After what the uncharitable would say was an interminable wait, presumably to see which way the wind was blowing, Ghana's National Media Commission (NMC), finally issued a statement that somehow succeeded in not mentioning Kennedy Adjapong, by name, even once - despite the widespread outrage and offence, caused by his latest tribal-supremacist diatribe, on Oman FM.
Be that as it may, and considering the fact that radio was an important and effective propaganda weapon in the armoury-of-mass-murder, of the Hutu extremists responsible for the genocide in Rwanda, discerning, independent-minded and patriotic individuals in Ghana, will have to ensure that the NMC and the National Communications Authority (NCA), squarely face the issue of Kennedy Adjapong's suitability, as an individual allowed to own and operate media organisations, in our ethnically-diverse nation, in which no tribe is superior or inferior to another.
To educate the public on the subject of whether or not an individual such as Kennedy Adjapong, passes the fit and proper person test, for media ownership - which in the light of his recent utterances, he clearly does not - I am reproducing an article published in the online newspaper, Crikey, entitled: "A ‘fit and proper’ test case: rating Alan Bond’s character" written by Dr Vincent O'Donnell.
Perhaps if the Hutu extremists had been denied ownership of media entities, and access to the media in Rwanda, they could not have spread their poisonous message so quickly, countrywide.
Clearly, dear reader, it is in the supreme interest of our nation (and to ensure the continued well-being of the vast majority of ordinary Ghanaians), that Kennedy Adjapong is not allowed to continue owning any media organisation in Ghana.
The question is, for the sake of the stability and unity of Ghana, should the NMC and the National Communications Authority (NCA) not find a lawful means of denying a hot-tempered and tribal-supremacist politician - who should never have been allowed to own them in the first place - the right to continue owning radio and television stations in Ghana?
Can the overbearing and all-powerful Kennedy Adjapong be trusted, for example, to keep an arms-length relationship with his media organisations, and thereby allow the professionals he hires to run them, to do so for the common good, whiles making a tidy profit for him?
With respect, one doubts that very much. In any case, whiles reading Dr. Vincent O'Donnell's article, readers must always bear in mind the fact that access to radio aided the Hutu extremists responsible for the genocide in Rwanda - and that we are trying to ensure that tribal-supremacist politicians in Ghana, do not own media entities: in order to avoid a possible descent into the barbarism of ethnic wars, in Ghana.
And above all, let us not also forget that Alan Bond's media ownership, never posed a danger to race relations in Australia. Perhaps, the Federal High Court would have come to a different conclusion if that was the case. Please read on:
"A ‘fit and proper’ test case: rating Alan Bond’s character
by Dr Vincent O'Donnell, of RMIT university and media policy editor for Screen Hub
Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat member of the British cabinet, says Rupert Murdoch “has to pass the ‘fit and proper’ test as a person to own a broadcasting organisation like Sky … and if he doesn’t pass that, it’s not a question of just stopping the BSkyB deal, it will be a question of him getting rid of Sky altogether”.
Of course overnight it was announced that News has withdrawn the bid for BSkyB, but what does being a “fit and proper” person mean?
Australia became one of the few countries to test what fit and proper might mean when it comes to being a media licensee, when in 1989, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) took on Alan Bond, who had become the owner of the Nine Network several years earlier. Kerry Packer had sold Bond the jewel in the Packer family media interests at a very favourable price, remarking that “you only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime”.
The concept of the fit and proper person turns up in much legislation that regulates the private use of a public resource or public good. The Mineral Resources Development Act 1990 of Victoria demands it as a quality of anyone seeking a miner’s licence. In fact, auctioneers, builders, plumbers, gasfitters and drainers, tobacco wholesalers, estate agents, fishermen, food processors, surveyors, travel agents, motor car traders, second-hand dealers, pawnbrokers, teachers and solicitors, must all be fit and proper persons to hold a licence or carry on a business under Victorian legislation.
