The jurisdiction of the journalism operations is dictated by the constitution of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to Öztunc & Pierre (2021), the UAE is ranked 119 in the global press freedom data, classifying the country as one of the most suppressive regarding the liberty of expression. Activities such as government censorship, bad press, limitation of journalistic opinions, and sanction threats are examples of oppressive measures to freedom.
Various agencies, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MoFAIC), have created proactive measures to portray press freedom (United Nations, 2021). However, the restrictions such as judicial harassment and censorship indicate a significant gap (Constitution, 2004). The reason is that the constitution is the only major directive that is binding, offering no absolute rights. Therefore, the advantages of giving partial liberty to journalistic activities are to maintain peace, control the media, and protect the repressive regime’s interests.
The freedom of independent reporting is the first indicator of press rights. The UAE’s rank in the global mark index portrays a system afraid of journalistic independence. This factor indicates that freedom is suppressed to ensure that the government controls everything on communication and information sharing (Öztunc & Pierre, 2021). According to Momen et al. (2020), half of the media fatalities occur in countries not at war. The UAE is known for business establishment and unmatched infrastructure, indicating high levels of peace and prosperity (Öztunc & Pierre, 2021). However, the right to expression is limited by the constitution that is ironically supposed to protect their freedom.
A story published by the Canberra Times news coverage depicts the level of repressive legislation against the media. Prosecutors in the UAE charged a sports journalist for leaking pre-match comments before the match between the country’s team and Iraq commenced (The Canberra Times, 2021). The journalist was then imprisoned after being convicted of hate speech and disruption of public peace. It remains unclear how his reporting was a hate speech considering the fact that he was reporting about the probability of a win, lose or draw in that world cup qualifier match. Through this incident, other broadcasters were also fired as punishment for disloyalty to the nation (The Canberra Times, 2021).
Article 30 of the UAE constitution indicates that freedom of expression shall be granted verbally, in writing, or within the limits of the law (Constitution, 2004). It is accurate to argue that the sports journalist had not defied the law since they were giving their opinion considering the description of this law. However, federal law no. 5 of 2012 indicates that sarcasm, defamation, and upsetting the public order through sensitive expression is illegal and can attract a jail term (Constitution, 2004). This statute creates a thin line between what is legal or unethical since the basis of judgment will depend on who is offended.
The constitution’s provisions have created a leeway for oppression by justifying censorship, bad press, and limiting opinions to protect individual interests. The importance of this system is to fake justice through the partial implementation of the mandate prescribed (Öztunc & Pierre, 2021). Such fragmented provisions enable the government to falsify, distort or conceal information concerning matters directly affecting its citizens for political mileage (Constitution, 2004). For instance, most media platforms in the UAE have not intensively addressed the issue of journalists’ unfair imprisonment, judicial executions, and deportation for fear of being punished, as indicated in the law (Momen, 2020). Such patterns have enabled the killings, torture, and harassment of media personnel’s an underreported plaque resulting in the surging number of deaths and imprisonment reported in the country.
It is illegal to criticize the government, its affiliates, or any constitutional monarch or governing authorities. The Federal Law Code, no. 15 of 1980, is a statute governing privacy to journalistic commentaries and Publication and is one of the most stringent laws in the Arab world (Constitution, 2004). The regulation allows for censorship and the prior distribution of national and international periodicals. The code justifies the reason for the scanty resources available addressing the extrajudicial killings occurring in this country. Through this censorship, harassment thrives, making it easier for the government to popularize propaganda and sustain authority.
Ideally, freedom of the press should include the right to publish articles without being monitored and provide journalistic commentaries. The importance of such a system is to support better governance, eradicate impunity, and promote factual knowledge. When the media depicts information with accurate data, citizens can identify issues in government and communicate them for overall societal change (Momen, 2020). They can also use accurate information to promote justice by calling offenders to face the law despite their status quo. For example, even the president can be jailed in some countries if they violate the law (Momen, 2020). Such processes are promoted by factual reporting that is not influenced by external factors. Additionally, independent reporting promotes factual knowledge by disseminating information that supports a unified awareness system.
Therefore, the importance of partial freedom of expression in the press is to serve the interests of governing officials since they control all information displayed to the public through strict limitations (Momen, 2020). Despite all the negative effects of this censorship, one advantage is that it has promoted peace, considering most of the evil done by people in government is not published or condemned in public. This suppression system has supported the federation of absolute monarchies by enabling all of them to get away with everything they do, considering they are above the law (Momen, 2020).
Moreover, the constitution protects them by imposing lethal sanctions on those who defy federal law no. 3, amended in 1987 (Constitution, 2004). This penal code law prohibits the press from publishing any information about the country’s rulers without consent. This limitation indicates that even if a ruler is involved in a graft case, the public will only get to know this crime if the ruler agrees that the allegations be published. Therefore, citizens have been left in the dark considering that commenting or publishing information concerning the rulers could attract a defamation lawsuit, which has promoted peace.
The advantage of partial freedom of the press is promoting governance and peace within the country. The reason is that, in the contemporary world, people understand their rights and would push for reform in case they notice any misappropriations in their governing systems. Therefore, censorship and judicial threats have controlled how the media portray certain individuals considering that the constitution protects them. Laws such as federal law code no. 15 of 1980 require that all public publications pass through a government editing system to ensure that none of the things written tarnishes their image. Many other laws protect the rulers’ interest, including federal law no. 5 of 2012, which threatens those who slander the government’s image. This situation raises curiosity about whether the constitution is for the people or an extension to protect the government.