The press needs uninhibited access to information

This means that newspapers will have now to obtain information on sensitive incidents from police headquarters or from the SPs and others senior officers authorised by the headquarters. This has come as a shock to the media and the conscious citizens of the country. The editorial of The Daily Star dated July 26, 2004, termed the ban as a bane and expressed the view that the old arrangement had served well the cause of public interest and the administration's need to be accountable. The Ittefaq of July 27, 2004, published a report which stated that one organisation named Manobodhikar had requested the police headquarters to withdraw the aforesaid circular to enable reporters to collect undistorted information on sensitive cases from the field level police officers. It is expected that some other organisations and civil society leaders will shortly come up with similar demand.

Murders, rape, acid throwing, bomb blasts, extortion, trafficking in women and children, smuggling of dangerous drugs and narcotics, and many other criminal offences have become routine affairs in the country. Our daily newspapers carry reports on heinous and sensitive criminal offences although many such acts, particularly in rural areas, remain unreported. Since these criminal activities take place under the jurisdiction of different police stations, the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station is supposed to know the facts of the case(s) best. So, obtaining information from "the horse's mouth" normally ensures accuracy and this enables the media to discharge their duty of informing people with maximum possible honesty and speed. Secondly, obtaining clearance from police headquarters is a time consuming affair. There is no doubt that police headquarters will seek clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs for sharing information with the media on sensitive cases. Maybe such clearance will require the nod of the Prime Minister who is also the Minister for Home Affairs in the absence of a full minister in that ministry. Such delays will lead to dilution of news and manufacture speculation and rumour.

Then why the ban? Is it to conceal facts of the sensitive cases and to feed people with such information which the party in power wants to hear? Or is it to put the blame on the main opposition party in parliament for all such incidents? People have observed for the last thirteen years of democratic rule that whenever a sensitive incident took place, the government hastily issued a press note or the policy makers of the party in power came out with statements putting the blame on the opposition political parties, particularly the main opposition party in parliament. Instances are bomb blasts in Ramna Park on the Bangla New Year's day during the period of the immediate past Awami League (AL) government, arms haul at Bogra and Chittagong, and the recent killing of the member of parliament of Gazipur-2 constituency under the present BNP government. More instances may be cited.

Our Constitution has guaranteed the freedom of the press (clause (2) (b) of article 39). For translating this freedom into action, the press needs

uninhibited access to information. The Scandanavian Ombudsman has ensured the right of the press. Originally incorporated in the Swedish constitution of 1809, Ombudsman system has been introduced in Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, and Great Britain. In all these countries, the Ombudsman is an officer of the parliament whose duty is to ensure that civil servants carry out their administrative duties according to law and to institute proceedings if they fail to do so. Report of the Task Forces on Bangladesh Development Strategies for the 1990s (vol 2) published in 1991 states:

"The success of the Ombudsman is hard to explain. He does not have any executive power. It appears that the publicity given to the Ombudsman's criticism of the administration in his Annual Reports to Parliament and especially to the daily briefings to the

national press together with his prestige is the source of his authority. Every day members of the Swedish press call at the Ombudsman's office to examine the complaints and the decisions of the previous day. The files are laid on the table ready for inspection by the press. The pressmen select those cases which are of general interest and they have the right to criticise the Ombudsman's handling of a case. This wide and continuous publicity has proved more effective as a weapon that prosecution."

Article 77 of our Constitution provides for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman. But this office has not yet been established. It is unfortunate that a constitutional obligation remains unimplemented for decades.

M Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary, Government of Bangladesh.