Bharrat Jagdeo responds to propaganda press on CN Sharma suspension
we wrote to the dictator in chief of Guyana for his illogical reasoning behind banishing CN Sharma to the wilderness of poverty and surprisingly we got the following response back from his officina. note the big bucktuh dictator continuously refers to himself as ‘the minister’ when indeed he is talking about himself! we could just imagine the first lady taking notes as he dic.tated this long missive
On February 26, 2008 and March 10, 2008, the Licensee of CNS Television Channel 6 Licence No. 332V/12/OT/2001 (“the Licensee”), was written to by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (“ACB”) concerning alleged infringements of the conditions of the Licence on February 21, February 22 and February 23, 2008.
The ACB’s letter of February 26, 2008 cited infringements by the Licensee of the Licence Conditions by broadcasting content on the “Voice of the People” programme aired on February 21, 2008, that was an incitement to crime, was offensive to public feeling, was offensive to good taste, was presented without due accuracy and attempted to trivialise serious statements made by the Head of State. In particular, the ACB noted that following offending content:-
“Caller: The President was out of the country. As soon as he got back, he knew exactly who did the massacre at Bartica
Host: How do you know he knew?
Caller: He made that statement yesterday on the air….The very people who did the act at Lusignan did that there. How can he prove that? What evidence does he have to prove that?”
“Caller: …and the next thing, Mr. Sharma, Jagdeo have some expire Ministers walking with him and them giving up a lot of new fire as far as I am concerned. Because look at these killings and nobody can’t give account about these people’s lives and Jagdeo going to take a high risk job by going and tell people to calm down; he’s going to bury the dead bodies. If anything is going to happen to my family, I am going to kill Jagdeo.”
The ACB further required the Licensee to indicate within three days of the date of the Letter his position in respect of the infringements.
The Licensee responded to the ACB on February 28, 2008, expressing regret about the
content of the “Voice of the People” Programme aired on February 21, 2008 and indicating
that he did reprimand that caller for “making such irresponsible statements on the air”.
The Licensee also indicated that he is in the process of installing a delay failure on the
telephone used for live broadcasts that should prevent future occurrences. The Licensee also apologised for the “unfortunate incident”.
The ACB then wrote to the Licensee on February 29, 2008, accepting his apology and
indicated that no further action will be taken in respect of the ACB’s letter of February 26,
2008.
Then on March 10, 2008, the ACB wrote to the Licensee citing the Licensee for
infringements of the Licence conditions by rebroadcasting on February 22 and February
23, 2008, the very same programme first aired on February 21, 2008, ” with the offending words intact”. The ACB further noted that each rebroadcast was a new infringement and that though the first broadcast was a spontaneous infringement, the Licensee could have edited out the offending words before the rebroadcasts were aired. Again the ACB required the licensee to indicate his position in respect of these infringements.
The Licensee responded on March 28, 2008, stating that the programme in question was not re-aired after the ACB’s first letter of February 26, 2008 and that when it was re-aired on the occasions prior to the ACB’s February 26 letter, it was done without the knowledge of the Licensee by the “person who books programmes”.
The Licensee expressed regret about the rebroadcasts and indicated that he would put in place measures to ensure that such an occurrence was not repeated.
On April 2, 2008 the ACB forwarded to President Bharrat Jagdeo, as the Minister responsible for communications, copies of the letters sent to the Licensee and the responses from the Licence.
The ACB was set up in 2001 as an Advisory Committee pursuant to the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations made on November 17, 2001, under the Post and Telegraph Act, Cap 47:01 (“the Act”). The functions of the ACB are to advise the Minister on compliance by Licensee with the terms and condition of licences and to recommend to the Minister appropriate action which may be taken including revocation of a licence where a Licensee is in breach of the terms and conditions of the Licence.
The role of the ACB is merely advisory. The Minister is the sole authority vested with power to decide whether a Licensee has breached the terms and conditions of their Licence and/or the provisions of the Act or the Regulations and whether any sanctions may be imposed therefore. The Act provides that the Minister may suspend or cancel the Licence for such breaches.
In view of the statutory authority and responsibility vested in the Minister, Dr. Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat/ Secretary to the Cabinet, wrote to the Licensee on April 8, 2008, on behalf of the Minister indicating that the Minister was of the opinion that the Licensee’s written responses to the ACB concerning the infringements cited by the ACB were not adequate. Further, the letter noted that the Minister is of the opinion that the infringements were sufficiently grave to warrant cancellation or suspension of the Licence. The letter also reminded the Licensee that the Act and the regulations provided for the suspension or cancellation of the Licence for breach or infringement of the conditions of the Licence. The Licensee was invited to meet with Dr. Luncheon, on behalf of the Minister on Thursday, April 10, 2008 concerning the alleged infringements and to show cause why the Licence should not be cancelled or suspended. The Licensee was also invited to bring his legal or other representative to the hearing.
Prior to the hearing, twenty minutes before the time of the scheduled hearing, the licensee approached the court for, and obtained an order prohibiting Dr. Luncheon from conducting the hearing on the basis that he had no authority to conduct the hearing.
In view of the court order, President Jagdeo issued a letter similarly worded as the April 8, 2008 letter from Dr. Luncheon and invited the Licensee to attend a hearing on Friday, 11 April 2008 at 3;00 p.m. .
The Licensee attended the hearing with his legal counsel and others. The Licensee requested that the President, acting as Minister of Communications recuse himself form the hearing as he is an interested party.
