The detention of David Mirinda under the British Terrorist Law: A Safeguard Against National Security Threats or An Erosion of Press Freedom?

Harassment and arrest of journalists for criticising the government are terms often associated with countries such as China, Russia and Zimbabwe. These terms are rarely associated with governments in the west where the press tends to operate in an atmosphere free of censorship and intimidation. However, the arrest of David Mirinda recently at Heathrow airport in UK, for being the partner of a journalist questions this assumptions about press freedom in the west.

The police had detained and interrogated Mirinda using the powers granted to them under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 permits the police to detain and interrogate a person for terrorism related offences for up to a maximum of nine hours. It is hoped that this legislation can help maintain national security by either preventing terrorism or apprehending individuals suspected of participating in such violent acts. But is Mirinda a terror suspect to be detained for interrogation under this law?

The police might consider Mirinda a terror suspect because of the publications made by his partner, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald had published a number of stories involving spying activities carried out by the British and American security agents, which might be useful to terrorists plotting to carry out heinous crimes on the west and its targets. Being his partner, it is possible that Mirinda can help him in the publication of similar stories in one form or another including the transportation of sensitive information. Hence it was justified for the British police to detain Mirinda to establish whether he was helping his partner to transport potentially damaging information for future publications.

The detention of Mirinda at the airport can also be justified on the ground that relatives of crime suspects can be detained and questioned by the police for any information that could assist in the crime investigation. People do not criticise the police for such tactics especially if the crime being investigated is a very serious crime such as murder. However, there is a major difference between detaining relatives of alleged crime suspects and detaining Mirinda at the airport. Relatives of crime suspects can be detained for interrogation only after their crime relatives have been caught or committed crimes and are at large. Greenwald has not been charged with any crime but has only been accused of providing information which is perceived to be capable of helping terrorists to achieve their misdeeds.

Therefore, holding Mirinda on the basis that Greenwald has published some sensitive information capable of compromising the national security and putting people’s lives at risk cannot be justified. It cannot be justified on the ground that no person has been able to prove that any of this information disclosed by Greenwald has helped terrorists to plot and perpetuate their terrorism acts. Besides it will be folly to think that terrorists were not aware that such surveillance programmes may be in existence prior to the publication of the spying programme.

In addition, the recent detention and interrogation of Mirinda at the airport threatens the much valued western press freedom and democracy. The ability of the western press to freely investigate and publish stories involving both policies and activities of governments and politicians has been the bedrock of the western democracy. It helps to bring checks and balances – accountability- to the governance of a nation. It is inevitable that lack of press freedom will leave too much power in the hands of politicians and defeat the principle of accountability encompassed by democracy.

It is up to the west to choose between press censorship and democracy. It can choose press censorship over democracy. While this choice might help to address the perceived security threats from terrorists in the short term, it will damage the high moral standings of the west within the international community of nations in the long term. The west cannot continue to criticize non-democratic or sham democratic governments for violations of press freedom if they are guilty of the same practice at home. In contrary, the west will begin to receive lectures on the importance of press freedom from non-western governments if it continues to restrict press freedom. The comment made yesterday by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, that UK had violated its fundamental values of press freedom by arresting and detaining Mirinda is a clear testimony of this case.