In a letter to this newspaper on August 4th in response to the Stabroek News Editorial of August 2nd titled `The AG and the Judiciary’, Attorney General, Anil Nandlall SC made reference to the PPP/C’s record on free expression and lobbed various criticisms at this newspaper which should not go unanswered.
Waxing lyrical on the PPP/C, the AG stated: “The PPP/C’s demonstrable commitment to free expression and democratic norms is supported by a veritable track record of 75 years vintage. It hardly requires my endorsement or defence of it”.
The AG may have really been referring to the PPP since the appendage `C’ is of more recent vintage – 1991. While the PPP suffered from repression during the Burnham years in relation to free expression and press freedom, it is not without serious blemish itself. This newspaper is the best witness to the PPP/C’s assault on press freedom and free expression.
Under the Jagdeo administration in 2006, state advertisements were withdrawn from this newspaper for 17 months without credible grounds but clearly intended to put it out of business and to make way for the Guyana Times which had been introduced by a friend of the government.
Not even a tactical appeal by former President Janet Jagan for the ads cutoff to end had any impact on the government’s decision. History has recorded that this newspaper launched a campaign here and internationally to expose the assault on press freedom and gathered much solidarity. This a period that Mr Nandlall should revisit for a fuller picture of the history of the PPP/C.
These days, with its coffers brimming with oil monies, a careful watch also has to continue on the government over press freedom. Like every other government in post-independence Guyana it has continued to abuse the state media and taxpayers’ money to position it for electoral gain to the exclusion of all else. The state media is also used to bludgeon and intimidate critics. Any government confident in its own policies and commitment to free expression would see no need to contort information flows via the state media.
The Attorney General also sought to posit that this newspaper seeks to shelter from criticism.
“It is a venerable fact of life grounded in public morality, that those who condescend to publicly lecture others, must ensure that if the searchlight is turned inwards, it does not illuminate their own similar transgressions. That would be duplicitous, nay hypocrisy. Embracing dissenting views is not a mere courtesy but an inalienable tenet of free expression. As the main purveyor of free expression, the fourth estate is not exempt. When its deficiencies are highlighted it must not seek refuge under the shelter of `press freedom under attack.’ Criticism must always remain a two-way street for freedoms to abundantly flourish”, he argued.
This newspaper has never sought shelter from censure and approaching its 38th anniversary its pages have been replete with strident criticisms of it. The newspaper also affords the full right of reply to aggrieved persons.
The Attorney General then took aim at the comments section of the web edition of Stabroek News.
“Stabroek News runs a blog online which preponderates with commentaries critical of the PPP/C and the PPP/C Administration. This blog publishes the most toxic and unwarranted criticisms of our Government and its officials by anonymous bloggers. The Editor exercises a discretion in what is permitted to be published. I know of dozens of persons who made innumerable attempts to get their views published on this blog in response to this daily tirade of baseless and malicious attacks but were never able to get past the Editor’s guillotine. The irreversible inference is that it is the editorial policy to permit on this blog overwhelming criticisms of the Government”, the AG asserted.
He is quite wrong. There are guidelines governing the posting of comments on the fully moderated website and the evidence is clear that many supporters of the government have had their comments posted. Hundreds of thousands of comments have been posted over the years that the web edition has been in existence. The comments section has provided an invaluable interface particularly with the diaspora and has enabled vigorous discussion of many aspects of national life and challenges facing the country.
The AG then lamented the non-publication of two letters on a recent decision of Justice Gino Persaud and added: “I have provided these indubitable examples to demonstrate that Stabroek News, by its own conduct, lacks the moral authority to publicly pass judgement on the issue of being intolerant of dissent”.
This was very flimsily argued. The letter column in this newspaper has no rival in this country. It carries a broad range of contributors – including the Attorney General – save for extant rules that exclude purveyors of libel, racial hostility and ad hominem attacks.
Worryingly, the AG then seemed to question how this newspaper and Demerara Waves came to be aware of the decision by Justice Persaud. That should be of no worry to the AG at all in an open justice system. It is the lifeblood of this noble profession and is important in shining a bright light on pockets of injustice and dangers to democratic norms.