The Licensee further indicated that he had approached the court earlier in the day for an order to prevent the President as Minister of Communications form hearing the matter. The Licensee indicated that such an order was not granted prior to the hearing and that the matter was scheduled to be considered by the court next week.
The Licensee clearly sought to prevent hearing of the matter in every case, both through the Minister’s delegate and by the Minister himself.
The President as Minister, in company of the Attorney-General, heard the Licensee on the charges of alleged infringements and allowed full opportunity to the Licensee to show cause why the Licence should not be cancelled or suspended.
The Licensee acknowledged at the hearing that the broadcasts infringed the conditions of the licence and the law.
The Licensee was found to have failed to provide satisfactory explanation as to why the offending broadcasts continued to be aired on CNS Channel 6, even after the licensee recognised that the content of the programme infringed the conditions of the Licence.
The licensee was accordingly found to have committed serious infringements of the conditions of the Licence by broadcasting on four occasions, including three rebroadcasts, of content that advocated the killing of the Head of State and Government.
The broadcasts clearly constituted extremely grave offences. Under no circumstances could the Minister allow a Licensee to use the airwaves, without sanction, to advocate the killing of any citizen, moreso a Head of State and Government.
The Minister therefore decided that the licence would be suspended for four months with effect from midnight April 11, 2008 .
Office of the President & Minister
New Garden Street, Georgetown. Guyana. South America
Tel# (592) 225-1330-8 or (592) - 226-7811
opmed@op.gov.gy, rmpersaud@op.gov.gy
This guy will go down in history, except for a few ethnic supplicants, as the most miserable and vindictive leader ever to officiate over a small nation. This issue demonstrates the importance of special political arrangements in nations with two dominant ethnic population groups. The interest of the numerically smaller group will always fall prey to the whims and prejudices of those in command who come from the larger group. And they will go after anyone, regardless of race, if they are perceived to be less malevolent to the ethnic enemies, as the rank and file of the rulership.
Freddie Kissoon and Sharma will always be virulently hated and despised by the leadership of the PPP for not carrying hatred in their hearts for black people. There is historical equivalents to this. Whites who supported the civil and human rights struggles of blacks in the US and South Africa were subjected to the same kind of abuses from their racist ethnic groupings.
The PPP has tons of examples on which to pattern its dealings with people of African descent. And clearly, they have been very attentive students.
Ruel Daniels
18 Apr 08 at 4:19 am
expand on the last point
resist
18 Apr 08 at 8:02 am
The Constitution protects the President, not the Information Minister
Dear Editor,
The President’s ill-advised decision to suspend CN Sharma’s TV transmitting licence should serve as a reminder to all Guyanese that what I have been saying for the past year or more is true: this Government is pursuing a dictatorial route. To be foretold is to be forewarned!
It is true that Mr. Sharma should be held ethically responsible for his infringement of broadcast protocol by not having a delay system in a live call-in programme, in the first place, and for allowing, even if not approving, the rebroadcasts of a female caller’s indirect threats to the President’s life, in the second place.
I said “indirect” because her threat was contingent on the probability that of any of her relatives being killed by criminals, but it still does not absolve the caller or Mr. Sharma of culpable negligence in both making the remark and allowing the remark to be broadcast and rebroadcast.
I think that in light of what transpired, with the original call and the rebroadcasts, it was up to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) to determine what course of action should be taken and so advise the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for Information.
That no punitive action was recommended, but the President still took punitive action against Mr. Sharma, raises the question as to whether the ACB policy guide states the minister can still take punitive action without the ACB’s input. If so, then there is no need for an ACB.
In fairness to the President, though, I think the ACB erred when it failed to recommend a payable fine and at least a deterring two-week suspension.
This also would have depended on what actions were taken in previous instances against Mr. Sharma, thus opening the way for incremental punishment for each subsequent infraction.
But as I said at the top of my letter, I think the President acted ill-advisedly, because even though he wears the Information Minister’s hat and oversees the ACB, the threat of death remark by the female caller against a sitting President actually rose to the level of a criminal act and required the instant involvement of the police to launch a probe. With the compliance of the local land line or cell phone carrier, the police could have traced the call to the owner/subscriber of the phone, made an arrest and let the court decide whether punishment or probation.
That the President would go after Mr. Sharma instead and not have the police go after the caller raises questions in people’s minds as to whether the call was a political set-up.
Of equal significance is the fact that now the President is being cited as a defendant in a court case rightfully brought by Mr. Sharma, he really cannot rely on the constitutional clause that protects him from being litigated in his capacity as President.
The truth is, the President, acting in his capacity as or while wearing the hat of Information Minister, took punitive action against Mr. Sharma, perhaps in violation of ACB rules and guidelines, but while the Constitution protects him when he acts in his capacity as President, it does not protect him if he is acting in his capacity as Information Minister. Those are two different titles with two different responsibilities.
Also, while the President can also instruct his Head of the Presidential Secretariat, the Information Minister cannot instruct the HPS. And this is such a deep conflict because the line of authority should be from President to HPS, and not Information Minister to HPS.
I close by hoping the judicial branch of government is aware of its responsible role in functioning separate from the executive branch, and to see itself as rendering justice to either contesting parties based on the facts in the case and the interpretation and application of law to the facts.
Emile Mervin
http://www.kaieteurnewsgy.com/letters.html
resist
18 Apr 08 at 7:46 pm