[This story has been corrected and updated here – Ed.]
By Toby McIntosh
Legislation passed by the Tanzanian Parliament June 27 drops controversial criminal penalties for criticism of official statistics but creates new methods of state control over critics and independent researchers.
Tanzanians wishing to challenge official statistics would be required to get approval from the government. In addition, civil society organizations would need to get prior approval to publish their research findings.
The changes, criticized by civil society organizations, are part of a conglomerate bill that representatives of 30 CSOs called the bill a “dark cloud,” according to a media report.
The bill, Miscellaneous Amendments No. 3 of 2019, was made public on June 19 and debated under a ‘certificate of urgency’ to speed up its passage, The package makes changes to eight laws. Among other things would restrict on the activities of CSOs and create a board with the power to censor films and review raw footage shot by foreign companies.
The World Bank urged the elimination of the criminalization provisions, which were added to The Statistics Act in October, 2018. At the time, the Bank told EYE that it was “deeply concerned” about the criminalization clause and delayed action on a $50 million grant for the National Bureau of Statistics. (See Eye article.) The International Monetary Fund also expressed concerns. A CSO source said the Bank successfully pressed the government to drop the criminal penalties provision in the latest bill. The June 19 draft would have reduced but not eliminated jail time and fines for those who “discredit official statistics.”
The new provisions create a multi-layered government approval process for those wishing to challenge government data or publish “non-official” statistics. The Committee to Protect Journalists in a June 21 statement termed the system “an onerous approval process.”
EYE has asked the Bank for comment.
Prior Approval Process Instituted
The just-approved bill grants a “right” to challenge government statistics that can only be exercised with government approval.
The key amendment states, “A person who has different findings from statistics disseminated by the Bureau shall, subject to consultation with the Bureau, have the right to challenge such statistics.”
Critics argued that the provision is unclear and the “consultation process” vaguely described.
The amendments say that a person with “different findings from the statistics disseminated by the Bureau” should go to the Bureau and discuss “the methodology used, datasources, analysis and data interpretation.”
If the Bureau decides the person’s findings are incorrect, the person will be told to revise them before publication. In the event of a disagreement, the matter will be referred to a “Technical Committee.”
The Technical Committee will be formed by the minister in charge of statistics and composed of “members who are conversant with and possess expertise on matters relating to statistics….”
A CSO critique of the bill shared with EYE says “transparent and consultative procedures” should be used to develop guidelines for decisions, explaining, “Otherwise it can appear that the Bureau is making arbitrary decisions just because the guidelines are not known.”
The committee can prevent publication of the contrary findings. It also could prevent publication of official statistics deemed to be incorrect.
Publication Approval of Non-Official Statistics
In addition, the new amendments would prohibit the publication of “non-official statistics without consultation with the Statistician General.”
Again, the review would cover data sources, analysis, interpretation and the results to be published. And the review would be based on “national and international standards.”
If the standards are not met, the government “may advise the person to correct the discrepancies before publication.” The findings may be published, but “with a clear disclaimer statement that the information is not official.”
Appeals could be taken to the Technical Committee.
Exceptions Created International Bodies
These requirement would not apply in certain circumstances and would cover research done by international organizations.
No consultation, the bill’s text states, would be necessary for publication of:
a) surveys or researches in natural sciences, technology or innovation conducted by recognized academic and research institutions such as universities and other academic and research institutions;
(b) researches conducted using administrative data or statistics from Government institutions such as ministries, independent departments, authorities and regional administration;
(c) surveys or researches conducted for programmes by international organizations, regional bodies, intergovernmental organizations bilateral institutions, diplomatic missions or international development organizations; and
(d) surveys or researches conducted purely for internal or personal use by institutions or organizations which are not intended to be published.
Domestic Researchers Covered
However, academicians doing certain kinds of studies and CSOs would need government approval.
Consultation, according to a CSO analysis, would be necessary for:
- recognized academic and research institutions conducting socioeconomic household surveys or knowledge, attitudes and perception surveys; and
- local civil society organizations conducting research for raising awareness, generating public debate or advocacy; and monitoring and evaluation data often collected by NGOs.
The requirement for approval would apply to public opinion polls, CSO sources noted.
“These proposals imply the government has the monopoly on national data and the exclusive ability to analyse the data,” said Sarah Jackson of Amnesty International.
Twaweza Analysis
Twaweza, a major Tanzanian CSO, issued an analysis of the bill that included this on the Statistics Act revisions:
We are pleased to see the amendments to the Statistics Act presented with a view for expanding the space for data collection, dissemination and debate around the same.
We particularly acknowledge several proposed revisions and additions of new sections that
-
- Provide increased clarity and specificity in definitions including those of statistical information and surveys.
- Reintroduce acknowledgement of unofficial or independent statistics for collection and dissemination
- Clarify the process by which consultations with the Bureau are to be conducted
- Allow the dissemination of specific statistical information without consultation
- Reduce disproportionate penalties
However, we continue to advocate for an independent and clear review process, and for the list of exemptions from consultation to include key facets of domestic research which makes an important contribution to policy and development also so as not to appear to be selective in our application or enactment of laws.