But, of course, Alan Bond was a citizen of the world and Western Australia.
Bond was hauled before the ABT on two quite serious allegations.
The first was that an out-of-court settlement, in 1985, of a defamation action by Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen against a Bond Media-owned television station was, in fact, a backhander for favours done by Sir Joh for other Bond interests. The deal had been negotiated privately by Bond and Sir Joh and was thought to be generous, given the nature of the complaint and its chances of success if the action went to court.
The second was that threats were made by Bond to a Leigh Hall, an executive of the AMP Society, that Bond would use his television staff to gather information unfavourable to the AMP, and expose the AMP’s alleged wrongdoings by disclosing the material on television.
Among three lesser issues was the question of the authenticity of audio tapes that Bond Media radio stations had submitted to the hearing. Had they been faked to support Bond’s defence?
The tribunal had found that Bond was no longer a “fit and proper” person for the purposes of the licensing provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1942. But things did not stop there. Bond appealed the finding to a Full Court of the Federal Court, which partially overturned findings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and then to a Full Court of the High Court of Australia.
At issue were two related matters: the personal qualities of Bond as a fit and proper person, and whether the lack of fitness as judged by the ABT also tainted Bond Media, the group of companies that actually held the licences. This had been seen as the direct consequence of the findings.
The High Court found that the Federal Court was wrong in setting aside the ABT’s decision that the licensee companies were no longer “fit and proper” persons, but wrong for the wrong reasons.
Mason CJ considered the association between a corporate licensee and an individual:
“The degree of an individual’s capacity for control may not be so great as to warrant an inference that his character should be identified automatically with that of the licensee; in that event it would be necessary to look to the character and performance of the directors and management. In another case, where the capacity of the individual for control of the licensee is great, the inference may be justified without examining the character and performance of the directors and the management of the licensee. Especially is this so when it is established that the person having the capacity to control participates in the decision-making processes of a licensee and procures the making of reprehensible decisions which are designed to enhance and protect his own interests.” (Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 64 ALJR 462 at 474.)
The High Court held that the finding that the companies were not “fit and proper persons” was provided for by the Act, and hence a “decision” under the Act, but that the principal ground for that decision — the finding that Bond himself was not a “fit and proper person” — was not required or authorised by the Broadcasting Act, and as such, was not a decision.
Thus Alan Bond was not a “fit and proper” person to hold a TV licence but companies that he had a substantial interest in could continue to be fit and proper corporate persons and hold TV licences.
Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat member of the British cabinet, says Rupert Murdoch “has to pass the ‘fit and proper’ test as a person to own a broadcasting organisation like Sky … and if he doesn’t pass that, it’s not a question of just stopping the BSkyB deal, it will be a question of him getting rid of Sky altogether”.
Of course overnight it was announced that News has withdrawn the bid for BSkyB, but what does being a “fit and proper” person mean?
Australia became one of the few countries to test what fit and proper might mean when it comes to being a media licensee, when in 1989, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) took on Alan Bond, who had become the owner of the Nine Network several years earlier. Kerry Packer had sold Bond the jewel in the Packer family media interests at a very favourable price, remarking that “you only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime”.
The concept of the fit and proper person turns up in much legislation that regulates the private use of a public resource or public good. The Mineral Resources Development Act 1990 of Victoria demands it as a quality of anyone seeking a miner’s licence. In fact, auctioneers, builders, plumbers, gasfitters and drainers, tobacco wholesalers, estate agents, fishermen, food processors, surveyors, travel agents, motor car traders, second-hand dealers, pawnbrokers, teachers and solicitors, must all be fit and proper persons to hold a licence or carry on a business under Victorian legislation.
But, of course, Alan Bond was a citizen of the world and Western Australia.
Bond was hauled before the ABT on two quite serious allegations.
