With all apologies to people living with disability, the complaint made by the National Media Commission (NMC) against investigations initiated by the Ministry of Information over the failure of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) to carry live the address of President J.E.A. Mills at the UN General Assembly could be described as emmum akasa, to wit, the deaf has spoken.
This is so because the NMC hardly complains against government.
Once bitten, twice shy is a common saying because once in the history of this republic, for daring to challenge the government as to the period of its tenure, members of the NMC were refused entry to the premises of the Commission and for more than a year, when the tenure of the first Commission ended, the second Commission was not sworn in.
But our elders have a way of encouraging assertiveness and resistance of suppression by proffering that se wo ankasa wotiri mu a, yeyi wo ayi bone meaning if you do not complain to the barber about how the shaving is proceeding, you end up with a bad haircut.
That explains why the NMC, which has for many years committed itself to resolving complaints brought up against the media, has had to come out before yede ne sekan bedwa nanka. The fact is that the laws are unequivocal about the abhorrence against any form of external interference in the work of the media. Indeed, even the NMC is barred from interfering with the daily activities of the media.
That is not to suggest that those in government cannot express their misgivings or discontent about the performance of the state-owned media.
However, complaining about the limitations of the media is never the same as attempting to coerce or influence them to do a bidding. The media must not be intimidated or instructed.
Thus, just as no matter how unsafe and insecure the public feels about armed robbery, they have no right to lynch suspected robbers, even so, no matter how exercised the Ministry of Information feels about the non-performance of the GBC, it cannot institute investigation or punish any official of the corporation outside the ambit of the NMC. That would be arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.
It is, therefore, imperative for the public to be reminded of the fact that it is only the NMC which has the mandate to deal with any infractions outside the authority of the board of directors of GBC. Anything to the contrary is unlawful and illegitimate, no matter the objectives and the malaise it is intended to cure.
Indeed, under Article 172 of the 1992 Constitution it is provided expressly that �Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution or by any other law not inconsistent with this Constitution, the National Media Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the performance of its functions�.
The only time that the NMC is enjoined to share its obligation with the government is consulting the President in the appointment of chief executive officers and boards of the state-owned media. The NMC is equally enjoined to submit annual reports to Parliament.
Of course, the Commission cannot make any legally enforceable guidelines or regulations without the documents passing through the legislative processes of Parliament. Beyond these constitutional limitations, the NMC is independent in the performance of its mandate.
That is why the NMC needs the support of all well-meaning and liberal-minded Ghanaians in the onerous responsibility of insulating the state-owned media from government control.
In 2001, just as the NMC is complaining about the investigations by the Ministry of Information, when the Ministry summoned managements of the electronic media to a meeting, the NMC directed the managers not to attend the meeting and questioned the authority of the ministry to issue the summons.
When the NMC challenges the basis upon which government functionaries attempt to meddle in the routine duties of the media, those who profess to be democrats but lack the discipline of constitutionalism misconstrue that as an attempt to challenge the government.
But that is not the objective. The NMC has no intention to fight governments. The aim is to give meaning to separation of powers, assert the rule of law, affirm the due process and respect constitutionalism.
Due to the misconceptions, the NMC has never gotten the needed attention and resources to carry out its mandate effectively.
However, whether we like it or not, it is the same constitution which defines the powers and authority of the government, which prescribes the mandate of the NMC. Neither should be subordinated to the other as they are expected to play complementary, not subservient roles.
In the specific instance of the inability of the GBC to carry a live coverage of the President�s address at the UN, the GBC appears to be either a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb, as it was not the one which entered into the contract for the transmission.
From all indications, the contract was handled by the Office of the President, through our envoy in the US. If the government failed to execute a proper contract, then the GBC should not be blamed for any lapse.
The government, especially those at the Office of the President and Ministry of Information must take full responsibility and stop the fruitless search for red herrings.
It is good that the Ministry of Information has seen the merit of the claim by the NMC and conceded to it. The NMC did not need to beg the Ministry.
In situations where a stranger has appropriated what is yours, you snatch it back rather than appeal for it to be returned.
But, it appears there is a turf war between the Office of the President and the Ministry of Information. While the public expects such matters to be handled by the ministry, it seems there are some so-called media experts at the Office of the President, who have truncated the job of the ministry.
Thus as things stand now the import of the committee could not have been directed at disciplining any one at GBC, but rather to use the GBC as pawns to expose those who caused the mess from the Office of the President; sort of washing the dirty linen in public.
If that was the objective, then the statement should have clarified the situation instead of sending the chilling impression that the Ministry of Information wanted to initiate disciplinary action against the GBC, especially the Director-General, whose name has not been made to rest since the ministry started complaining about the failure of the GBC to carry live the President�s address.
Some even suggested sabotage, arguing that under former President Kufuor, such events were carried live without hitches, why now.
Such arguments do not inspire public confidence and fuel speculations, hence the suspicion that the routine annual leave embarked upon by Mr William Ampen-Darko on the approval of the board, has been given a twist as a signal that he is about to be changed by the government, when it is clear that his appointment or contract with the NMC has not been challenged.
That is what might have prompted the NMC to act. For as we say it, dua a ennya wo a ebewowo ani no, yetu asee, yenntwa so meaning, the stump that is likely to prick your eyes must be uprooted.
As Ghanaians, board of directors and management of the GBC, at all times, our loyalty and responsibility must be directed at the NMC. That is the only way to guarantee media freedom and insulate the GBC from governmental control.
Anything patronising towards government officials, whether at the Ministry of Information or the Office of the President, which has the tendency to derogate from the powers and authority of the NMC, must be avoided like the Bubonic plaque since that could be an Achilles heel.
Credit: Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafo/Daily Graphic/Ghana
<<Print>>