tp 2

George Asekere 10289946

THE PRESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN GHANA (2012)

Introduction and statement of the problem

The State Press constructs the authoritative social imaginary of the nation-state and human rights. Indeed, a global apparatus of professional organizations, news services, conferences, and literature links journalists all over the world in their distinctive vocation, serving not only to universalize journalism as a certain type of national discourse with homologous political and professional functionality in diverse national contexts, but also to provide ideological support for their human rights(free speech, freedom from harassment and intimidation, access to information)across those national boundaries Jennifer  Hasty(2006P7:69).

In Ghana the fundamental human rights and freedoms, and freedom and independence of the media are guaranteed in the constitution. Article 12(1&2) state: ‘The fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in this chapter shall be respected and upheld by the Executive, legislature and Judiciary and all other organs of government and its agencies and, where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons in Ghana, and shall be enforceable by the Courts as provided for in this constitution .Constitution of Ghana (1992 p12). Article162 (1)Freedom and independence by the media are hereby guaranteed.(4)Editors and publishers of newspapers and other institutions of the mass media shall not be subject to control or interference by government, nor shall they be penalized or harassed for their editorial opinions and views, or the content of their publications. Constitution of Ghana(1992 p112) It is fair to mention that Article 164 of the same constitution says that these rights and freedoms are subject to the laws that are reasonably required in the interest of national security, public order, public morality and for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons.  After 20years of Democratic governance, however, many are still wondering whether the Ghanaians Press has the freedom to operate in all spheres of national life including the right of the pressmen to freely express their opinion on issues of human rights. Reference can be made to the assaults of pressmen

of the State owned Ghanaian Times and Daily Graphic newspapers on Ghana’s Independence Day -6^th March 2013(www.mediafound.org) and the sentencing of the editor in chief of the Daily Searchlight News Paper, Ken Kuranchie, for Criminal contempt by the 9member bench that sat on the 2012 Presidential Election Petition.....the freedom of the press, as component of freedom of expression, is an essential freedom related to the very nature of a democratic society it assures the free debate of information and ideas, grace to pluralism of the sources of information it offers. In 2012, the Volta Regional Chairman of the Ghana Journalists Association was assaulted by some personnel of the Regional Police Command in Ho (www.alghananews.com). The expression of freedom of the press also contains obligations and liberties, which are circumscribed to the limits the freedom of expression bears in its exercise Daniela Valeria (2010 p57).  Again questions are being asked if the Press has been able to educate and inform the people about their rights and whether they even make Human Rights issues pivotal in their reportage. It is also argued that until the repel of the criminal libel and seditious laws under the regime of John Agyekum Kufuor (President of Ghana 2000-2008) fear and intimidation made it practically difficult for journalists to exercise their right to operate fully let alone educate and inform the people of their rights.

Today the criminal and seditious laws are no more in our status books; the Ghana Journalists Association’s Code of Ethics also has absolute room for the protection of the rights of journalists and gives guidelines on how issues of human rights should be tackled. Also the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will be the last to gag journalists in their work (Justice Jones Doche, July 2 201). But are these rules and expressed commitment mere rhetoric or real?

This work seeks to examine the state of the freedom of the media as enshrined in the constitution of 1992. It also intends to analyse how the state owned Ghanaian Times Newspaper reported issues on Human Rights in 2012- the frequency of reportage, the areas in the newspaper that human rights issues appeared and the reasons if possible why the paper did that.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

After 20years of Democratic governance in Ghana under the 1992 constitution the press has been criticized for not prioritising issues of human rights:

It is true that there has been 20 years of democratic practice in Ghana under a constitution that devotes a full chapter to freedom and independence of the media. It is also true that the criminal libel and seditious law existed in the constitution between 1992 and 2001.This law was used against journalists some of whom felt intimidated for expression their constitutional rights of lawfully playing their watchdog role under the cover of freedom and independence of the media enshrined in the constitution.

After the repeal of the criminal libel and seditious laws journalists have still suffered under the hands of security personnel detailed to high profiled politicians. Reference can be made to the attacks on Metro TV crew at the residence of former president Kufuor (www.citifmonline.com) .As if to equalize the political or high profile attacks, some journalists were also attacked by guards of former president Rawlings at the Sunyani delegates congress that elected late president Mills for the 2012 election (www.citifmonline.con). Journalists of the state own Ghanaian Times news paper was also assaulted by security men at the 2013 Independence Day parade (www.myjoyonline.com). The citizens whose interest the journalists seek to protect is equally guilty of attacks on journalists. Reference can be made to the attacks on Joy FM, Metro TV and TV3 journalists by aggrieved supported of the NPP after the 2012 election results were officially declared (www.myjoyonline.com). The list is endless.

