The PNCR is questioning the legal basis for President Bharrat Jagdeo ordering the 4-month closure of CNS TV Channel 6 and is also contending that it is clearly intended to cripple the business operations rather than sanction it for any infringement.
“There is no doubt that the President’s actions are motivated by self-serving, partisan political considerations through the selective exercise of the functions that should normally reside in an autonomous National Broadcasting Authority,” the party said in a press statement on Tuesday.
At a press conference on Tuesday, President Jagdeo said Sharma had his licence suspended for four months for the rebroadcast of the remark threatening the President and not for the initial airing of the programme. In addition, he said Sharma successfully blocked Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon from hearing the case, leaving the President with no alternative but to hear the case himself, Jagdeo said.
And citing cases of action by the government against anyone expressing opposing views, the PNCR noted that this began since 2001 with the constant threats and closure on one occasion of HBTV Channel 9; the threats and undermining of the economic interests of VCT Channel 28 by forcing the removal of the lottery broadcast contract from that station to the state-owned Channel 11 and later the cancellation of the TBN broadcasts in Guyana which were managed by the management of VCT Channel 28; the vilification and physical assaults on CN Sharma by PPP activists with no redress in the courts; and more recently the withdrawal of state advertisements from Stabroek News.
The party charged that the advertisements were “only recently restored as a tactical measure to cushion the political fallout from the planned suspension of CNS Channel 6 licence.”
And explaining its questions over the legal basis for Jagdeo ordering the 4-month closure of CNS TV, the PNCR noted that the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) was established by the MOU signed by President Jagdeo and late Leader of the Opposition Desmond Hoyte on November 7, 2001, with the mandate “… to advise the Minister [responsible for administering the legislation governing Broadcasting] with respect to compliance by Television Station Licensees with the terms and conditions of Licences and to recommend to the Minister such appropriate action in the event of failure by a Licensee to comply with such terms and conditions and to discharge other related functions.”
And the MOU stated that “The Parties agree that the Minister, in the exercise of his power pursuant to the Act and the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations made thereunder, with respect to Television Station Licences, will act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting.”
The PNCR then argued that “It is therefore obvious that the Minister of Information must act in accordance with the advice of the ACB and not unilaterally when dealing with sanctions for infringement of conditions of licences.”
However, the party observed, in the present case the ACB made no recommendation to the Minister who is the President.
The PNCR asserted that President Jagdeo took control of this portfolio and removed it from Prime Minister Sam Hinds “to ensure that he personally dealt with the negotiations with Digicel”.
And the public should also be made aware, the party said, that the ACB’s most severe sanction as recorded in all their deliberations and reports: ‘Suspension or revocation of licence’ is that “In very serious cases, the ACB may recommend the suspension of a licence (up to 30 days), or make recommendation to have the licence revoked.”
In that light, the party questioned the legal basis for the President’s order of a 4-month closure of CNS TV.
Moreover, the PNCR pointed out, the ACB was never intended to be a permanent body but one that should have existed for a brief period during which the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation should have been implemented.
That committee submitted its signed report to President Jagdeo and Hoyte on the 6th December, 2001.
The report at page 4 states: “that Guyana’s broadcasting system will be administered by an independent and autonomous authority empowered by the relevant legislation to issue public, commercial and community radio and television licenses, enforce regulations, monitor compliance and increase public awareness, among other functions.”
The PNCR meantime maintained that it will not allow the Jagdeo administration to continue to impose what it described as “its emerging dictatorial tendencies” and to trample on the rights and freedoms of the Guyanese people.
Against that background the party called upon its members and supporters to join the nightly vigil outside of CNS TV Channel 6. In addition, the PNCR also invited all Guyanese to register their opposition to the “Jagdeo PPP/C dictatorship” by joining the Freedom March and Rally tomorrow.
Cohesion
Meanwhile, the party said, the “state media continues unimpeded to publish vile PPP propaganda and host exclusive PPP and Government functionaries on programmes that have done more to fracture race relations, undermine social cohesion and fuel political conflict in Guyana than any private television has ever done.”
For example, the PNCR said, no action was taken against NCN Channel 11 when they broadcast the President’s inflammatory statements from Babu John such as the distribution of guns to criminals by the opposition parties. And no action was taken against the same station over their repeated airing of programmes which contributed to the intensifying of racial and political tensions immediately after the Lusignan tragedy, the PNCR added.
It charged further that President Jagdeo, while giving the impression that he accepted the report of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation, failed as is the usual practice, to take any serious steps to implement its recommendations so that the government could maintain its control over state and private television and radio in Guyana.
After two years of procrastination by the government the issue became an important subject matter for discussion during the constructive engagement between President Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Robert Corbin in May 2003. The President again undertook to ensure urgent implementation of an independent Broadcast Authority and the licensing of private radio stations.
According to the Communiqué signed by Jagdeo and Corbin on May 6, 2003, the PNCR said, the draft broadcast legislation should have been introduced through the tabling of draft broadcasting legislation in the National Assembly within four months from May 1, 2003.
According to the PNCR, the government refused to honour the recommendations of the bi-partisan committee and produced a controversial draft which they knew would not be accepted. The draft was rejected and they then suggested that another committee review the draft. In effect they halted any progress in this matter thus fulfilling their objective of continued control of the media.
Meantime, the PNCR in reference to the offending programme on CNS TV stated that it considers threats to the life of the President, government officials or any citizen on any television or radio programme to be “totally unacceptable and unequivocally condemns such practices.”
However, it said that given the live nature of the programme, “Voice of the People”, there may be instances of the inadvertent use of intemperate language. When there are such occurrences, apart from the installation of expensive technology to aid with the capture and editing of these occurrences, these are dealt with by sensible programme management precautions to ensure conformity with acceptable broadcasting standards.
In the case of the offending programme, which was aired on February 21, 2008, Sharma immediately upbraided the caller for the use of inappropriate and unacceptable language on the programme.
The PNCR said that all Guyanese are aware that the PPP/C administration has been uncomfortable with the popularity and thrust of the “Voice of the People” programme. “This current exercise in vindictiveness is, therefore, a continuation of the hounding and vilification of Mr. C.N. Sharma, Proprietor and Managing Director of CNS TV Channel 6. The length of the closure, of CNS TV Channel 6, is calculated to cripple the business of Mr Sharma,” the PNCR maintained.
The consequence is that the staff of some 30 persons would be forced to join the already large army of unemployed Guyanese, the party added.
