By Andrew Irumba
The continued detention and subsequent remand of journalist Remmy Asiteza of Daily Express raises questions that go beyond the allegations against him. They touch on a much bigger issue: the public’s right to witness the administration of justice.
Asiteza spent six days in police custody before being produced in court and remanded to prison until September 9. The case stems from a story he published concerning alleged corruption in the recruitment of Resident District Commissioners (RDCs) in the Office of the President.
Let me be clear: if the journalist committed an offence, he should answer for it. Journalists are not above the law, and neither should journalism be used as a shield against legitimate criminal investigations.
But the law must be applied fairly, transparently and consistently.
What happened around Asiteza’s court appearance therefore deserves scrutiny.
His lawyers and fellow journalists had reportedly been tipped off that he would be brought to court at 2pm. They went to the courtroom to attend the proceedings. According to those present, security officers ordered them out of the courtroom and onto the veranda.
As they waited outside, Asiteza was reportedly brought into court without his lawyers or colleagues being allowed to accompany him. By the time they managed to get back inside, the magistrate was already reading the final paragraphs of the ruling.
If this account is accurate, it is deeply troubling.
Court proceedings, particularly in matters of significant public interest, should not be treated as a private affair. Open justice is not a favour extended by those in authority. It is an important principle of the administration of justice.
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how cases are handled, especially when the case involves a journalist, allegations of corruption and matters concerning the exercise of public authority.
If the journalist got his facts wrong, let the court establish that openly. If he violated the law, let the evidence be presented and tested in the presence of his lawyers. If the complainant has a legitimate grievance, let that grievance be heard through the proper legal process.
That is how the rule of law is supposed to work.
What raises even more questions is the apparent haste with which the proceedings were conducted. Why exclude the journalist’s lawyers and colleagues from the courtroom only for the proceedings to proceed without them?
And if there was a lawful reason for restricting access to the courtroom, why was that reason not clearly communicated to those seeking to attend?
These questions matter because justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
Courts routinely make decisions with the wider public in mind. Sentences often carry the message that they should serve as a deterrent to others. In that sense, court proceedings are also a public lesson about the consequences of breaking the law.
So why should the public be prevented from observing that process?
If authorities believe Asiteza’s reporting was wrong, then the proper response is to use the law to challenge it, not to create circumstances that make the process appear opaque.
There is another issue that deserves clarification: the identity and role of the complainant.
It is understood that the complaint is being pursued through a Power of Attorney (P/A). If the complainant has a direct interest in the matter, there should be transparency about who is behind the complaint, who is acting on their behalf and under what legal authority.
The public deserves to understand the process, particularly where the case concerns allegations involving public institutions and the work of a journalist.
This is not about giving journalists special treatment.
It is about demanding the same standards of fairness, transparency and due process for journalists as for every other citizen.
Those entrusted with public offices have a greater responsibility to uphold the law because they are the very people expected to enforce and protect it.
You cannot invoke the rule of law when it suits you and disregard its spirit when transparency becomes inconvenient.
If Asiteza is guilty, let the evidence prove it.
If his reporting was false, let the court establish that.
If he committed an offence, let him face the consequences provided for by law.
But let all of that happen openly, fairly and in accordance with due process.
The question is therefore not whether a journalist should be held accountable. Of course he should, if he breaks the law.
The question is whether those enforcing the law are prepared to subject themselves to the same standards of legality and accountability they demand from everyone else.
That is the real test of the rule of law.