In the midst of all these have journalists been able to write fully about human rights issues in the last 20 years? I there seek to explore these issues in context by looking at the state of the freedom of the press one hand and human rights issues on the other hand.

The issues being raised despites all these challenges of the media are:

1. The press reportage on human rights issues are not enough compared to other issues like partisan politics.

2. The space allocated to human rights reports are not enough.

3. The areas in the newspapers where human rights issues feature do not portray the press as prioritising human rights issues.

4. The press do not strictly follow the code of ethics of the Ghana Journalist Association on how human rights issues should be reported.

4. Is the press itself free to fully express its editorial opinion without being penalized in one way or the other?

These are some of the issues that this work seeks to explore. This work will also attempt to examine the basis for these criticisms, the challenges of the press in handling human rights issues and make recommendation for the way forward.

METHODOLOGY

I relied on secondary data-examining the Ghanaian Times Publications on Human Rights throughout the year 2012. I also used elite interview by interviewing an editor of the Ghanaians Times News paper, two reporters who did at least three stories on Human Rights in 2012 for the newspaper. Finally I Interviewed the President of the Ghana Journalists Association on his take on the state of the Ghanaian Press and Human Rights.

2012 was chosen because it was an election year where I believe a lot of human right issues were raised by politicians, civil society groups and other stakeholders. The State owned Ghanaian Times was chosen mainly because it is a state paper not motivated by profit or parochial political or ideological interest although I acknowledge that there is an enterprise dimension in the work of the paper.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In democracies, the convention is that accountability mechanisms, whether horizontal, vertical or social are designed to ensure that public services address the needs of citizens in an equitable way by empowering citizens to demand accountability from government (Sam McFarland  cited, Fox, 2007;Przeworski, 2003; Przeworski et al.,1999; O’Donnell, 1999; Schedler, 1999). However, the citizens can only demand accountability if they are aware of their rights which are partly the responsibility of the press.

Despite great advances in human rights since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the gaps between the UDHR's ideals and current world realities remain massive. Non de-mocratic governments, ancient enmities, religious orthodoxies, and cultural traditions all impede the advance of human rights in many places. Democratic governments that avow allegiance to human rights often find that protecting human rights abroad conflicts with their national self-interests and, in situations of grave human rights abuses, risks the lives of their own citizen soldiers. Sam McFarland, Melissa Mathews (2006 p365). Being aware of this my argument is that after 20 years  of democratic practice Ghana’s Press should be in the position to portray human rights issues  not to the level of the United States about a resemblance of a sort. ‘The democratic development of a specific society implies the pluralism of ideas and conceptions about the world and life, about social organization, about the relations between the members of the society. As social beings, people need to receive ideas and information and to express, in any form possible, their own ideas and conceptions. That is why the right to freedom of expression and implicitly the freedom of press is a component guaranteed by the international legal documents in the matters of human rights. The freedom of expression or freedom of speech is considered to be the most powerful weapon for the defence of the persons’ rights and liberties against the antidemocratic manifestations (I.R.D.O., 1994, p. 37).Freedom of expression is settled both in the reference international legal documents in the matter of human rights, and in the Constitutions of the individual states. From the regulations comprised in the international legal instruments in the matter of human rights, and from the dispositions contained in the constitutions of certain countries, one remarks that freedom of expression is designated by means of different denominations.  Daniela Valeria (2006). Bârsan,(cited by Edem E. Salormey,  2001, p. 10),argues: “one cannot conceive progress in the scientific, cultural or artistic domains without the existence of freedom of expression beyond any state frontier…”

The media is supposed to set the agenda of issues that are paramount and capable of transforming the live of the citizenry. The issues could cover every facet of national live. For the purpose of this work I limit the agenda setting role of the media to human rights and further limit the media to the print media by singling out the State Owned Ghana Times newspaper printed and published the New Times Corporation in Ghana’s capital, Accra. My argument is that if the agenda setter is not free or put differently has not got the absolute freedom to express his or her professional right to publish stories he or she deem fit for national consumption bearing in mind the limitations especially when it comes to public morality and national security, it may be professionally difficult for the journalist to focus so much on human rights issues.......’though it is a constitutional rights to demonstrate peacefull, the  media had the right to report on the happening on events on society for the general good of all(Media Foundation for West Africa-Hhttp:www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2012/12/13/media-foundation –condemns-npp-attacks-on journalists/#sthash.GaDAcZsQ.dpuf). It will be unfair, I believe, to criticise the press on inadequacies in areas of human rights without making a thorough assessment of the inherent constraints which goes beyond legalities to cultural, religious, political and economic factors.

