<<Print>>

�The Directive Principles of State Policy contained in this Chapter shall guide all citizens, Parliament, the President, the Judiciary, the Council of State, the Cabinet, political parties and other bodies and persons in applying or interpreting this Constitution or any other law or in taking and implementing any policy decisions, for the establishment of a just and free society.� That is what Article 34 (1) of the 1992 Constitution demands and requires of all of us. More germane to the issues we want to discuss, Article 297 (a) states that �In this Constitution and in any other law, the power to appoint a person to hold or to act in an office in the public service shall include the power to confirm appointments, to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in any such office and to remove the person from office.� In charging the Board of Directors of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) to recall the Director-General who has been directed by the board to proceed on a long leave, and to demand briefing on the happenings at the GBC, the National Media Commission (NMC) seeks to affirm that it would not share its powers, authority and responsibility with any other authority or persons, whether superior or inferior to it. Many Ghanaians would recollect that the right conferred on the NMC to appoint Chief Executives of the state-owned media did not come on a silver platter. The NMC had to battle the government at the Supreme Court between 1996 and 2000, before the matter was settled on behalf of the NMC. Again, in law, provisions of a constitution take precedence over all other laws and for as long as any law is inconsistent with a constitutional provision, that law is void. Therefore, unlike boards under the Companies Code, the power and authority to appoint or dismiss the Chief Executive of the GBC, are vested in the NMC, not the board. Therefore, in any conflict between the NMC and the board, the NMC will triumph. At worst, if the board proves recalcitrant, the NMC has the power to dissolve the board. That is what the NMC did the last time it had problem with the GBC board, chaired by Prof. Stephen Adei. The point must be made clear that in dealing with the media, those in positions of trust must be cautious and exercise their powers or authority, in the best interest of the public. Otherwise, there is cause for concern. Indeed, when it comes to the question of independence, transparency and all those principles which reinforce good governance, members of the board of directors of mass media organisations, especially those wholly owned by the state must live above reproach and avoid the slightest suspicion of being manipulated, by either the government or any other individuals or groups. Now, people who abhor the control of the state-owned media by government or the President, elected by universal adult suffrage, would be outraged when the media are controlled or undermined by non-elected individuals, who owe no direct obligation to the people for their positions. When the NMC took the decision to go to court to assert its independence over the appointment of Chief Executives of the state-owned media, there were some who considered that heretic and an affront to the authority of the President. But the NMC was unruffled as it did not seek to impugn the powers of the President as asserted and provided for by the 1992 Constitution. The NMC only sought to give meaning to constitutionalism and the rule of law. It only tried to give meaning to the aspirations of our people when they voted in the referendum to give effect to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution. Sometimes it is painful for a dedicated and committed public officer to be punished for being faithful to the policies of a board when these do not undermine the law. There are a number of chief executives who are genuinely denied by their boards from taking their annual leave when it falls due. Such decisions for deferred leaves are informed by genuine considerations. Therefore, where the leave days accumulate over time and another board directs that all the leave period be exhausted at a go, irrespective of the implications, that would not be fair and just. Under such circumstances, the leave must be staggered over a reasonable period to enable the chief executive remain relevant and dominant in the administration of the organisation. But beyond all these, my biggest problem with a number of board members is their inability to act apolitically and see their positions as commensurate with their professional competence rather than as a favour from somebody. We must act to assert our integrity, but not to promote others. The National Media Commission is an independent constitutional body. Members are not appointees of the President, although the President and Parliament have between them five of the 18 members. That equally explains why from the beginning in 1993, the members refused to accept the parchment from the President, since that underlined the authority of the President over such appointees. It is good that the NMC has put its foot firmly on the ground. The hope is that the board of the GBC would co-operate with the NMC to resolve whatever issues have to be addressed to enable the GBC to function freely, firmly and independently. Indeed, the board must team up with the NMC to ensure that the Ministry of Information cedes the supervision over the budget of the GBC to the NMC. That way the constitutional requirement of insulating the state-owned media from governmental control would have meaning. For now, let the board, Director-General and management of the GBC understand, realise and appreciate that they owe the people of this country the obligation to provide truthful unbiased information. That is the way of a public broadcaster. Any attempt to side-step the due process and the rule of law to undermine the head of a public broadcaster, would amount to an attempt to interfere with its independence.