APNU denounces deceptive TV tactics of PPP and NCN

Sep 02, 2012 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) denounces the devious attempts by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the National Communications Network (NCN) to blame it for its absence from the current NCN-hosted ‘Corruption Debate’ series. This has been done without providing a proper public explanation of NCN’s own shifting position on the proposed series.
APNU makes it clear that the exchanges between APNU and NCN on the issue of the ‘debates’ have been taking place over a period of nearly four months.  APNU, from the outset, adopted a principled position in its relations with the state-owned media house which has never attempted to hide its hostility to the Opposition. The Partnership refused to be manipulated by NCN and made it clear that it had no intention of participating in any series of debates that was not the result of genuine consultation and that did not address urgent matters of public importance.
APNU Leader Brigadier David Granger pointed out that the Partnership’s decision to dissociate itself from the bogus series had its origins in NCN’s biased coverage of the 2011 general and regional elections and its unfair and dishonest coverage of opposition speakers during the debate on the 2012 National Budget debate. The Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly was obliged to write the Speaker who, in turn, wrote the NCN about its patently biased coverage, but there was no discernible improvement in the way the network reported the Opposition presentations.
Things got worse after the Assembly cut the budgetary allocation to the NCN which, in a vindictive manner, almost completely abandoned any attempt at fair and balanced coverage of Opposition addresses and activities as a consequence.
Former NCN Chief Executive Officer Mohamed Sattaur then wrote to Opposition Leader David Granger on 9th May 2012 inviting APNU’s participation in a series of live, one-hour, ‘face-to-face’ discussions on ‘topical issues and matters of national interest.’
Sattaur’s letter carried a schedule which determined, without consultation, which PPP/C cabinet minister would debate which APNU member. The series was set to start only 4 days later – on Sunday 13th May – and would be moderated by Mr. Michael Gordon. The ‘panel’ would comprise one person each from the government and opposition sides.
The Opposition Leader declined to participate in the contrived series and replied to Sattaur on the same date. The NCN CEO then wrote the Opposition Leader on 26th June, again inviting APNU to nominate representatives to debate a series of topics from 1st July. No mention was made of ‘corruption.’ The issues proposed by NCN were: “Economy and Finance; Legal Affairs, Constitutionality of Parliamentary events; Education; Governance; Home Affairs; Housing Development and Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy”. Sattaur then demitted office.
Gordon, acting CEO in the absence of Sattaur, then wrote an almost identical letter to the Opposition Leader dated 12th July.  APNU responded stating clearly that it was interested only in discussing 12 specific subjects which it regarded as matters of public importance.  These were as follows:
·    The University of Guyana crisis;
·    The Linden security crisis;
·    The riverain and road infrastructure crises;
·    The local government and municipal crises;
·    The Georgetown Nursing School crisis;
·    The hinterland secondary schools crisis;
·    The appointment of diplomats in Guyana’s Foreign Service;
·    Guyana Police Force reform;
·    The establishment of a tripartite budget committee;
·    The appointment of judges in the judiciary;
·    Social protection for vulnerable citizens and
·    Collective bargaining in the public sector.
Gordon acknowledged receipt of APNU’s letter and wrote, on 13th August, indicating that he concurred that the issues raised “are of utmost importance to the future advancement of our beloved nation.”  He, only at this stage, decided to change the issues to be discussed from those proposed by Sattaur. He suggested, instead, “transparency, good governance and corruption.” He also proceeded to propose the start of a fresh series on 15th August, only two days away.
Gordon then sent a new letter dated 15th August proposing a new list of topics and, thereby, abandoning the lists of topics proposed by both Granger and Sattaur. The new series was set to start on 19th August. The new list of topics included, for the first time, Amaila Falls hydro project and corruption claims; Marriott Hotel and corruption claims; CJIA expansion projects and corruption claims; NICIL and corruption claims; Institutional corruption and President’s Pension.
APNU replied to NCN stating clearly that the new list did “not address” its concerns. APNU Leadership Council and Shadow Cabinet discussed the NCN proposals. The Partnership iterated that its reasons for non-participation in the debate series has been because of, first, NCN’s unwillingness to grant the Opposition equitable access to radio and television; second, NCN’s reluctance to engage in meaningful consultation; third, NCN’s new list of topics for the debate proposed by Gordon which varied substantially from Sattaur’s and, fourth, NCN’s unilateral decision to completely reject APNU’s request without any reason being given.
APNU restates its commitment to attaining greater access by the entire Opposition to the state-owned media and restates its resolve to continue to protest the lack of access of the entire opposition in the National Assembly to NCN – a state-owned corporation.  APNU will continue to insist on regular daily and weekly programmes so that Guyanese radio listeners and television viewers could receive ‘balanced’ accounts about matters of public interest by their elected representatives in the National Assembly.

---

---