[ad_1]
PARTICULARITIES OF JUSTIFICATION / PRIVILEGE
COMMENT / OPINION FAIR
PUBLIC INTEREST
The defendant's investigation of the De-Eye group between October 2018 and March 2019 is a fact.
The investigations were triggered by information that the group was participating in military exercises and security training for the youth of Osu Castle, which was confirmed by the investigations. Conduct of military training by a private group is illegal and punishable by imprisonment.
That the group is a militant militant group affiliated to the NPP created in 2009 is a fact and a report in the Daily Guide of June 2012 with a photo entitled "The Vigilante Group promises to protect the ballot boxes" refers to the group: "Trained in In 2009, "Eye Vigilante" is made up of male and female members of dynamic nuclear power plants across the country, whose main goal is to protect members of nuclear power plants from attacks by lawless people. Exhibit "2" is attached to this letter.
That a report on UTV also qualifies the vigilante group group and that a popular member of the NPP from the Ashanti region, who is also a senior officer of a polling station in Moshie Zongo in Kumasi, publicly named Alhaji Haruna Mohammed, the group as one of the self-defense groups of the nuclear power plant. It is instructive to note that he granted this interview as a spokesperson for the well-known invisible forces. Exhibits "3" and "3A" are attached.
Contrary to the statement that the group is an informal badociation of young people looking for a job, its meetings are characterized by training and speeches describing a security group within the nuclear power plant. Members have never been captured to receive instructions on interview techniques or resume writing.
That the investigations have captured members of the group in meetings responding to the motto of the group "Vigilance and Protection".
That the leader of the group is called "commander", while the second in command is called "chief of staff".
Whether the group applauds or applauds in the familiar military style "Ahooo! Ahoyaha!
That the trainers of the members of the group are former army officers is not the subject of any controversy, even from the group itself.
That the group's official website, which was clandestinely deleted after its activities were revealed by the Respondent, is posted on the About Us page: "The DE-EYE Group was designed to meet the growing need for more efficient jobs and more efficient security services. in Ghana. It belongs 100% to Ghanaians, is registered and registered. All of our staff are experienced and well trained by retired officers. They are very reliable. Our staff also undergoes rigorous screenings, checks the criminal background and checks the presence of drugs in the criminal record … ".
The fact that the investigations revealed that the Ministry of the Interior authorized to accredit private security companies and to regulate it had not authorized the De-Eye group, is a fact and the same behavior is contrary to the law. This behavior, including mere membership in such an entity, is punishable by fines and jail time. You will find attached Exhibit "5".
Investigations revealed that the group had ensured the security of a high-level event in a nuclear power plant, in honor of Chief SD Dombo, with the president, the vice president and his wife, the Former President John Agyekum Kufuor, along with other prominent NPP members present at the Accra International Conference Center on December 7, 2018 is a fact.
In 2018, Fraser Owireku Kegya, the group's chief of staff, told TV3 in an interview that the group had more than 5,000 young people "across the country" who believe in the policies of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, and at the end-of-year meeting held at the castle, the opening prayer indicated that they had come together as "family of nuclear power plant" Is a fact.
The fact that the group illegally chased National Security agents stationed at the Aviance Cargo Village of Kotoka International Airport in Accra in 2017 and deployed its members in replacement is a fact.
That it took a director of the National Security Secretariat to conduct another operation to reverse this criminal act and send the national security agents back to their legal operational zone is a fact.
That on December 10, 2018, Fraser Owuireku Kegya told the group at the castle that they had become a priority whenever senior security officials in Ghana met is a fact.
On December 17, 2018, the group's commander, Nana Owireku Addo, told members that national security had attempted to destroy the group but had failed and sent spies to find evidence against them, and that it was had asked to be vigilant and to reveal infiltrating National Security members their camp are a fact.
On December 10, 2018, Fraser Owireku Kegya lamented the pace at which members of the group were often involved in criminal activities and breaking the law, and warned that if someone did an unauthorized operation and was arrested again it would allow that person to be in the police cells for a while and then be brought to dishonor them in the presence of the group, that is a fact.
On December 17, 2018, one of the trainers started the meeting of the day by praising its members that none of them had been arrested this weekend was a fact.
This defendant verified the facts and also contacted the group and gave him a chance to respond to investigations. Twice the scheduled meetings have been canceled by the group. Respondent 's staff spoke with the group on February 22, 2019 and a meeting was arranged for February 26, 2019. On that date, the Respondent' s staff went to the Roman House. Ridge School and called the group leader to ask him for additional instructions. . The respondent's staff made more than 10 phone calls that went unanswered even though, in some cases, it indicated "busy number". Respondent's staff sent the following message: "Good evening, sir.
