Government offered anecdotal evidence for its decision to withdraw state advertisements from the Stabroek News (SN) last year and no further information when challenged by the Inter-American press freedom rapporteur, the US State Department 2007 Country Report on Human Rights Practices says.
The report, prepared by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of the US State Department also stated that “there was a widespread public perception of serious corruption in the government, including law enforcement and the judicial system.”
The report said government had cited financial reasons for its decision to withdraw advertisements from the Stabroek News and added that it had “anecdotal evidence of wider readership” for placing the ads in the Kaieteur News.
The report, released yesterday, noted under the section ‘Freedom of Speech and Press’ that the government generally respected these rights in practice, however, there were some exceptions.
The report noted that last year, Stabroek News launched a public campaign against the government’s decision to cease placement of government advertising with it.
It said Stabroek News’ editors asserted that the government took the step as retribution for its consistent criticism of the government and used advertising revenue as a means to constrain press freedom. However, the report said, government countered that it made the decision for purely financial reasons, citing anecdotal evidence of wider readership for the Kaieteur News.
The report noted, too, that the Special Rapporteur for press freedom of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IAHRC) and other outside observers expressed concern over the government’s refusal to reconsider its decision, negotiate an amicable settlement, or release documentation that better explained its position.
In its December 18 formal response to the Special Rapporteur, the report stated, the government reasserted its earlier arguments but proffered no new information.
Stabroek News has always argued that the government has not provided any evidence to justify its cut-off of ads. The boycott has been in place for 16 months now and has deepened recently with several executing units for donor-funded projects not placing ads with this newspaper. The Office of the Auditor General, a constitutional agency, has also mirrored the government’s boycott.
Meanwhile, the report also said that the independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction and the international media operated freely.
It said the state-owned daily newspaper, the Guyana Chronicle, which typically displayed a pro-government slant, covered a broad spectrum of political and nongovernmental groups, while the independent dailies – Stabroek News and Kaieteur News – freely reported and editorialized on the government’s policies and actions.
The report noted that while private interests and the political opposition continued to criticise the government for its failure to approve longstanding requests for private radio frequency authorizations, the government continued to withhold licensing of new radio stations, constraining the broadcast media.
In terms of internet freedom, it was noted that there were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that it monitored e-mail or internet chat rooms, which allowed for individuals and groups to engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail.
On the issues of government corruption and transparency, the report said that the law provides for criminal penalties for official corruption. However, the government did not implement the law effectively.
Noting that the World Bank’s worldwide governance indicators reflected that government corruption was a serious problem, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor report said there was a widespread public perception of serious corruption in the government, including law enforcement and the judicial system.
It noted that low-wage public servants were easy targets for bribery.
And even though public officials are subject to financial disclosure laws and were required to submit information about personal assets to the Integrity Commission, compliance was uneven and the commission had no resources for enforcement or investigations.
It was also noted that Guyana’s laws do not provide for public access to government information. Government officials were often reluctant to provide public information without approval from senior officials.