In 2002, when attacks on members of the media appeared alarming, the President of the GJA Ransford Tetteh issued a strong worded statement: “We wish to petition the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Paul Tawiah Quaye, to lend maximum support to the call by the Volta regional branch of the GJA for investigations to be carried out into the assault by the Ho Police on the Regional Chairman of the GJA on Sunday, June 10, 2012.“We are shocked at the impunity and the level of group assault that was carried out by the police against Mr Kwawukume, who is a correspondent of the Daily Graphic newspaper, in his line of duty. This is without prejudice to what would be the outcome of the investigations.”

The statement said the GJA also noted with concern the incidence of the Police inviting editors to disclose their sources of information and referred to two recent incidences. It said: “The first involved the Editor of the Chronicle and the second involved the Editor of the New Crusading Guide, who was invited to disclose how he “intercepted” the statements made by Mr. Agbesi Woyome to the Police concerning his judgment debts payment.”  

The statement said the people’s right to know required the media to as much as possible, truthfully inform and educate members of the public on incidents or issues, whether positive or negative, happening around them.     

It said even when journalists erred in their work and their infractions were considered intolerable there could be no justification for one to either physically or verbally attack them or resort to unconstitutional means to seek redress.

The statement said the behaviour by the Police both in the case of the assault and inquisitions were definitely in breach of Article 162 (4) of the 1992 Constitution, which states unequivocally that “Editors and publishers of newspapers and other institutions of the mass media shall not be subject to control or interference by Government, nor shall they be penalized or harassed for their editorial opinions and views, or the content of their publications”.http://www.allghananews.com/general-news/3939-gja-condemns-police-attack-on-journalist##ixzz2YXVWP3F7 .

 

COMMENTARY ON THE VICTORY OF UHURU KENYATTA, THE ICC FACTOR AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR THE AFRICAN CONTINENT.

There is no doubt that there were clouds of uncertainty hanging over Kenya in the period leading to the election of the fourth President of that country since independence in 1963. The fear justifiably stemmed from the violence that erupted after the 2007 elections which led to the loss of over one thousand precious lives, and some 500 thousand people displaced. The ethnic polarization of the Kenyan politics and the interference of the west through the so called indictment of one of the President-elect, Uhuru Kenyatta, of the Jubilee Alliance Party, and his running mate, William Ruto whose charges have just been dropped are not issues that should be swept under the carpet.

The elections are over and the son of Kenya’s first President Jomo Kenyatta, 51 year old Uhuru has been declared winner. The call by the main opposition challenger, Raila Odinga, on his supporters not to engage in violent acts is highly commendable.His decision to challenge the results in the Supreme Court, the same judiciary he said he did not trust in 2007 is also laudable. One hopes Raila Odinga’s actions before and after the court’s verdict will portray the peaceful Kenya he claims to seek. The truth is that the elections have been hailed as transparent, at least by African standards and in the history of Kenya. The choice of the people must be accepted and respected in the interest of peace not only in Kenya and Africa, but the international community as a whole. It is in this regard that comments by senior government officials from the US, Germany and Britain before the elections can be interpreted as interference in the domestic affairs of Kenya and must not be allowed to continue. It is true that the world has become a global village, as such what happens in any country can have a rippling effect across the globe. That, however, is not enough justification for anybody or country to decide who democratically rules a particular country. Uhuru Kenyatta hit the nail right on the head when he responded by saying that he does not seek the presidency of the US or UK but his home country Kenya and is democratically doing so without forcing anyone to vote for him. Irrespective of how one sees it, the people of Kenya have defied the ICC indictment against both Keyatta and his vice Ruto as well as voices of foreign diplomats and have accordingly by 50 point–zero-seven percent margin given the mandate to them to rule. Uhuru Kenyatta has become the second African President to face Indictment by the ICC after Sudan’s Umar al Bashir.

African leaders must rally behind Kenyan President elect Uhuru Keyatta to help improve that country’s economy and hopefully move it to the much anticipated middle income status. Africa appreciates the support of western nations but the west ought to know that providing assistance and other forms of handouts does not mean the political independence of Africa should be compromised. In all dealings, the advanced nations must be guided by the Biblical injunction in Ecclesiastes 12:14, which states that “God is going to judge everything we do, whether good or bad and even things done in secret. Long live Kenya and long live Africa.

