GINA AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

July 25, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News

The combined opposition parties in the National Assembly have over the past two years refused to approve the budgetary allocations for the Government Information Agency (GINA). The reason given for this action was the biased nature of the reporting from GINA which, in the estimation of the opposition parties, amounted to government propaganda.

This charge has been repeated once again. GINA has again been accused to peddling government propaganda. But is this not the function of a government news agency?

Whether it is GINA today or the Guyana News Agency or the Guyana Public Communications Agency in the past, the purpose of such bodies is to disseminate government propaganda. When the opposition parties deny funds for the operations of GINA, they are denying it resources for the very purpose for which it was created: to disseminate the views of the government.

Freedom of the press involves the right to disseminate information on matters of public interest. Every citizen is entitled to receive such information. Freedom of the press also involves the right of government to freely disseminate its views. To prevent or constrain a government from so doing constitutes an assault on freedom of expression, and this is exactly what has been achieved by the denial of funds to GINA.

In 1976, Justice Frank Vieira ruled that freedom of expression was pointless if you had a printer house but were denied the right to import newsprint. He was at the time ruling on the challenge made by the publishers of the Mirror newspaper against the denial of a permit to import newsprint. The logic of Justice Vieira was: what is the use of having a media house if you do not have the means to disseminate the news?

That decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal in a most controversial ruling, to wit, that the denial of newsprint did not directly impact on freedom of expression. But that ruling has not been used as a precedent in other jurisdictions on matters concerning freedom of the press.

The logic of Justice Vieira about the pointlessness of having a media house without resources to do its work can be applied to the situation of GINA today. The government is entitled to disseminate its views. All over the world this is an acceptable part of free expression and its derivative, freedom of the press. But if a government news agency is denied funding, how could it be expected to exercise this right? It is by this logic that the denial of resources for GINA constitutes an assault on free expression.

But for those who wish resort to Justice Crane’s decision in the appeal against the decision in the Mirror case, it is instructive to note that in a more recent judgment in Guyana’s Court of Appeal, it was held that the non-consideration of an application for a broadcast licence constituted a violation of the right to free expression. So if not considering an application for a broadcast licence constitutes a violation of free expression, why should the denial of funding not also be similarly construed as a violation of free expression?

If the government does take this matter of the denial of funds for GINA to Court, I am convinced that the opposition parties who are now assuming the right to interpret the Constitution – a right that they claim is not the prerogative of the President but strictly that of the Court – will suffer another ignominious defeat.

To deny funds to GINA on the basis that it is a propaganda outfit is to deny the government the right to free expression. The supporters of the government are entitled to receive the views of the government. The people of Guyana, regardless of political persuasion, are also entitled to know the views of the government. And the government is entitled to account for its stewardship by propagating its positions on matters of public interest. To deny funds to GINA because it is peddling government propaganda is to deny the government the right to disseminate its positions.

We are now told that the audited accounts for GINA have not been laid before the National Assembly for a few years. But can this lawfully constitute a basis for withholding funding for this agency?

Now that the Public Accounts Committee has found that GINA is in dereliction of its obligation to table audited accounts, should this form the basis of denying future funding for GINA?

I think not.  The right to freedom of expression is held so sacrosanct, that it is hard to contemplate any Court of Law justifying the withholding of funds on the grounds of lack of financial accountability.

GINA has to be accountable, but its lack of accountability cannot form the basis for denying the government the right to propagate its views.