In our edition of April 27 we reported that Stabroek News together with Kaieteur News had been cited by the Ethnic Relations Commission for “unacceptable” statements made in articles and a letter which had been published in the two newspapers last year. We cannot speak for Kaieteur News, but where our paper is concerned, the reprimand came in relation to an item of correspondence which appeared in our edition of June 29, 2010 and which had been sent by Andaiye, Nigel Westmaas, Desmond Trotman and Deon Abrams. As the SN Editor-in-Chief, Mr Anand Persaud, observed in a comment in our report of April 27, “there was nothing in the letter… that was exceptionable.” It dealt in fact with the disruption of a historical conference by an unruly group during a presentation by Mr Freddie Kissoon, a UG lecturer and a columnist for KN, and drew inferences and made deductions from the sequence of events which occurred.
We were first alerted to the involvement of the ERC, not by the commission itself, but by a press release from GINA on July 1, 2010, the contents of which we published the following day. It said that the Office of the President had written to the ERC concerning articles and letters in both newspapers (SN and KN) that were contrary to the laws of Guyana. Dr Luncheon, the statement said, had called on the commission to “discharge its mandate to investigate and pronounce on these forms of unacceptable journalism.”
We reported GINA as going on to say (among other things) that OP had pointed to the Racial Hostility (Amendment) Act of 2002, which states that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he wilfully excites or attempts to excite hostility or ill will against any section of the public, or against any person on the grounds of their race by means of “written (including printed) matter or pictorial matter published by him.”
After this intimation via an improper channel that we were to come under investigation by the ERC, we waited to see what that body itself would have to say. Its official communication came some time later in a letter to us dated August 13, 2010. Among other things it referred to the complaint from OP which said that the letter relating to the historical conference which was published on “June 30,” may be “promoting racial insecurity, advocating race-based politics and making vile allegations of racist behaviour against members of the Government.” It then invited our comments.
We responded four days later on August 17, pointing out that the letter from Andaiye et al had appeared in our June 29 edition, not the one of June 30 as the ERC had stated. Then we requested a copy of the original complaint from the OP to the ERC. About one month later we received a reply from the commission dated September 20, 2010, with an attachment representing a copy of the letter from the OP to the commission, signed by Dr Luncheon.
After opening with an allusion to “letters and articles” in “certain newspapers” which OP “insists are contrary to the laws of Guyana,” the Head of the Presidential Secretariat went on to identify SN and KN and make the statement about promoting racial insecurity, etc, which it seems the ERC had quoted verbatim in its letter to us of August 13 referred to above. Finally, a list of the offending articles including the letter in question was appended, giving the correct date for the publication of the latter.
What was curious about the original complaint as forwarded to us by the ERC was that it contained no reference to the Racial Hostility Act which GINA in its release of July 1 said OP had pointed to. The remainder of what GINA reported is contained in the complaint from the Office of the President, and accurately reflected Dr Luncheon’s language.
At this point we were still somewhat puzzled as to what exactly in the letter published in our newspaper on June 29 had caused the Office of the President to construe it as “promoting racial insecurity… and making vile allegations of racist behaviour against members of the Government” and we wrote the ERC on September 27, 2010, to say so. We went on to state that the signatories were commenting on an actual incident which took place on June 26, and would appreciate it if the commission could identify for us the specific elements in that item of correspondence to which Dr Luncheon was adverting when he made his allegations. We heard no more thereafter, until we read in the ERC’s press release of April 26 this year that the commission had requested information from the Office of the President, “but to date that has not been received.”
This fact notwithstanding, the ERC convened a meeting on April 11, 2011 anyway, and the deliberations at that meeting formed the basis of the findings of the commission contained in the press release of April 26. Exactly who was present at the discussions was not made clear but Stabroek News was certainly not invited. (If any representative from OP was present that would be nothing short of a disgrace.) What the ERC did say was that it had not received a written response to the complaint from Guyana Publications Inc (the publishers of SN) that it had requested; however, that is hardly an excuse for not asking that we attend a hearing, more especially in the light of the fact that OP had not responded to the commission’s request for further information.
If the intention all along was merely to proceed on the basis of the written allegation and written responses to these, that is an absolutely unacceptable mode of procedure for a commission like the ERC. This is not the first time that a complaint about the SN has been heard by the commission, although on the previous occasion to its credit both ourselves and the complainants were given two hearings after we had submitted an initial written response, and in the event we were subsequently exonerated. What was special about this case that we could not be invited to the April 11 meeting to respond to what was said there?
Above all, what the ERC has done in this instance transgresses natural justice, which requires that an accused should always be afforded the opportunity of a hearing independently of whether a written submission has been made. In addition to referring to the requirements of natural justice in a comment on the commission’s press release, SN’s Editor-in-Chief also said that it was important “that the ERC take careful account of this as its overarching tribunal is still to be established more than a decade after the revision of the constitution…”
As for the specifics of the commission’s decision, we reported the ERC as saying that the statements published in the June 29 letter could not withstand factual scrutiny and should be the subject of greater editorial oversight which seemed to be lacking. Leaving aside in this instance the overarching question of the impropriety of the ERC’s modus operandi, the least that can be said about this is that it is an extremely sloppy judgement, hardly worthy of a commission which ostensibly carries such a heavy constitutional responsibility. Which statements is the ERC referring to? Is it disputing that the proceedings of the historical conference were not disrupted in the way the letter published on June 29 claimed? If so, precisely what investigations did it undertake to establish that the facts in the letter could not be substantiated? If it is disputing not the facts but the deductions and/or inferences, then why did it not identify which ones, and give its reasons.
As for the commission’s portentous lecturing of the media on their conduct, and its offer to be part of a retreat on “the way forward,” it is hardly in a position to hold itself forth as an example. In the end, if the ERC wishes to be taken seriously at any level then it has to commit itself to proceeding impartially, and to being seen to proceed impartially. In this instance, it has done neither, and as such it should not be surprised if it finds that it has opened itself to the accusation of functioning as an arm of the Office of the President.
