n Of Violence Against Journalists During Elections
Violence against journalists during elections is a significant issue in many democracies, where the media’s role is vital in ensuring transparency, free expression, and the right to information. Journalists often face threats, harassment, physical assault, and even murder, particularly in politically sensitive periods like elections, when tensions are high, and various groups may attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The prosecution of violence against journalists during elections is crucial for protecting freedom of the press and ensuring that the media can perform its role without fear of retribution. Many national legal systems have provisions specifically for protecting journalists, while international law, including the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, protects the right to free expression and the right to life, security, and freedom of movement.
Here, we will explore several noteworthy case examples involving violence against journalists during elections, illustrating how different legal systems have handled the prosecution of such crimes.
1. Case Example 1: The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi (Saudi Arabia, 2018)
While not strictly tied to an election, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi during a period of heightened political tension in Saudi Arabia provides a relevant context for understanding the violence against journalists. Khashoggi was a prominent journalist and critic of the Saudi government, and his killing brought global attention to the issue of violence against journalists in politically sensitive environments.
Prosecution Details:
Key Charges: Murder, conspiracy, extrajudicial killing.
Legal Proceedings: After Khashoggi's killing in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkish authorities launched a thorough investigation. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings conducted an independent inquiry, asserting that Khashoggi’s murder was premeditated. Despite international outcry, the Saudi government initially denied involvement.
Court’s Decision: Saudi Arabia’s special tribunal charged 5 individuals with murder and sentenced them to death. However, international bodies, including the United Nations and Western governments, criticized the trial's lack of transparency and due process. The case highlighted the dangerous environment for journalists in politically charged environments and emphasized the need for international legal frameworks to hold governments accountable for extrajudicial killings.
Though not a typical election-related case, the murder of Khashoggi illustrates the dangers journalists face when reporting on politically sensitive issues and how state-backed violence can operate during times of heightened political stakes, like elections or regime changes.
2. Case Example 2: The Killing of Gauri Lankesh (India, 2017)
In India, the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh in 2017 sparked outrage. Lankesh was an outspoken critic of the ruling party in India and was known for her opposition to Hindu extremism. Her assassination took place in the context of growing political tensions, particularly as elections loomed closer in Karnataka and other states. Journalists critical of the government were increasingly facing threats, and Lankesh’s murder is often viewed as a form of retaliation for her critical reporting.
Prosecution Details:
Key Charges: Murder, conspiracy, criminal conspiracy under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302, and terrorism.
Legal Proceedings: Following Lankesh’s death, the Karnataka Police began investigating the case. In 2018, the police arrested members of an alleged Hindu extremist group, the Bajrang Dal, which was accused of orchestrating her assassination. The investigation suggested that the group saw her as a threat due to her secularist stance and her opposition to the Hindu nationalist agenda.
Court’s Decision: The case saw arrests of key individuals and members of the right-wing Hindu nationalist groups who were allegedly involved in plotting and executing the killing. The case was significant for the prosecution of political violence against journalists, though many believe the prosecution process could be delayed or biased due to political interests. As of today, the case is still being prosecuted, and the accused face charges including conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism.
The case of Gauri Lankesh’s murder highlights the risks journalists face in countries with politically charged environments, especially where there is a lack of institutional protection for free speech during elections and periods of political instability.
3. Case Example 3: Violence Against Journalists During the Nigerian 2019 Presidential Election (Nigeria, 2019)
During the Nigerian 2019 presidential elections, journalists faced significant risks, including physical violence and intimidation. Media workers were targeted by political factions, and the issue of violence against journalists was raised as a key concern by both domestic and international human rights organizations.
Prosecution Details:
Key Charges: Assault, intimidation, harassment of journalists, and violations under Nigeria's Press Freedom Protection Act.
Legal Proceedings: During the elections, journalists were harassed by political groups aligned with both major political parties. In 2019, the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria (NHRC) recorded multiple incidents where journalists were physically attacked, had their equipment damaged, or were intimidated while covering election-related violence. These acts were mainly carried out by political party agents or by members of security forces who sought to control media coverage.
Court’s Decision: Despite the many reports of violence, the prosecution of perpetrators was slow. However, in response to international pressure, the Nigerian government set up several investigations, and the NHRC filed petitions in the courts. Although some low-ranking party members and security officials were charged with harassment, no high-ranking individuals were convicted. The slow pace of justice reflects systemic problems with protecting journalists during high-stakes political events.
This case is significant in illustrating how election violence can target journalists and hinder media freedom. Prosecutions were limited, and systemic impunity for those responsible for the violence remains a major challenge in Nigeria.
4. Case Example 4: The Murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia (Malta, 2017)
The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a prominent investigative journalist in Malta, is one of the most notorious cases of violence against journalists. Caruana Galizia had been investigating corruption at the highest levels of government, and her work exposed numerous scandals that implicated political figures, especially during the lead-up to the 2017 Maltese general election.
Prosecution Details:
Key Charges: Murder, conspiracy, and corruption.
Legal Proceedings: In October 2017, Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed in a car bomb explosion, which was widely believed to be a political assassination. Maltese authorities initially investigated the case, but there were widespread concerns about the lack of transparency and potential governmental involvement or collusion in the attack. After significant public outcry and pressure from international bodies like the European Union, investigations continued, and suspects were arrested for planning and carrying out the assassination.
Court’s Decision: In 2020, the Maltese authorities arrested several individuals, including middlemen and hitmen who were allegedly hired to carry out the attack. Some of the accused were charged with murder, while others faced money laundering charges. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also got involved in monitoring the progress of the investigation to ensure the case was treated fairly.
The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia raised serious concerns about the safety of journalists in Europe and highlighted the urgent need for countries to ensure effective prosecution of violence against journalists, particularly in politically sensitive times like elections.
5. Case Example 5: The Assault on Journalists During the Brazilian 2018 Election Protests (Brazil, 2018)
During the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections, journalists covering protests and political rallies faced physical attacks, intimidation, and harassment. As tensions between the supporters of Jair Bolsonaro and Fernando Haddad escalated, media workers were seen as enemies by some factions, resulting in targeted violence.
Prosecution Details:
Key Charges: Assault, harassment, and damaging journalists’ property.
Legal Proceedings: In the run-up to the election, numerous journalists were physically attacked while covering protests or reporting on political events. Several cases of police brutality were also documented, where security forces targeted journalists for being too critical of the government. While some perpetrators were identified, the legal framework for prosecuting such offenses was weak, and many cases did not lead to convictions.
Court’s Decision: While there were some arrests made following attacks on journalists during protests, the prosecution process was slow, and the judiciary faced criticism for not prioritizing the protection of journalists. Many cases were dropped or went unpunished, reflecting systemic impunity for attacks on the press.
The 2018 Brazilian elections highlighted the vulnerability of journalists during times of political turmoil and electoral protests. Despite some convictions, the overall prosecution record was weak, showing that legal frameworks for journalist protection were insufficient to deter political violence.
Conclusion
The prosecution of violence against journalists during elections is crucial for maintaining freedom of the press, the integrity of elections, and the protection of democratic processes. The cases discussed above underline the significant challenges faced by journalists in volatile political environments, especially during elections, where their work can be seen as politically threatening. In many instances, justice has been delayed or denied due to political influence, lack of evidence, or inadequate legal protections.
RELATED Blog
comments