CN Sharma and Guyana’s Channel Six are both closed for the next four months as ordered by Bharrat Jagdeo.
April 13, 2008
In reading the article on CN Sharma posted in Stabroek News dated 4/12/2008, on the case of Guyana’s Channel six owner CN Sharma and his airing of content that seemingly advocated the killing of the Head of State and Head of Government Bharrat Jagdeo, I am confounded as to the how this case was handled against Sharma and more so the limitations of powers of the government. It seems to me that there is no separation of state from the interpretation of the laws that were created to be judicial to all people, under one constitution.
This case, under a just and fair government belongs to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB). How is it possible that the Chief Executive Officer of Guyana is also the supreme court of authority with responsibility for telecommunications? When did democracy go Wild West on me? Moreover, this case presents a staid conflict of interest on part of the powers of Jagdeo to take leadership roles in the judicial and legislative branches of government. It begs the question as to how far this case comes in degrees from paralleling the fundamental ideals of Marxism and Leninism. Moreover, in regards to self-interest, the comments were made against Jagdeo himself, so there goes the fair and unbiased judgment.
This landmark case as I consider it, raises two important concerns. The first is, why was Jagdeo granted the role of Minister with responsibility for telecommunication second to the leader of the ruling party, and secondly, in light of the overt conflict of interest, why was the judicial branch not involved in adjudicating this situation. It would only seem obvious in a democratic society.
As a note to CN Sharma, when you are considered the voice of the people as you say you are, being cognizant to the ideals of radicals, conservatives and all who fall betwixt is a responsibility you automatically earn via the role you play.
Andrew
- Is Freedom of Speech being Suppressed or Infringed Upon? The dilemma between CN Sharma and the Guyanese government on the matter of offending “good taste”
- PPP congress tables motion to have President Jagdeo serve third term…no decision taken — source Kaieteurnews
- Blogger arrested for accusations against the Malaysian Prime Minister. A parallel to Guyanese politics?
- Bharrat Jagdeo is one of TIME Magazine’s Heroes of the Environment 2008
- A simple alternative that keeps you and the planet healthier
- The Non Noteworthy News
- Readers: The following is a disclaimer posted on www.stabroeknews.com
- Guyana to Host Carifesta X 2008: What are the implications of such an undertaking?
- Carifesta X: The Guyanese Government needs to up their game
- STATEMENT BY A GROUP OF CONCERNED CARIBBEAN CITIZENS CALLING FOR FULL AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE CARIFORUM-EC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (EPA)
People who read this, also read...
Comments
8 Responses to “CN Sharma and Guyana’s Channel Six are both closed for the next four months as ordered by Bharrat Jagdeo.”
Got something to say?
PPP talk a good game but they are using the same dictatorial laws put on the books by the PNC to repress and oppress the Guyanese population. almost all decisions in Guyana have to pass through the office of the president.
I have in past articles spoken of Chedi Jagan’s open adoration to Mao, Lenin, Marx and Castro and Che Guevara. This was the main reason that led to his down fall in the early years when the British removed him from power Many Guyanese do not know of this history because they choose not to educate themselves about it. Jagan’s popularity sustained itself because of his racial identity and that’s the bottom line.The current case exemplifies subliminal undertones on fundamental precepts of communistic ideals. But reality is that Guyana is very much racially divided and the party in power symbolizes autonomy, not what is for the better good of the country. Until all Guyanese understand that unity will benefit all man, Guyana will remain divided. Should we now think about the One People, One Nation, One Destiny thing?
BHARAT IS SOFT. BEFORE HE LOOKS TO MAKE GUYANA SAFER FROM THE CRIMINALS. HE WANTS TO SHUT DOWN GUYANA’S JERRY SPRINGER.
COMMON SENSE, YOU ARE A FUNNY GUY OR GAL. BUT RIGHT NOW, GUYANA NEEDS ONE PARTY, NO PNC, ANC, PPP, JUST GP (GUYANA PARTY).
EVERYTHING ELSE IS POLITRICS
COMMON SENSE
Does Guyana need a Jerry Springer or can we use that avenue to disseminate quality information, Lets do a Health hour on the basic dieases that many Guyanese suffer from..just an example but it is something to think about..
We need to unify to build Guyana and I am willing to do my part..
what Guyana needs and what it gets are of course two different things. after two hours of watching the govt channel NCN 11 i learn: cheddi jagan is the liberator of Guyana and democrat. bharrat jagdeo is the greatest president Guyana’s ever had. maybe even greater than the great liberator. Guyana is a democracy thanks to the great liberator and maybe more to bharrat jagdeo. bharrat jagdeo through the sole power vested in him by bharrat jagdeo was honoured to reward cheddi jagan with an order of liberation post posthumously. bharrat jagdeo is great as he invented, designed and delivered a new ‘national award’ to parliament without telling anyone in parliament because he is bharrat jagdeo.
bharrat jagdeo is a good man. all guyanese should be proud of bharrat jagdeo and the ppp. the great liberator should be studied and followed by all children of Guyana. Guyana has freedom of the press. the great liberator and bharrat jagdeo invented freedom of the press. oh wait! that was just the commercial break. i still have an hour and 55 minutes to go
a’rite ah gone. ravina and weekly digest highlighting all things positive and bharrat jagdeo about to start. Guyana is the agricultural and economic powerhouse of caricom
Protest over closure of CNS CH6 in Guyana posted by Bryanmaxx on YouTube.
Old news, but here is something off of GINA’s website.
PRESS STATEMENT
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 .
Link.