The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has asked parliamentary parties to ensure there is adequate time to review the broadcasting bill, contending that though the second draft is an improvement on the first, the proposed law remains seriously deficient.

According to a press release from the human rights body, “two major areas of concern relate to the extent to which licensing fees and other requirements restrict the diversity of broadcasting agencies and the unacceptably wide powers of government influence and intervention in broadcasting services.”

A more detailed legal treatment of the unsatisfactory sections of the bill is contained in a review provided by legal experts from Interights at the request of the GHRA, and is to be circulated to parliamentarians and other interested parties, the release said.

Referring to the section on ‘Broadcasting Policy’ (10(1)(b), the GHRA says the thrust is understandable in seeking to protect Guyanese media against absorption by anonymous globalised ownership that cannot be held to account. But the body argues that restricting ownership and control to Caricom nationals (article 6c) is “problematic and arbitrary.” The association further contends that ‘Caricom ownership’ in a region in which off-shore registration and the virtual sale of citizenship is large-scale business will not secure this goal. In addition, the GHRA says, since the bill allows exceptions to non-Caricom ownership at the discretion of the authority (10c), commitment to the goal is ambiguous.

Pointing out that the bill refers to the “special role” of state media without specifying what this means in practice, the GHRA says how this accords with the policy of ‘fair competition’, also espoused in this section, is unclear. The body further queries whether ‘special role’ in fact translates into special rights.

In that same article, the human rights body says, reference is made to “strengthening a shared Guyanese consciousness and identity”, but how and by whom this phrase is defined is not stated and leaves lots of room for the party in power to conflate this phrase with its own political ideology. It said that similar reservations may be expressed over limiting cultural diversity to “Guyanese rich cultural diversity” (6f) and “shared national values, customs, aspirations and culture”, adding that as a signatory to international human rights conventions, the government is committed to promoting universal, not ‘national’ values.

According to the GHRA, Section 18 which sets out general conditions for granting licences is “vague, open to abuse and unacceptable.” In the association’s view, who is a ‘fit person’ (11b) and whether a broadcasting service is sufficiently catered for (11e) require further definition, and this recommendation also applies to the issue of the fair allocation of radio frequencies with the purpose of promoting pluralism.

Asserting that there are no definitions for phrases like ‘open-minded’ (19m) and ‘impartiality’ (21 [7]), the body maintains that while these requirements sound laudable, they conflict with free speech rights and have no place in the bill.

“Indeed,” the release adds, “the concept of impartiality is confused with neutrality (21 [7]), ‘impartiality’ refers to even-handedness and consistency, whereas ‘neutrality’ means not adopting a position on issues.”

The important and legitimate obligation of the state to ensure the protection of public order is, according to the GHRA, devalued in a badly-drafted clause 21 (1)(a). It says that requirements on licence-holders not “to encourage or incite crime or violence or disorder” are sandwiched between and appear to have equal status with not offending against ‘good taste’, not being ‘offensive to public feeling’. And it is the body’s opinion that these latter phrases which it describes as “vague” can be used to suppress minority views. Further, it notes, no provision is made in the bill for appeals against a decision to refuse to issue a licence (11).

The GHRA says the whole ministerial role envisaged in Section 24 is “too wide and overbearing with respect to what may or may not be included in programming,” and is therefore calling for clear criteria to be developed to limit what it refers to as the “arbitrary exercise of ministerial powers” regarding the making of regulations (article 35) to be imposed on a licence or licence-holder. Moreover the need for such conditionalities must be demonstrable, the body adds.

The GHRA also observes that the Broadcasting Authority is required to investigate complaints (5(2)(f), but the body charges that neither the principles nor the process to be applied are set out. Moreover, the body argued that the penalties are very badly drafted.

“Liability should primarily lie with the individual broadcaster and not with the media house, (and) any criteria for unacceptable material (e.g. hate speech) must be narrowly and clearly drawn to avoid restriction on other kinds of speech and must be published and (be) readily available to the public.”

The human rights body is also contending that in the same vein articles 30c and 31 are “dangerous and excessive.” It emphasises that operating without a licence should result in a fine, not imprisonment of the operator and seizure of the equipment. Similarly, the body declares, the provision (31) that ‘any contravention of any provision of this Act’ shall be liable to $200,000 fine and imprisonment is absurd for minor breaches of the act, and offences and appropriate penalties need to be scheduled and publicised.

The GHRA also deems as abusive and offensive, censorship powers allowing the minister at his/her discretion to order licensees to desist from broadcasting material (24(3), or forcing them to broadcast notices (24(1), and called for their withdrawal.

The body also sees too much political control being exercised over the appointment of members of the Broadcast Authority for it to be, or be seen to be, independent or functioning in a transparent manner. It says too that references to ‘the broadcasting community’ and ‘consumers’ representative bodies’ are imprecise and do not provide for adequate public representation. And criteria such as ‘high professional integrity’ are capable of being applied to reject independent persons and favour party supporters, according to the body.

It also labelled as “very weak” the language requiring the authority to “take account of such of the international obligations of Guyana as the minister may notify them of ...” (23[4]). It recommends that this should be replaced by a statement to the effect that the “authority is bound to uphold and promote the international legal obligations of the Government of Guyana respecting freedom of expression and information, as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that anything in the act or its application in conflict with these obligations is null and void.”