Dear Editor,
There are a number of things I can’t seem to wrap my mind around concerning the suspension of Mr Sharma’s broadcasting licence and the Act that gives sole power to the President. I won’t state them all. However, why should the media be censored by the President in the first place? That responsibility should be left to an independent organisation to maintain a certain standard, without denying people the fundamental right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. People will always say things against their government. So that means that the President can exercise that power without restraint to silence opposition. That appears to be the potential for a dictatorship.
Anyway, accepting things as they are and assuming our President is a reasonable man, I think that suspending the licence and essentially shutting down the station for four months has far-reaching implications for the people that work there. Why should the innocent employees of CNS 6 be made to pay the price? Why didn’t the President simply charge the station a fine? A fine seems a lot more appropriate to me in this case, especially since CNS 6 has not committed any grievous crime.
I know that we can argue whether there is locus standi here since the President is involved in the matter as the aggrieved party. It appears to be a conflict of interest. The suspension can only be construed as an attempt to quiet the station.
Government officials need to think carefully about their decisions and this one is clearly not properly thought through.
Yours faithfully,
Kofi Straughn
Editor’s note
We have argued for years that there is a need for a modern Broadcasting Act which sets up an independent Broadcasting Authority to regulate the industry. This is the position in other democracies.