BY: GEORGE ASEKERE, A JOURNALIST.

   NEWS COMMENTARY ON IEA DEBATE
BY GEORGE ASEKRE.
 If there is any truth in the saying that coming events cast their shadows, then the IEA's Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates must be critically examined again.
It is true that the IEA is a private institution and has the right to use any criteria it deems fit and best serves its interest based on its mission and vision in all its endeavors. It is also true that any institution that engages in any public event is under legal obligation to uphold the constitutional provision on similar treatment to avoid being tagged biased. Article 55 clause 3 of the Constitution states that subject to the provisions of this article a political party is free to participate in shaping the political will of the people to disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programme of national character and sponsor candidate for election to any public office other than to District Assemblies or lower local government unit. The deliberate attempt by the IEA to  limit the debate to only parties with representation in Parliament raises eyebrow. It appears to be  an attempt to deny millions of Ghanaians  access to different views on how they want to be governed. Besides, the IEA is gradually trying to restrict the constitutional provision of widening participatory democracy which must not be allowed to continue. These were reinforced by the comments made by the executive director of the IEA, Jean Mensah and a Member of the IEA debate planning committee. In fact, they created the impression that the IEA debates are to provide Ghanaians the opportunity to examine the view points of the candidates and hence inform their decision in the polls. By this, is the IEA telling the electorate to make choices from only the four candidates who had access to its platform? Nothing can be more discriminatory than this. Why should the IEA think that no independent candidate is  worth winning the election, hence have his views articulated through the IEA platform if indeed that platform has the power to effect change? The argument that the Commission on presidential debates in the US restricts its debates to only two parties is neither here nor there. Ghana is a sovereign state and is not under any obligation be it legal or moral to emulate everything from the US. In any case, is Ghana  the US? The claim by the IEA that its decision is partly due to logistical constraint is untenable. Are we not constantly told that democracy is expensive? Should inadequate resources lead to unjustifiable, subjective and individually or selectively targeted decisions? Another serious constitutional issue that ought to be looked at critically is the provision in Clause 12 Article 55 which mandates the state-owned media to give the same amount of time and space to all presidential candidates to present their programmes to the people. By carrying the IEA selective programme live, it is incumbent on the state own-media to find alternative ways of giving equal time and possibly prominence to all other registered presidential candidates to also present their views  since such is their non-negotiable right. Ghana is for all of us,  hence any participatory competition that is transparent need to be embraced by all whist any move that is selective must not be encouraged . After all,  are thieves not dealt with when caught, but is it not true that some people steal purely to satisfy their hunger? If  the limited resources argument by the IEA is justified, others might make similar flimsy excuses to engage in unfair treatment. If the state wants such competitive debate, then the NCCE must be empowered to organize one. The IEA must come again.
 GIA 

26 - 12 - 12
NEWS COMMENTARY ON ILLEGAL MINING

                                    
Twenty years since the legalisation of small-scale mining in Ghana, illegal mining has succeeded in positioning itself as one of the worst threats to the country. The passage of PNDC Law 218 to  check  illegal mining has not yielded any positive results making many wonder if we are serious as a country. Research indicates that less than 30 percent of miners operate legally. A visit to mining communities across the country particularly the Eastern, Western, Ashanti and Brong Ahafo Regions reveal a picture that can sadly be described as hopeless. Open pits besieged by young men and women digging for gold without care of the dangers being created to the environment, posed to themselves, the larger community and worse of it all the health of the inhabitants. As if this is not enough, the Chinese are invading the mining communities with sophisticated equipment thereby destroying the environment even faster. The sad aspect of this is that some of these Chinese are heavily armed even with guns and ready to fiercely resist any attempt to prevent their activities. This is happening in the midst of laws coherently codified and well printed in our statute books indicating that small-scale mining is a preserve for Ghanaians alone. Today illegal mining has grown beyond a mining problem to become a national security and  environmental issue.  A dozen of  the Chinese openly use excavators, move into a community and before one realises it, wreck farmlands and turn local streams into mud puddles. The question is what is so special about illegal mining that Ghana as a sovereign nation cannot control? On the 30th of September this year the Chinese Embassy in Ghana posted on its website that 38 illegal Chinese miners have been deported a month earlier. What do we see today? Many more Chinese are on the ground mining illegally with impunity. In August this year, 20 Chinese were arrested for operating without residential and work permit following  the setting up of a committee by the IGP, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Minerals Commission. Ghanaians  were told that the suspects will be tried soon, but only God knows what has since happened. It is true that bilateral trade between Ghana and China has been of immense benefit to Ghana but that cannot and must not be a compensatory excuse for foreigners to destroy our lands and take away our natural resources. People  living in mining communities must rise and say no to illegal mining else they will be the first to suffer any calamity as a result. Whether traditional rulers, politicians or so called  big wigs are involved or not should not be an excuse. What is wrong is wrong and must be treated as such. As we celebrate Christmas, let us remember the love God showed us by bringing his only son Jesus to die for  us. This love must be extended by us to the environment. Let us be reminded that if we allow our environment to be destroyed through illegal mining, posterity will not forgive us. Merry Christmas to all Ghanaians.
BY GEORGE ASEKERE

