Govt. seeks more ‘regulations’ for media

Sep 29, 2014 News

---

 

– AG says acting on instructions from the President

The Guyana government is looking to increase its arsenal with regards to ‘regulating’ the private media.
Appearing last week on the television programme “Current Issues” aired on the National Communications Network, Attorney General Anil Nandlall said that this was being pursued based on an instruction by the sitting Head of State.
According to Nandlall, he was instructed by the Head of State to check —with a view to implementing them locally—in other jurisdictions what their regulations are with respect to the media and what can or cannot be published.
He was at the time following up on a discussion where he was asked to provide an update on the recent revelations  that Head of the Guyana Revenue Authority, Khurshid Sattaur, leaked the personal tax information of a number of local media houses to the former President, Bharrat Jagdeo.
The e-mail correspondence also includes Nandlall, who said, “no comment” when asked to weigh in on the dastardly revelations.
According to Nandlall, “at some point in time in the very near future I will be looking at other jurisdictions with, and I have, lemme say this on TV, that I have the instructions of his Excellency the President to review other jurisdictions in the world and to bring to Guyana whatever regulatory framework is available in the first world countries and in the Caribbean to bring it to Guyana.”
Nandlall was adamant that there cannot be a case where there is what he called “this type of abuse of people’s reputation…abuse of people as they seek to discharge the function of their office continuing at the hands of those who control the media.”
Attempts to muzzle the media in the past has been resisted vehemently with those in the private media arguing for self censorship.
Earlier this year when there were similar sentiments being echoed on the part of the government, former Minister of Information in the Peoples Progressive Party Civic Government, Moses Nagamootoo, had opposed such a move.
Nandlall is on record as saying that the media demands accountability from all, “but to whom do they account to, who watches the watchdog…The media cannot be rotating in an unregulated atmosphere; there must be rules that are known, and rules to which we can hold them accountable must be promulgated.”
According to Nagamootoo, while in Trinidad and Tobago the Freedom of the Press is enshrined in their Constitution, in Guyana, freedom of expression and the freedom to receive information is enshrined in the Guyana Constitution.
He noted that there are a number of prior censorship measures already in place and pointed to the laws of Guyana that address defamation in the context of the press.
He also reminded that in the context of electronic media, they operate under a licence which is issued with conditions, and if breached, can see that licence being withdrawn.
Journalists, he said, in such an environment, work under a Code of Conduct, and any attempt to put special rules of bodies in place to regulate the media must be resisted.
The AFC Vice Chair said that “save and except for the existing parameters of the defamation laws, any attempt to muzzle the independent press must be resisted.”
“Nandlall is obsessed with state control of the media and muzzling free expression,” Nagamootoo said.
The Former Secretary of the Guyana Union of Journalists and former Vice Chair of the International Organisation of Journalists was adamant that “the media cannot be treated like a wayward child that you intend to bring standards to and tell it how to behave.”
According to Nagamootoo, the constitution protects free speech and any attempt to regulate free speech is unacceptable.
The Former Minister of Information was adamant that there are enough parameters in place, citing as example the Broadcast Act, in relation to the broadcast of pornography, nudity and obscenity and such likes.
He did concede that while the Broadcast Act is not a perfect law and has many flaws, there are broad guidelines.
According to Nagamootoo, the press is such an important feature of any country that it is recognized as the Fourth Estate and critical to the development and viability of any country.
Nagamootoo told this publication that “as far as I know you cannot issue regulations for journalists.”
Nagamootoo’s comment at the time had come on the heels of a similar advocacy for self regulation of the media by President of the Guyana Press Association (GPA), Gordon Moseley.
The GPA President, when responding to Nandlall at the time had pointed to the fact that it is this very Administration that had in the past attempted to muzzle the local media.
He reminded of the withdrawal of Government advertisements as well as the banning of reporters from covering certain assignments.
Moseley said that Nandlall is a part of the same Administration that disbanded the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) which had operated under the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), particularly during elections period.
Moseley reminded that it is also the same Government that dissuaded the donor agencies when they had attempted to fund the MMU beyond just the monitoring of the media during elections.
The GPA President added too that this very Administration prevents the members of the state media from joining the Guyana Press Association.
Recently, too, in observing World Press Freedom Day, then US Ambassador to Guyana, D. Brent Hardt was critical of the State as it relates to press freedom in Guyana.
The envoy reminded that the International Press Institute (IPI) had raised an issue he has long found perplexing – the use of the term “opposition media” to describe any media institution that is not controlled by the government.
“This is indeed a demeaning term that fails to do justice to the vital role that an independent media must play in a modern, democratic society,” the Ambassador had asserted.
He noted that the use of the appellation was also inaccurate.
“Anyone who reads or watches independent media in Guyana will see that there are letters to the editor supportive of the government, columns that advocate government positions and generally balanced reporting on actions of government,” Hardt noted.
By contrast, he said that in the state-owned and state-run media, which should hold itself up to an even higher standard of balance by virtue of being funded by taxpayers, one hardly ever sees a letter to the editor or a column supportive of the opposition or critical of the government.
“In fact, the public reads about instructions being passed by the government to state-run television criticizing staff for airing statements by an opposition party directly after the government’s position was presented, and indicating that such presentations were only to be aired late at night when viewership was lowest,” the Ambassador had stated.

---

---