REGION 10 HAS NO CASE

Jan 14, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Whenever one is entering into an agreement and especially if one is inexperienced in such matters, one should be very careful to ensure that one’s expectations are spelt out in specific and unambiguous terms in the agreement. Otherwise there can be differences in interpretation as to just what was agreed.
There has been a suggestion that the Government of Guyana is reneging on the agreement it signed with the Region Ten Administration concerning television for Linden. However, a careful reading of the agreement would lead to another conclusion.
The agreement should never have been signed between a subordinate and a superior. The Region Ten Administration forms part of the Local Government apparatus and while the Regional Councils are directly elected by the people, they do not enjoy independence from Central Government.
In fact, there is a balancing of responsibilities so as to ensure that no Region pursues policies that are inconsistent with official policy.
It was therefore a huge mistake by the Opposition parties to have allowed an agreement between the government and an agency that is subordinate to the government.
This by itself would render the agreement as lacking the force of law and would amount to nothing more than an agreement of appeasement.
When it comes directly to the issue of television, nothing contained in the agreement obligates the government to grant to the Region Ten Administration a license to operate a television station. In fact any such decision would be subject to challenge because there are technical and other considerations which have to be made before anyone can be granted a broadcast licence.
The Courts have held that no one has an absolute right to a license and therefore the government could not have agreed to have granted a licence to the RDC of Region Ten. The courts have also disassociated itself from ordering the grant of the license since there are technicalities involved which are outside the competence of the judiciary.
Any decision to grant a licence to the RDC of Region Ten would be subject to challenge because there are other persons and companies, including persons from Linden itself, who have applied for broadcast licence and the courts had ordered that all those applications be considered by the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU).
That decision has since been overtaken by the creation of the National Broadcasting Authority, which is now the agency responsible for the granting of licences for television and radio. Therefore any decision to grant a licence to the RDC would have to be sanctioned by the new broadcasting authority.
It is hard to see how the new authority can grant permission to a RDC for the operation of a television station. This will encourage other RDCs to do the same and it is hard to see how the government can allow one RDC alone to have a television station and not the others.
The RDC of Region Ten may feel that Linden amounts to a special case but the RDC should not get too comfortable with that idea because at the end of the day, the system has to be fair to all concerned.
The agreement signed between the Region Ten Administration and the government has two sub-parts. The first part commits the government to hand over to the RDC a dish and a transmitter that were donated to Linden. The government was required to hand over the dish fourteen days after the signing of the agreement.
The first part of the agreement that deals with television for Linden therefore relates directly to government handing over a donation made to the people of Linden.
Whether the handing over was done is immaterial at this stage because the dish and transmitter cannot be used unless a licence is issued.
The second part of the agreement indicates that Region Ten will apply for a broadcast licence and the government will facilitate the granting of the licence in keeping with the law.
Clearly all that this part does is to indicate that the Region is required to apply for a radio license which will be facilitated by the government.
This does not mean that the government can railroad the Region’s application through the new Broadcast Authority. This would amount to favouritism.
There is ambiguity as to just what facilitating the government is required to do, but it can be assumed that it involves some of the modalities needed as part of the application process.
For example, in applying for the licence, the RDC would be required to show legal possession of the transmitter and dish. The government may be required to provide documentation to indicate that the equipment, while remaining the property of the State, has been entrusted to the RDC.
And since the RDC comes under the Local Government system, the government would clearly be required to indicate to the Broadcasting Authority its approval, authorization and the limits to which such a licence can be put. This is perhaps why the word facilitate was used.
If it was the intention to have the government grant a licence, this would have formed part of the text. If it was the intention for the government to support the application, this too would have been explicitly spelt out. But the agreement merely creates the obligation for the government to hand over a donation, made to the community, to the RDC and for it to facilitate the Region in its application to be granted a licence.
This may not have been what the Region was intending but this is what it signed to. The Region has to live with what is on the dotted line.