STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC RIGHTS TO KNOW, AND THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS BY JOURNALISTS

It is unclear when discussing between the “public rights to know” and the Fundamental Human Rights”. The “public right to know” is concerned with the journalist obligation to the public or society and so, he is obliged to look for, process, package and disseminate information to society. Whereas the “Fundamental Human Rights”, has to do with natural right-right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in the 1992 constitution of Ghana. How journalists strike the difference between the two in their line of duty remains unclear. To discuss how the journalist strikes the difference between the public right to know and the “Fundamental Human Rights”, two areas will be focused upon. These are the journalist obligation to society (society right to know) and the “right to privacy”. Firstly, let’s discuss, starting with the public right to know. Journalists do not work for themselves but for the society within which they operate. It means that they don’t operate in a vacuum but in their surroundings, with the people and for the people and their responsibility to the people is the peoples right to know what is happening around them. To this extent, it sounds to me as illegal to hold back information from the pubic reach. Imagine what will happen, if let’s say the country has been struck with epidemic and the President speaks on the situation but his statement does not get to the people, in order to know what the authority is doing to save them from spread of the epidemic. Again, what if the President is sick? The citizens will want to know and it’s their right to understand his health situation. However, it’s unfair to want to know exactly the disease he is suffering from. It means that the journalist needs to report to the citizens but to exercise conscience in his reportage on certain issues. Citizens right to know their President’s health status or situation is fine/okay and not go beyond that. “The right to be let alone”. (Warren and Brandeis) Secondly, we continue with “right to privacy”. Concerning the public interest, courts have identified four different types of privacy interest worthy of protection: unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, appropriation of one’s name or likeness, publicity which places one in a false light and unreasonable publicity given to one’s private life. The public interest must be defined broadly so that journalists and editors are not forced to make excessively fine distinctions with the result that the flow of important information to the public is diminished. It is certainly the case that the success and marketability of many modern celebrities is largely dependent on their ability to remain in the public eye which, in turn, depends on their frequent portrayal in the media. A great deal of money and effort is spent trying to attract media interest, including by publicising events which are normally considered to be very private, such as weddings or the breakdown of relationships. This begs the question of whether such individuals, having opened up their private lives to public scrutiny in pursuit of fame and wealth, can simply decide to exclude the media whenever it suits them. The phrase, “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword” is harsh, but perhaps not entirely inappropriate here. (Toby Mendel, Freedom of Expression and the Right to Privacy) Privacy is keen in every individual’s life and shall be observed as such. This is predominantly indicated in human rights documents of every country, as it is evident in the 1992 constitution of Ghana. Privacy issues and public interest have proven relatively difficult to define the lines between the two. Meanwhile, ordinary members in society do not obviously benefit from the media, even if they have unique features and we are cool with it, but not the news that are concerned with the President or any other celebrity. On a number of occasions, privacy issues have been widely discussed in the print media and in other documents, including the airspace, both local and abroad. The discussions on whether or not those whose private activities are threat to national security should still be kept secret needs to be addressed properly. Right to private life is a very delicate matter which is critically observed with care in all societies especially, in the first world. Even so, there are questions to be answered in relation to privacy. Right to Privacy means that one should not or cannot monitor another in his sitting or bedroom, bathhouse, kitchen, etc, but what if he conspires in his bedroom with something that is a threat to national security? What if his activity in private borders on breach of another’s right to live? Again, what if a journalist investigates on someone who is legally married but tries to marry a second wife or a second husband in secrete? Of course, right to privacy is keen in human race but I think society will not accept anything that has to do with the above raised questions. Article 8 of the Ghana Journalist Association’s (GJA’s) Code of Ethics states that journalists should not suppress news. Moreover, I think, in my opinion, that journalists can go ahead to report on issues that borders on national security especially, if it’s concerned with the above raised questions. Conclusion It is worthy to note, in this conclusion, with calls on organizations in Ghana to mobilize journalists and international forces, in the bid to ensure that the Right To Information (RTI) bill is passed to serve its purpose. Until the right action is taken, they will not pass the bill since its passage is a threat to politicians, public and civil servants, with the alleged underhand dealings, although, Ghana’s Parliament has mentioned it will pass the bill on March 23, 2019. Recommendation I observe that though there will be strong opposition to this recommendation, however, Ghana Journalist Association (GJA) should subject every journalist under one umbrella and license each one, to be able to protect every journalist from any form of harm in their line of duty, as well as crack the whip on perpetrators, so as to enhance sanity in the profession. This will uphold the public interest and the right of the public to be informed. Source: The Future Projects By: Nyarko Abronomaa Walker myfutureprojects.blogspot.com +233 243015920