Dear Editor,
Not so long ago the Government of Guyana, at the behest of donor agencies, passed the Fiscal and Financial Management Accountability Act, the aim of which was to foster and sustain accountability and transparency in the use of government funds.
The agencies identified to execute tasks in order to ensure that this lofty objective was achievable, included Parliament and specific review committees, the GRA and the Audit Office.
It is within the context of accountability and transparency therefore that one can reflect on the recent decision by the administration to withdraw its advertisements from the Stabroek News. The reasons given for this decision have been well ventilated by various government agents and need not be overstressed here. Suffice it to say however, that the justification which was based on volume of circulation could have been supported by the results of an audit undertaken by the reputable Audit Office. Certainly it would not have been difficult for that autonomous agency to verify the circulation numbers of the publicly owned Guyana Chronicle – in the interest of accountability. (It is a pity that the Audit Office would not be allowed access to the Mirror – if only for the sake of transparency).
Hopefully the examination would reveal how many thousands of free Chronicles are distributed to staff of ministries and related agencies, across Guyana daily.
Ideally it would be useful also to learn how many copies of Stabroek News would have been withdrawn from that same free government distribution since, presumably, the public servants concerned only read that paper to check for the ads they would have generated. The situation affecting Stabroek News is clearly the outcome of decision-making, the kind of which the very administration would not accept from its minions.
A development which cannot be overlooked is the most recent mimicry by the respective managements of Guysuco and GPL in withdrawing their ads, as if they were not identifiably incorporated auto-nomous institutions. It is the measure of the mettle of the highly-paid expatriate management of Guysuco in particular that they genuflected so readily. Their behaviour is also indicative of how they are micromanaged.
The administration’s intransigence in this matter is a contradiction of its meticulous mouthings about ‘inclusiveness’ in one breath, and about ‘competitiveness’ in its latest mode. It is at least consistent with the arrogance displayed towards the views of the religious community over casino gambling.
Quite apart from the above, it would appear that there is a case for closer examination of the legitimacy of the decision complained of, by say, the Economic Services Committee of Parliament, who under the FFMP Act, may just be afforded the initiative to enquire how appropriate it is for notices/advertisements related to international donor-funded projects to be restricted to only specified sections of the media, and particularly the newspapers. Why should those parties interested in invitations to consultancies and related projections not expect these to be published in every newspaper as previously obtained. The situation does raise the issue of freedom of choice.
As a former President proclaimed in last Sunday’s newspapers, why should citizens who hitherto did not subscribe to Kaieteur News, for example, be forced now to access that “lousy” publication.
It is the view of the writer that fundamental questions of human rights, in addition to that of freedom of expression, are involved, all of us are affected.
Finally, if it is true that the Mirror newspaper also publishes government notices, it will be helpful to know how, on the grounds argued in defence of the administration’s decision against Stabroek News, the former publication fulfils the requirements.
Yours faithfully,
Eliah Bijay