This is Manbadeh Azure Awuni from Joy FM. I am in Roman Ridge. I need a direction to your office. After more than 20 minutes of waiting, the Respondent staff left and sent the following message on WhatsApp: "Good evening, sir. I called several times tonight but you did not answer. I was at Roman Ridge. I produced a documentary on political activism and learned that you had a group of militiamen. The meeting is meant to hear you because it's just that if I make a story about you, I get your story version. Please, let me know when it will be easy for us to meet each other. Have a good evening. The WhatsApp message was checked in blue, indicating that it had been read, but there was no answer.
On March 1, 2019, the Respondent's staff placed an appeal and another meeting was duly organized. The respondent's staff went to Roman Ridge School and asked for further instructions, as mutually agreed, but the appeals went unanswered. He sent this message via SMS and WhatsApp: "Hello, sir. I am here at Roman Ridge School. I've called several times but you do not answer. The message was sent, but there was no response. After more than 30 minutes of appeal, the respondent's staff left.
On March 5, 2019, the Respondent's staff sent another WhatsApp message: "Hello, sir. We are going ahead with the story I told you about. If you still want to answer or if you have something to say, thank you for letting me know. Thank you so much. "The message has been delivered. He checked blue, but did not answer.
That at the two above-mentioned meetings, the Respondent's staff consisted of two people each time and together.
That, as it is duly recognized in the documentary, the defendant, in addition to dealing with reliable sources within the group itself, was dealing with state security sources and sources also asked the presidency whether she knew the group and its activities and whether it received a negative response, and that evidence of telephone conversation may be available at the request of the Commission, including those allowing exclusive viewing restricted to strictly confidential non-disclosure conditions.
During the course of his audit, the respondent engaged a number of the complainant's ministers, including asking the communications director of the Office of the President, the Minister of Information, the author and the signatory of the complaint. The various telephone interactions, including off-register, with said agents of the State can be disclosed to this Commission only with the express consent of these parties, in strict compliance with the law.
This question from the defendant to Mr. Arhin was therefore the following: "Good evening. I called earlier. I'm reporting on De-Eye Group, a militant NPP group led by Nana Wireko Addo, aka Choman, former bodyguard of President Akufo-Addo. I have information that the group operates from the castle of Christianbourg. Some group leaders say the president is aware of their operations in this country. I spoke to a source close to Jubilee House, close to the president, who denied the presence of the group at the castle and the knowledge of the president, but this is not the official answer, according to the source. I will be happy to have the official answer on this subject by tomorrow. "
This is what Mr. Arhin responded: "The President is not aware of the alleged activities of this group, let alone punish them. My national security checks revealed that no group of this type operates from the castle.
That the group operates an office in the castle is a fact. Refer to the complainant's confirmation in Exhibit "1".
That the leader of the group is a former H.E. bodyguard the president is a fact as noted in the documentary. Refer to the complainant's confirmation in Exhibit "1".
The group was deported by a joint task force of police and national security after meeting at the castle and operating in an office. See Exhibit "1".
This defendant also took note of the statement of the State Security Minister, Bryan Acheampong, of Sunday, March 10, 2019, that the security apparatus was "aware that Nana Wireko, aka Choman , had founded his company The Castle Secretariat, where we warned him twice and stopped, threw him out of the office and closed it in October at our third meeting with him. You will find attached Exhibit "6".
The fact that the castle at the time of the events constituted a safe area is a fact for reasons, inter alia, that security agents have confirmed, including allowing only a restricted entry or qualified , banning activities / activities such as journalists shooting videos.
Following the previous paragraph, Joseph Ackah Blay of the respondent, who covered the said meetings of the Commission at the castle, had twice attempted to report live from that location and had not been able to do it inside or outside the castle. Security told him that it was a security zone and that his camera was not allowed anywhere but inside the room where the cameras were being held. debates.
Further to the previous subparagraph, Dr. Kwesi Aning of the International Peace Training Center Kofi Annan was prevented by security from entering the castle when he was invited to appear before the said Commission. In an interview, NewsFile, one of the world's leading security experts, told the respondent that it was a security zone and that his car had no security clearance. Exhibit "7" is attached hereto.
In addition to the previous sub-paragraph, the castle was known as an annex to the government headquarters housing up to four ministers' ministries in the president's office.
That said, the castle still houses a fuel service station specifically for the offices / officers of the state.
During his appearance before the Commission, the State Minister for National Security, Bryan Acheampong, referred to people dressed in black and white at the castle and called them National Security Officers. . The defendant has a different point of view and has the same right that the national security officers are not in uniform. These people were obviously members of the De-Eye group.
That the complaint concerning the defendant's use of a file photo for online publication, as presented by the complainant, merely betrays mischief or ignorance of the practice of journalism. The respondent produced a television commercial for the documentary, which was in any case a television documentary. The use of an "archive photo" for its online publication is an authorized practice and does not violate any rule or law in journalism. The file photo used for the online publication was accompanied by the inscription "Photo File" and therefore should not mislead readers. A copy is attached and marked with "8".
The complainant should not have the right to complain about the aforementioned documentary and to point out in particular what he claims to be a deliberate omission of the "important fact" of an alleged date of closure of the group office at the castle after ignoring the opportunity offered to him. for reactions before diffusion. The respondent was entitled to transcribe as far as possible the facts gathered, including the plaintiff 's categorical denial of the group' s knowledge of the castle when the respondent had offered him his chance.
The respondent will argue that the grievor's late / ex post facto claim of "material fact" can only be a fact or fact of a material nature known to the plaintiff only. In any event, the complainant 's contention that the activities of the group at the castle would cease by October 2018 can only be false, at least for the respondent, because the respondent has proved the ocular evidence to the contrary, including what is stated here in paragraph (L) of paragraph 13. The complete images of the investigation are made available to the Commission upon request.
The complaint about the content of the first six minutes of the documentary is a most misleading attempt to dictate and direct discretion in a clever censorship and it must be rejected from the outset. The content in question was very relevant and of public interest.
The respondent submits that the alleged acts are matters of great interest to the public at large and to its leaders, to the point that HE the President is setting up a constitutional commission, enjoining political party leaders to take their place in the country. to put an end to the phenomenon and instruct the Attorney General to submit a bill for this purpose.
In the premises of the preceding paragraph, the respondent and the public had a corresponding or common interest in this matter, and the said programs / publications of the documentary were broadcast in accordance with the duty imposed by the Constitution on the media and citizens in general.
The respondent submits that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and that this complaint is baseless, illegal and
unconstitutional action mainly aimed at:
obstruction and frustration, in an unconstitutional and lawful manner, of the defendant and the media in the exercise of the duty and obligation imposed upon them and the citizens, under the terms of the f) Article 41 of the Constitution "to protect and preserve public property and to denounce and combat the misuse and waste of public funds";
obstruction and unconstitutional and illegal frustration of the defendant and the media in the exercise of the rights to speech and the media guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution;
to unconstitutionalize and unlawful violation of citizens' right to information guaranteed by Article 21 (f) of the Constitution, especially for matters of public interest.
contrary to the Constitution and illegally to censorship and to undermine the freedom and independence of the defendant and the media, in violation of Article 162 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.
to prohibit and prevent, unconstitutionally and unlawfully, to prevent the defendant from exercising the privileges guaranteed in section 162 (4) of the Constitution which: [e]Broadcasters, newspaper publishers and other media institutions are not subject to government interference or punishment, nor are they harbaded for their editorial opinions and views, or for the content of their publications.
to prohibit and prevent unconstitutionally and unlawfully preventing the defendant from exercising the heavy duty imposed on the media under section 162 (5) of the Constitution which : [a]All media organs are free to respect the principles, provisions and objectives of this Constitution, as well as the Government's responsibility to the people of Ghana.
The complainant should not be allowed to impose his or her set of facts and interpretations on the respondent, as this seems to be the meaning of the complaint and nothing more.
The respondent submits that he never committed professional misconduct or breach of any rule, code, statute or constitution, and that he certainly never accused the complainant of including a documentary containing about "offensive, totally wrong". produces gross distortion of facts and savage speculation. "
As a result, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs he seeks, and his complaint is unfounded and unmeritorious and should be dismissed, with a retraction order and an apology to the respondent for discrediting the complaint. reputation of the respondent and his appointed staff, including in his press release and this widely publicized complaint.
The Respondent also implores the Commission to ensure a complete record of its hearing of this complaint and to make a reasoned decision dealing with each complaint of the complaint with respect to the headings / grounds of each response to the response.
DONE AT A-PARTNERS @ LAW, H / NO. 4, EASMON ST., OPP. THE CLINIC OF CONFIDENCE CLOSE TO CLUB 250 AT THE ARRIVAL OF MAIN ROUNDABOUT, DANSOMAN, ACCRA, THIS MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2019.
SAMSON LARDY ANYENINI ESQ.
PARTNERS TO THE LAW
LAWYERS OF THE RESPONDENT
L & # 39; AG. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION
ACCRA
AND TO INDICATE THE COMPLAINANT VIA HON. KOJO OPPONG – NKRUMAH, MINISTER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION, ACCRA.
Click here to read Part 1: Read Multimedia's Response to the Government's Complaint Regarding the NMC Militia Documentary (PART 1)
Ghana News: Latest news in Ghana
Source link
