The closure of Channel Six shows a disregard for constitutional rights

The closure of Channel Six shows a disregard for constitutional rights
Stabroek News, April 26, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=2257

Dear Editor,
The closing of Channel 6 for four months by President Jagdeo is indisputable proof of the wanton disregard of constitutional rights that now seriously undermines the quality of life in Guyana. CN Sharma, the owner of the station, though not as erudite and urbane as others in the media is a staunch critic of the many abuses of the present government. He has, in recent weeks, allowed the main opposition parties to use the station; an opportunity that is constantly denied them by the government controlled Channel 11.
Mr Jagdeo’s edict is based on the rebroadcast of a call, which was deemed a threat to his life. The President’s decision is disturbing for several reasons. He evaluated the facts of a matter in which he was the aggrieved party, and also imposed punishment. It is a fundamental tenet of fairness that requires a party who is a part of an action not to sit in judgment of the facts, and certainly not in the penalty phase where the party’s bias may tarnish his objectivity.
It is plainly unthinkable that in this modern world a Head of State would engage in such untoward conduct even in a country masquerading as a democracy. The stench of prejudice is so overwhelming that reasonable Guyanese must feel ashamed of their President’s irrational conduct. The caller was anonymous. There is no evidence connecting the caller to the owner of the station. Owners of television stations must behave responsibly. The rebroadcast of the offending call on February 22 and February 23 does not, however, rise to the level of irresponsibility to justify this closing. The owner said he was unaware of the rebroadcast. A highly plausible explanation in a business environment with various employees.
An examination of the language shows it to be distasteful but not a real threat. The caller said in relevant part, “Because look at these killings and nobody can’t give account about these people’s lives and Jagdeo going to take a high risk going and tell people to calm down; he’s going to bury the dead bodies. If anything going to happen to my family, I am going to kill Jagdeo.” These words reveal an upset person. If security considerations compelled caution, then the caller should be punished, not the station.
The call was devoid of content and style to move others to serious action. Justice Oliver Holmes, the noted American jurist, has stated that “Eloquence may spark treason”.
It would demand more than extrapolation to categorize the call as one that would ignite imagination and rebellious action.
Mr Jagdeo also acted without the advice of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting ( ACB) whose explicit responsibility is to advise the relevant minister on compliance by licensees and to recommend sanctions for violations.
The President is constrained by the specific language of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on November 7, 2001, by the late leader of the Opposition, Desmond Hoyte, and himself, and which reads in pertinent part:
“The Parties agree that the Minister, in the exercise of his power pursuant to the Act and the wireless Regulations made hereunder, with respect to television station licences, will act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting.”
One of the principal reasons for the signing of the agreement was that the ACB was a temporary body, and was to be replaced once the long delayed broadcast legislation was enacted. Another signal reason was that the inherent political partisanship and bias that attended the review of a compliance controversy by a government minister would be tempered, if not removed, by requiring the minister to follow the recommendation of the ACB.
Mr Kit Nascimento in a letter to the Stabroek News of April 19, 2008, said cavalierly that the government is not bound to the MOU because it is a political agreement. A pathetic pronouncement in the light of the political milieu in which the MOU was inked. The agreement was designed to settle ongoing issues that were contributing to unrest and serious mistrust between the main political factions within the country. If Mr Nascimento’s position were to be followed, a vital article of governance would be taken away in an already troubled body politic.
The Jagdeo juggernaut must be stopped. It has imprisoned Hinckson without any legal basis. There has been no inquest in the murder of Donna Herod. The killers of Ronald Waddell remain at large. Known drug lords have not been prosecuted. Corruption is still common in the precincts of government.
Guyana is indeed doomed to failure unless decisive steps are taken to stop this assault on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Yours faithfully,
Terrence Simon
The Brooklyn
Chapter -PNCR