PRUDENT AND APPROPRIATE?

Oct 10, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

This column addresses three assertions made by the main opposition in relation to the suspension of the broadcasting license of CNS 6. The Minister of Information, who happens to be the President, had from last Monday suspended the license of the popular television channel for a period of four months.
This had led to a slew of criticisms by the main opposition party, amongst which were that the timing of the suspension denied them of the opportunity to have access to the media and therefore affects the fairness of the electoral process.
The timing of the suspension is indeed suspect. The government has attempted to indicate that there was nothing deliberate about the present timing of the suspension. It said that the timing was not deliberate and has nothing to do with the elections. The government contended that if it had suspended the station in May, then with the eight month suspension which was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB), the station would have been off the air until next January of next year.
The government of course suspended the station for four months. It therefore cannot advance this defense. In fact, if it had suspended the station in May for four months, the suspension would have expired by now. The government however is not going to convince many that its timing of the suspension merely coincided with the critical few weeks in the run-up to the elections
The suspension however cannot be said to infringe on the rights of opposition parties to get their message over. This was the second major argument made by the opposition.
But does the suspension really jeopardize the holding of free and fair elections by denying the opposition access to the media? Suppose, it was another station that was suspended, say the state-owned Channel 11, would the opposition be making such an argument?
No. The opposition does not enjoy much access to the state-owned media. More fundamentally, however, the suspension of the license does not mean that there are no other stations available for the opposition to get their message across. And CNS Channel 6 is no more advantageous in terms of the coverage of its signals than many other stations.
There are other stations, including Channel 9, which for many years provided more than adequate coverage for persons and parties whose views did not coincide with the government. As such, the suspension does not deny the opposition media access.
If there is a freedom of expression violation, it relates to the rights of CNS 6 and not to the question of access by opposition parties since there are alternatives available. As such the suspension does not jeopardize the holding of free and fair elections.
Neither can it, for the same reason be asserted that the suspension supports the ruling PPP. There are other channels available.
One of the points of controversy concerns the severity of the suspension. The government has tried to disingenuously argue that the station had admitted to the violations and had proposed a four month suspension.
The ACB was said to have recommended an eight month suspension. Rules of natural justice, however, require that the station be given a hearing. If during the course of this process, it is indicated to the station that they will most definitely be sanctioned and that the possible sanction could be eight months, it is akin to an accused being told by a judge that he ( the accused) has been found guilty and the laws books suggest a certain sentence.
The accused can then, knowing that he has already been found culpable, make a plea for a reduced sentence. The suggestion of a four month suspension therefore is a plea for mitigation, not an agreement with the penalty. The accused, after all, has a right to appeal as well as a right to advance a case for a reduced sentence, even if the accused is convinced that the charges have no merit or the penalty is excessive.
The ACB which made the recommendation of an eight month suspension has also come in for flak. The opposition has tried to disassociate itself from this body by contending that the ACB, which arose out of dialogue between the Mr. Desmond Hoyte-the then leader of the PNCR- and the government was only supposed to be temporary arrangement for the most six- months. They contend that the ACB was supposed to be superseded by a Broadcasting Authority.
It is interesting that the main opposition should be making this argument while at the same time admitting that it did attempt to have the ACB reconstituted. If, as the main opposition argues, the ACB was supposed to be a temporary body, why then would it be interested in having it reconstituted? Why would you want to reconstitute a body that was only supposed to be temporary and was supposed to be superseded by a Broadcasting Authority under yet to be passed Broadcasting laws.
It is contended here that one of the logical explanations for the opposition wanting to reconstitute the ACB was because it was not comfortable with its original nominee and wanted the ACB reconstituted so that it could replace that person.
In justifying the call for a reconstituting of the ACB, the main opposition argues that it was prudent and appropriate for the new leader of the PNCR to exercise his legal authority of naming his nominee. Wrong!
This would mean that every time the main opposition changes its leader, that the new leader would have the right to change all the nominees made by the previous leader including all the nominees to statutory bodies and all those who were appointed to constitutional offices after consultation with the leader of the opposition.
Thus for example, the new leader could then decide that the opposition’s nominee on the Guyana Elections Commission could be changed because it would be ‘ prudent and appropriate’ for the new leader to exercise his legal authority of naming his nominees. Or the Commissioner of Police had to be ‘ reconstituted’ since the new leader had to exercise his legal authority to agree on the person that the president selected.
Unfortunately, this argument by the opposition does not pass muster. No new leader has any authority to have any nominations made by his predecessor reconstituted. If that were the case, it would lead to chaos, since all the constitutional appointments arising out of a process of consultations and nominations of the previous leader would be subject to be overturned.
The opposition therefore has no case when it comes to the constitution of the ACB. It has to live with its original nominee and it also has to stop deluding itself that the suspension of CNS 6 jeopardizes the holding of free and fair elections.

---

---