The first was that an out-of-court settlement, in 1985, of a defamation action by Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen against a Bond Media-owned television station was, in fact, a backhander for favours done by Sir Joh for other Bond interests. The deal had been negotiated privately by Bond and Sir Joh and was thought to be generous, given the nature of the complaint and its chances of success if the action went to court.
The second was that threats were made by Bond to a Leigh Hall, an executive of the AMP Society, that Bond would use his television staff to gather information unfavourable to the AMP, and expose the AMP’s alleged wrongdoings by disclosing the material on television.
Among three lesser issues was the question of the authenticity of audio tapes that Bond Media radio stations had submitted to the hearing. Had they been faked to support Bond’s defence?
The tribunal had found that Bond was no longer a “fit and proper” person for the purposes of the licensing provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1942. But things did not stop there. Bond appealed the finding to a Full Court of the Federal Court, which partially overturned findings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and then to a Full Court of the High Court of Australia.
At issue were two related matters: the personal qualities of Bond as a fit and proper person, and whether the lack of fitness as judged by the ABT also tainted Bond Media, the group of companies that actually held the licences. This had been seen as the direct consequence of the findings.
The High Court found that the Federal Court was wrong in setting aside the ABT’s decision that the licensee companies were no longer “fit and proper” persons, but wrong for the wrong reasons.
Mason CJ considered the association between a corporate licensee and an individual:
“The degree of an individual’s capacity for control may not be so great as to warrant an inference that his character should be identified automatically with that of the licensee; in that event it would be necessary to look to the character and performance of the directors and management. In another case, where the capacity of the individual for control of the licensee is great, the inference may be justified without examining the character and performance of the directors and the management of the licensee. Especially is this so when it is established that the person having the capacity to control participates in the decision-making processes of a licensee and procures the making of reprehensible decisions which are designed to enhance and protect his own interests.” (Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 64 ALJR 462 at 474.)
The High Court held that the finding that the companies were not “fit and proper persons” was provided for by the Act, and hence a “decision” under the Act, but that the principal ground for that decision — the finding that Bond himself was not a “fit and proper person” — was not required or authorised by the Broadcasting Act, and as such, was not a decision.
Thus Alan Bond was not a “fit and proper” person to hold a TV licence but companies that he had a substantial interest in could continue to be fit and proper corporate persons and hold TV licences.
However Bond Media share prices had taken a battering, falling from $1.55 to just over 30 cents at the time of the first finding by the ABT, and the writing was on the stockmarket wall. Kerry Packer bought back the Nine Network for a third of what Bond had paid Packer a decade earlier.
These proceeding are doubtless being pored over by News Corporation lawyers in case the 80-year-old Rupert Murdoch is asked to demonstrate his fitness and properness to have command of one of the world’s most diversified, powerful and influential media empires."
End of Dr. Vincent O'Donnell's culled article, from Crickey.
Well, dear reader, having watched the New Patriotic Party's Ursula Owusu's Oscar-winning performance on Net2 TV this morning (Awurade Nyankupong, what a hypocrite that clever woman is - an asset-stripper par excellence, acting as if she was Ghana's Joan of Arc. She, who ended up with a Ghana Airways bungalow, after the national carrier had been deliberately killed off, in order to asset-strip it, during the golden age of business for Kufuor & Co., claiming to love Mother Ghana. Made me feel like throwing up, actually), I am convinced that for the sake of our country, that entity and all the media entities owned, or indirectly controlled by Kennedy Adjapong, through his wife, ought to be closed down. They exist to spread the poison of the Kennedy Adjapongs in our midst.
The NMC and the NCA must find a way to do so, which will not be in conflict with the relevant existing laws on media ownership, for all our sake. It is said that coming events cast their shadows. Kennedy Adjapong is definitely not a fit and proper person, who should be allowed by regulators in this country, to own media entities in our ethnically-diverse and united homeland of Ghana, which Nkrumah founded. A word to the wise.
Tel (Powered by Tigo - the one mobile phone network in Ghana, which actually works!): + 233 (0) 27 745 3109.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment