated the folks in Karonga and other parts of the Lakeshore so much they vented their wrath on Paladin Africa who owns the Kayelekera Uranium Mine in the district.
It later turned out that the people’s fear that the fish kill was a result of the disposal into the waters of toxic liquid waste from the mine was unfounded. However, it took law enforcers and the Minister of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining Atupele Muluzi going there to douse the fire.
The incident was but one of the unpleasant encounters between the mine and folks in the neighbourhood and we all know it. Being the first serious investor into the extractive sector—others come and spend years taking so-called samples abroad—Paladin Africa deserved to be treated like the proverbial goose that lay the egg.
Fixing our economy requires risk-takers like Paladin Africa to bring into the land the foreign capital, technology and skills for the exploitation of our natural resources. If we do not provide foreign investors a stable and friendly environment, they can divest and relocate elsewhere in resource rich Africa. We’ll in turn get stuck with tobacco and you know what that means to the economy.
Paladin’s testimony of its experience in Malawi will speak louder to other potential foreign investors on the ease of doing business in Malawi than our statutes and policies.
The real cost of unnecessary confrontations with the uranium miners is, therefore, the perception to other foreign investors that Malawi is a high-risk country to invest in.
That said, the difficult relationship between the investor and the people in Karonga has its roots in the administration of Bingu wa Mutharika’s decision to strictly keep under wraps terms of the deal the government struck with the mining company.
The Wall Street newsletter of December 5 quotes Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report as saying “there are most likely far more foreign bribes in extractive sectors than any other industry,” adding that many investors in this sector “do not publish information by countries.”
Then comes the punch line: “Among other problematic issues such veil of secrecy brings, this allows corrupt country leaders to disguise stolen funds.”
In the past I’ve blamed mediocre leadership for scaring away the much-needed donor budgetary support. Today, I again blame mediocre and corrupt leadership for the tense relations between the investors in uranium mining in Karonga and the people.
Interestingly, some folks in government think in as far as the tension that followed the spotting of fish kills in Karonga is concerned, the blame is on the media.
Take the recent government press statement entitled “Fish kills on Lake Malawi in Karonga District” jointly signed by Secretary for Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development and Secretary for Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, for example.
It states: “The media is advised to report issues pertaining to fish kills only when it is availed with expert knowledge/information in order to avoid causing unnecessary alarm or fear to the general public.”
A case of blaming the messenger? The thinking that the media is responsible for the impact of bad news on the status quo is as old and outdated as Kamuzu Banda’s dictatorship. In those days, government felt justified to arrest and detain journalists who dared write anything perceived to be negative.
In the multiparty dispensation, politicians and bureaucrats have tried hard to muzzle the press by arguing that free press and freedom of expression aren’t absolute rights. I guess it is the same thinking that has made successive regimes ignore to enact Access to Information law.
Nevertheless, in the multiparty dispensation the media has the constitutional mandate to provide the public with information, good or bad, with which they can make informed choices.
In other words, as long as the information is true and in the public interest, the media has a duty to publish it. How the public chooses to use it is beyond the realm of journalism.
Of course, it is commendable for government to offer to provide expert views on such matters as the fish kill. But if the incident happens in December and the expert opinion is given mid January, then it’s expecting too much of the media to wait that long before telling the story.
Government simply must sloth off its heavy coat of red tape and inefficiency. The same Constitution which provides for free press also requires of government to provide unfettered access to public information. If government can’t do this in a timely manner then it should abound burdening the media with diktats it can’t enforce.