As live telecast of house proceedings faces ban…
KAYODE KETEFE As is common with our brand of democracy, Nigerians were in recent days treated to nauseating drama from" high places". The recent enactment had the Securities and Exchange Commission and the members of the House of Representatives Committee on Capital Market as the dramatis personae. It began with the Herman Hembe-led panel's allegation of corruption and financial profligacy against the Director-General of SEC, Mrs. Aruma Otteh. Appearing before the House in a session that was broadcast live to Nigerians, Otteh had fought back gallantly, she did not only deny the allegations against her but actually accused the members and the Head of the committee of demanding bribe from SEC. She said lawmakers were furious at her because she refused the request of the chairman, Hernan Hembe, for a N44million bribe. Ms Oteh said the lawmaker initially requested for N39 million to defray the cost of the ongoing public hearing, and when she denied, the chairman asked for N5million. Amidst the accusations and counter-accusations which as of the time of writing this, are still flying in all directions between these prominent public officers, a controversial fallout which has far greater consequences even more than ongoing probe is the proposal by the lawmakers to ban future live telecast of the hearing of the House panels. While the lawmakers seem to believe that by placing a ban on live transmission of its panels' proceedings it would help the panels to conduct their hearings without distractions and unnecessary sensationalism that live telecast sometimes engenders, a lot of stakeholders however see the proposal as a negation of principles of transparency and accountability which underlines good democracy. Besides the issues of human rights are also involved as many citizens insist they have the right to information on activities and conducts of their elected lawmakers. Some stakeholders also believe the proposal would be an infraction of the press freedom. The press freedom in Nigeria is guaranteed under section 22 of the 1999 Constitution which provides thus "The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people." Furthermore, Section 39 of the Constitution also provides thus, "Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions" While commenting on the imperative of press freedom in a modern democracy, the former General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, Mr. Aidan White, put the matter succinctly thus, "All obstacles to medial freedom should be lifted. We need a lasting commitment to wider access to information and to open, transparent laws on the administration of public broadcasting as well as action to ensure that all people have access to new information and technologies" This writer sought the views of some stakeholders on the proposed ban, against the background of rationale which inspired the passage of Freedom of Information Act, last year and the democratic tenets of press freedom. In the view of the Executive Directors of a non-governmental organisation, Access to Justice, Mr. Joseph Chuma Oteh¸ the controversial proposed ban is anti-people and anti-democracy and shows that the lawmakers are not comfortable with the principle of transparency. Otteh said "I think such a plan is a mockery of the whole idea of democratic governance since it seeks to promote lack of transparency in governance. The people have the rights to know about how their government is being run and they should see the government in action. "The proposal would undermine our constitutional democracy. The Prime Minister of Britain takes serious and even embarrassing questions from the House of Commons and this is shown live on television, they have not made any law to stop live telecast of the proceedings. They would not shut out the media. You cannot hide from the public you are claiming to serve as that would amount to governance in secrecy. "At any rate if you don't have skeleton in your cupboard you would not be afraid to be held accountable. "I see this as anti-people proposal, anti-democracy and it the whole idea should be nipped in the board" A Lagos-based lawyer, social critic and human rights activist, Mr Bamidele Aturu, said "The proposed ban is a negation of spirit of access to information which is guaranteed by our Freedom of Information Act. The National Assembly has no power to deprive Nigerians of the dividend of democracy. This shows we still have a long way to go in the in the strengthening of due process and building our democracy. The press is given the constitutional powers to hold the government accountable to the people and it cannot succeed in this duty if you deny it access to live broadcast of what transpired in the National Assembly, especially during important probes of public enterprises. Majority of Nigerians would want to know what is going on how can they know what is happening if they are denied access to information?" Expressing similar sentiments, the Chairman of Ikeja branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Adebamigbe Omole, said "That proposal is a death knell for democracy. Good democracy is entrenched when everything is open. Nothing should be shrouded in secrecy. "Just as you cannot drive away people from courtroom which is a public place, you should not conduct the proceedings in the house in secrecy and banning the live telecast of the proceedings amounts to a form of secrecy. "The fact that the allegations are openly made against some of them is no justification to henceforth conduct the affairs of the House in secrecy. These are the leaders and they should show good example; they should not be giving themselves unnecessary privileges aimed at cover up of some of their activities. Our leaders must be answerable to us for all their actions." The Executive Director of the Media Rights Agenda, Mr. Edetaen Ojo, totally condemned the proposal, he said "It is clearly a violation of the press freedom, the press have the right to live coverage of the parliamentary proceedings and they should not be denied access if they want to cover it. Furthermore the proposal is violation of the right of Nigerians to know; the right of Nigerians to information should not curtailed as this is a right guaranteed under our law" Another lawyer cum activist, Mr. Yahaya Oladeji, joined the above speakers in heaping further criticisms on the lawmakers on the contemplated media ban, he said "It is very laughable that the House of Representatives is making this proposal at a time when the live telecast of its probe panel of the affairs of the Securities and Exchange Commission has revealed a lot of information to Nigerians. Why should the lawmakers want to shroud its activities in secrecy? It is Nigerians that put them there and they deserve to be accountable to us.. I see the proposed ban as a legislative coup and it must not see the light of the day" |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment