-in wake of Appeal Court ruling
In the wake of a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal which found that the administration has an unlawful radio monopoly, government has again committed to introducing broadcasting legislation in Parliament saying last night it is on its priority list and will be tabled in the National Assembly during the current session.
Saying the ruling is consistent with its own position to end the monopoly on radio, government said President Bharrat Jagdeo has articulated its commitment to liberalise the sector. But it stressed the necessary statutory framework must be place to facilitate the granting of licences. “It is the administration’s considered view that liberalization in the absence of such a framework could invite repetition of the well- publicized television licensing debacle and its associated disorder”, the statement from the administration said.
“In that regard, the Administration notes that its concerns were repeatedly expressed about the likely impact of the lack of such a framework on any licensing exercise. Those concerns led the Administration to undertake the enactment of broadcasting legislation”, the statement continued. This enactment, the government said, would provide the framework under which licensing can be done transparently and without caprice.
The statement from the administration also sought to clarify why no submissions were laid over to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General on the state’s behalf. It said that with the commitment by the President, “it was obviously unnecessary and otiose for the Attorney General to contest the appeal by VCT as it was equally unnecessary to appeal an earlier ruling by the Chief Justice on a similar Linden TV matter”. The reference to the Linden TV matter was the first public statement from the administration on the issue since announcing its intentions to appeal the ruling.
On Wednesday the Court led by Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and comprising Justices of Appeal B.S. Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards allowed an appeal filed by local television pioneer Anthony Vieira on behalf of Vieira Communications Limited (VCT) ruling that VCT’s fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom to receive and communicate ideas and information was contravened. The Court referred to precedents in the region and other jurisdictions while citing several authorities on the issue. Ironically, Vieira has since sold his TV station to the Ramroop Group and has migrated.
The Appeal Court found that the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU) is not doing its job with respect to considering radio licence applications and charged in the ruling that the NFMU has been procrastinating over the years. VCT had asked that the court order NFMU to issue it with a radio licence forthwith but the Court said there are technicalities involved in making such a decision, noting that it lacks the expertise to make such an evaluation. It said the NFMU is the entity which is well-placed to make such an evaluation, and it called on the unit to “do its job”. However, the court did direct the NFMU to consider and determine VCT’s application for a radio broadcast licence which was made since the early 1990s.
According to the Appeal Court panel of judges, no one has an absolute right to a radio broadcast licence because of the constitutionally prescribed limitations which circumscribe the freedom of expression and the freedom to communicate ideas. However, it ruled that the application by VCT for a radio broadcast licence was attended by indifference and callous discourtesy in that it never received an acknowledgement of its application and a response from the NFMU, adding that more so, it was affected by inordinate delay on the part of the NFMU in giving consideration to the request. The court noted also that there was no urgency and or efficiency by the NFMU in considering VCT’s application. Further, the Court had frowned upon the failure of the AG to make submissions to the Court in response to Vieira’s appeal saying the Attorney General and the NFMU were of no assistance in the determination of issues raised in the appeal. “…the AG and the NFMU have demonstrated a contemptuous disregard of the Court of Appeal. We roundly condemn it and clearly signal that this is not the conduct we are prepared to tolerate or condone”, the ruling said.