COMMENTARY ON BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION

Bribery and Corruption together is a social problem that has come to stay with us. It is a negative phenomenon and impinges on the conscience of many because of its debilitating effects on development. Bribery and corruption have been cited as the major reason for the overthrow of governments both military and civilian since independence. The Anin Commission appointed by the Kutu Achaempong led National Liberation Council in 1975 defined bribery and corruption as the giving and receiving of a gift or attempts to extort a gift or a valuation consideration whether cash or kind with the object of influencing a person in a position of trust to act in a way favorable to the interest of the giver. Persons in positions of trust act according to set of rules either explicitly stated or understood, so if in the course of exercising such powers any person attempts to influence their conduct with gifts either in cash or kind such a person is indulging in bribery since the intent is to corrupt the official. The Anin Commission further revealed that if the person holding the position of trust demand a gift from possible beneficiaries in order to favor them before performing such functions, the trustee is clearly corrupt. Why should one know someone or have a link with a big man in order to get what one rightfully deserves. Sociologically, bribery and corruption are not synonymous terms. Bribery is narrower, more direct and less subtle.

In fact there cannot be bribe givers without bribe takers, hence the assertion that the giver is as guilty as the receiver. Corruption can and frequently does exist even when there are no personal tempers or guilty confederates. In the assertion of Nye (1967) the use of reward to pervert the judgment of a person in a position of trust also constitutes bribery. Empirically if someone in a high position agrees to help a friend or relative of another person in an equally high position with the hope of reciprocity, that person is corrupt. Whichever way one looks at the phenomenon, bribery is wrong whether it results in the bending of rules or outright violation. The issue of bribery and corruption is so serious that in most organizations the bureaucratic principle which requires the impersonality of inter-personal relation also known as ‘Sine Ire Et Studio’ in Latin meaning, an act without ill-will, is being violated. The principle of first come first serve has no prominence anymore in many places. It is common knowledge that in some organizations today promotions and selection are no longer the preserve of technical competence due to bribery and corruption. Sadly the canker has led to the situation where in some institutions less educated, low ranked in hierarchy sometimes get comparatively higher remuneration than more qualified and higher ranked seniors. The belief that one needs to pay huge sums of money or have a link before one can get a job has saturated the minds of many young graduates seeking for jobs and rightfully so. As for what some bosses do to our young ladies before offering them jobs, only God and the principal actors know. Admittedly many organizations have square pegs in round holes and the output is low productivity, mediocrity and waste of public resources. Why on earth should we have ghost names on our payrolls? Why should one lobby before getting an appointment? Or why should it take some officials over six months and sometimes years to process documents for payment of newly enrolled nurses or appointed teachers when people are being paid to do that as their job description. The fight against bribery and corruption must therefore be taken more seriously bearing in mind that until the root causes are identified and nipped in the bud, we may only be joking. The fight must tackle both the precipitating and perpetuating factors squarely.

The socialization of Ghanaians which make us feel and believe that we have a prescriptive or even a God-given right to depend on brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles and other relatives for all kinds of help play a role in corruption and must be given a second look . Also supervisors of administrative controls and the suppression of moral courage in the name of preserving good social relations should be reconsidered. Religious leaders must intensify the crusade against the pervasive acquisition on the get rich quick syndrome by first discouraging expensive funerals and marriages. Bribery and corruption has the potential of making our nation unattractive to visitors. It kills many psychologically and widens the social class gap making the richer ever richer and the poor ever poorer. Bribe givers and takers as well as those who engage in all sorts of corrupt acts must the reminded that no condition is permanent. They may succeed today but judgment surely awaits us all. A word to the wise, we have long been told is enough.

BY GEORGE ASEKRE OF GBC, RADIO NEWSROOM.