On Sunday, March 20, Haitians will go to the polls to elect their new president. This second-round vote for the top two contenders from a field of 19 is a first in Haiti’s history. Much is at stake, including overseeing billions of dollars in aid money still earmarked for reconstruction following the January 2010 earthquake.

A recent debate between the competitors – a 50-year old carnivalesque singer-turned-politician, Michel Martelly; and a 70-year old constitutionalist academic, Mirlande Manigat – illuminated their individual strengths and weaknesses and gave the two an opportunity to present their national plans.

But what got the most coverage was an exchange between Mr. Martelly and several members of the press corps.

By way of background, the rules of engagement for the debate restricted the panel of three journalists from asking anything personal. Personal, in this case, meant that whatever question was asked of one candidate had to be appropriate for the other. The questions also had to conform to the four prescribed themes: the first 100 days, security and justice, reconstruction and national production.

One of the questions addressed to Mr. Martelly, however, referred to a Miami Herald article that chronicled the foreclosure of three of Martelly’shomes in Florida, as well as accusations by a hospital that Martelly left without paying his bill. Ignoring his advisors, who jumped up to stop him from answering, Mr. Martelly explained that he was a victim of the financial crisis that also hit Donald Trump, and that it was his real estate agent, not him, who was responsible for the bankruptcy.

When the organizers began to reprimand the journalists for the question, Mr. Martelly said he didn’t mind, that the panel should ask away, as he knew these questions were coming. He was ready for them, he said, and had his people mobilized on the street.

Radio and television stations played that segment as much, if not more, than any other from the two-hour conference. Although Mr. Martelly answered the question, he also pointedly let the journalist know that he was marked. By insinuating that his ‘people’ were on the street, and given Haiti’s history of ‘mob control,’ the comments left the press corps feeling very vulnerable. And worried that the advances in freedom of the press made over the last few decades could disappear overnight.

Such concerns may be premature, especially since there has been an evolution of freedom of the press since the end of the 29-year Duvalier dictatorship in 1986. But that’s not to say that accurate information is easy to come by. Our most recent investigation, a front-page two-month-in-the-making article in Le Nouvelliste on the loss of a $2 million investment for a sewage treatment plant, includes the phrase “would not speak to us” nearly a half dozen times. Journalists are already handicapped by the fact that officials, national and international, do not like to go on the record.

There’s no question that will continue to be a challenge, even with a change of guard. But it’s one that a new group of journalists I’ve started working with are prepared to address. At least 10 media organizations have designated a journalist to work with me once a week for at minimum of four months to produce a multimedia investigative report on the humanitarian aid flowing into the country. These monthly reports will air simultaneously on all media that are members of the sponsoring organization, Haitian National Media Association.

We are all hoping that whoever wins Sunday’s vote will recognize that freedom of the press is an integral part of a democratic society, and a crucial component for transparency as Haiti continues to dig itself out of the rubble. On both accounts, there’s still a long way to go.