NCN is a state own entity, all Guyanese own its assets

Jan 13, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I refer to a recent article in the local newspaper, in which Enrico Woodford, currently the Chairman of NCN, is seeking to bamboozle the public with an explanation of why NCN had granted more than one hour coverage to the launching of the coalition’s political campaign for the 2020 election, compared to the one minute granted to the launching of the PPP’s campaign.
In trying to rationalise this inequity, Woolford referenced the Broadcasting Act of Guyana where he opined that, “broadcasting means the transmission of any programme whether or not encrypted and whether or not actually received, by wire or wireless medium or technology for reception by all or part of the general public, but does not include telecommunications. I am concerned with whether NCN covers broadcasts of events of a newsworthy nature and not the live streaming… As far as I am concerned, the live stream does not fall under the Broadcasting Act, but instead the Telecommunications Act.” Yeah Woolford and 34 and not 33 is the majority of 65!
Well first of all, as usual, Woolford does not know what he is talking about, since a definition of telecommunications in the online dictionary states the following “the definition of telecommunications means communication over a distance by cable, telegraph, telephone, or broadcasting“. You see it there Woolford? “Broadcasting” is a branch of telecommunications also.
Secondly, NCN is a state own entity, all Guyanese own its assets, not those in power owning more than the ones in opposition. It is the kind of hypocrisy and drivel we have had to listen to parading as legitimate explanations by this government and its functionaries.
In the Rambchan V Trinidad and Tobago Television landmark case in 1985 in the Trinidad High Court of justice, Judge Dyalsingh declared that state owned media means owned by all the people, not just by the party in power. This case was challenging a fundamental constitutional breach to free speech, which was denying the opposition of having access to the State owned media, as a result of justice Dyalsingh’s excellent ruling, the Trinidadians adopted a policy whereby the opposition were entitled to time on the state media to answer any charge against them by the party in power, in keeping with the amount of seats they held in Parliament or to be granted time to present their side on any matter in which the government is obtaining coverage, so in the current instance and according to this precedent case in Trinidad, which would no doubt be upheld by the CCJ today, if the coalition gets 33 minutes of coverage on the state owned media, then the PPP must get 32 minutes. If the coalition gets one hour then the PPP is entitled to 58 minutes. The Trinidadians understood this since 1985, we are still struggling with it. Why?
Even if Woolford’s ludicrous plea is acceptable, i.e. that the one hour was streamed on the Facebook page of NCN and is not in fact broadcasting, then whose internet connection was used to put it there? Whose cameras, microphones, transportation and personnel were paid to collect that footage, and stream them live to the internet? Who and how were the people who prepared and edited the one-hour coverage of the coalition’s launch, paid? In addition, isn’t the Facebook page of NCN, purporting to represent the entire National Communication Network philosophy? And who pays to keep the Facebook page on the internet operating? How can Woolford as Chairman of NCN dare to say that he is not preoccupied with what NCN puts on the internet? In that matter, has he granted them autonomy? And should not that philosophy be in keeping with the landmark ruling of the case in Trinidad since 1985? is the Facebook page of NCN supposed to have a different alter ego to the one which is broadcast locally? Is that Woolford’s concept of public ownership? I think not! And are not all Guyanese entitled to view it to see their party launched, whatever their political persuasion? Since they are all paying for it and are all owners of it.
Finally, editor it is not Woolford’s place or function to decide who and what will be of interest to the public in these political campaigns, since nearly 50% of our population will be more interested in what Mr. Jagdeo and Mr. Irfaan Ali have to say than what President Granger has to say.
I would like the public to note that I was invited to write this by a friend, before I became a member of the PPP/C list. So this is not a political statement, it is my personal view.
A political statement by me would be that since Enrico Woolford is advising the Minister of Telecommunications, that entity has turned out a totally unacceptable performance or lack of performance in telecommunications in this country, completely missing the liberalisation mini bus, denying all of us the advantages of a more competitive, cost effective and advanced telecommunication service; it would be very accurate to accuse it of doing nothing for nearly 5years.

Tony Vieira

---

---