Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter from my colleague Mr Sherwood Lowe in yesterday’s newspapers (‘The government must urgently pass an amended broadcasting act…’ SN, August 25). I am not in agreement with Sherwood’s position. As a result of a letter from Mr Joseph Eleazar, attorney-at-law, to the Stabroek News of May 24, 2002 requesting clarification as to what was the role of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) was, you appended an editorial comment which was as follows ‒ and I believe that your information in this matter was accurate.
“Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) What is it?”
“The Advisory Committee on Broadcasting was established on 15th November, 2001 as a semi-autonomous body, pursuant to regulations made under the Guyana Post and Telegraph Act, Chapter 47:01. It comprises a chairman and two members, nominated by Guyana’s President, Leader of the Opposition, and Private Sector. Its tenure extends until the establishment of a Broadcasting Authority. It is by law is supposed to:
“1) Advise the Minister on the issuance, suspension and/or termination of television broadcasting station licences (including termination of unlicensed broadcasts)
“2) Monitor the adherence to or breach of broadcast standards relating to content by licensees.
“3) Receive and investigate public opinion or complaints on broadcast standards
“4) Maintain a working relationship with such bodies as are established by the industry to enforce broadcast standards.
“5) Advise on appropriate action in cases of violations of the conditions of the licence after due process of investigation
“6) Perform any other duties the responsible Minister may ask it to assume within the confines of these regulations and the Act.
“The general understanding was that the Committee would advise on appropriate action in cases of violations of the conditions of the licence (see item 5 above) which is in fact the role usually performed by a Broadcasting Authority.
“The Committee’s own recent interpretation of its duties has therefore come as a surprise. It has also received some complaints on which it is still to adjudicate.”
Editor, the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting was dissolved by James Bovell Drakes before June 14 of 2011 on a motion from the Leader of the Opposition, and to substantiate this I refer to this extract from the Kaieteur News of June 14, 2011: “Justice James Bovell-Drakes granted the pre-emptive injunction after the petition was put forward by the lawyer, Nigel Hughes. Kaieteur News was told that the ACB had determined that Sharma’s licence should be suspended for six months after the station had aired a commentary by Anthony Vieira which made some damning allegations against Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission, Bishop Juan Edghill, last month.”
As a result of the judge’s decision dissolving the ACB and since this injunction was not discharged, there was no ACB in place to advise Jagdeo to grant the 12 radio licences in October 2011, and as such, it can easily be construed that he broke the law again. I therefore do not agree that the issuance of the 12 radio licences is a faith accompli.
They were illegally granted by a minister responsible for broadcasting, President Jagdeo, in contravention of our laws in the absence of an ACB which was the only entity that could have legally advised him to issue those licences, and there was no Broadcast Authority.
The matter is, therefore, in my opinion, not closed, since 12 radio licences were issued in violation of the law, the dialogue and the communiqué. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira
