[ad_1]
News selected on manbadehazure.com and titled "BEHIND THE DECISION AFFOLISHED: the facts ignored by the CNG", the investigative journalist explains his disagreement with the National Media Commission [NMC] on their decision.
The complete declaration reads …
National Media Commission [NMC] denied the government's request for an "order of retraction and apologies to the Government of Ghana on the content" of the documentary on the militia. The government also demanded the commission "other disciplinary measures", but this was not granted.
The NMC decision, however, contained disturbing comments in the form of conclusions and deliberate silence on issues related to the content of the documentary, which the Multimedia group provided enough evidence to support its arguments.
The report signed by the president of the CNG, Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh, whose multimedia group opposed the inclusion in the disciplinary committee of the CNS, but was dismissed, and neglected the material evidence (audiovisual and documentary) presented by the multimedia group and made unjustified comments to the support. with no documentary fact.
Objection against Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh
The Multimedia group opposed the inclusion of Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh, because he is appointed by the President in the CNG and should not preside over the case brought by the government, chaired by the President. He is appointed by the president to chair the CNG. In addition, the Multimedia group also raised the issue of possible bias because the documentary producer was right to question its objectivity even though it [Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh] He was still working as a reporter for the daily newspaper Daily Graphic. In an article published in the October 4, 2010 issue of the Daily Graphic, Manbadeh Azure Awuni described Mr. Boadu-Ayeboafo as a "Danawah-Busia traditionist," titled "Politicians in Journalistic Coat, l & # 39; example of Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh ". [an NPP sympathiser] in the pastoral cloak of journalism. This article and a detailed objection were submitted to the CNG, the objection was rejected.
Nine questions and the decision
The government raised nine (9) questions in its petition to the NMC. The CNG's decision was essentially based on the photo of the file used in the promotional documentary and the name of "militia" and ignored all material facts and evidence and issues raised in the main documentary. Even in both cases, the multimedia group provided sufficient evidence to prove that no journalistic ethics had been violated.
Even when the CNM had to talk about the fact that exposing the operation of the group to the castle was in the state interest, she said: "In the end, the Commission discovered that the attempt to reveal the fact that the group The Minister of Information, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, stressed the word "attempt" during interviews with the media, as if the revelation of the activities of the group since the castle was in doubt . The government has admitted that, but the tone of the NMC in its decision seems too cautious not to hurt the government.
In fact, there are at least six (6) issues for which the government was plainly wrong and had no defense to support its claim, but the NMC, in its decision, did not stated only one case when the government's charge against the multimedia group as contained in the complaint and its press conference were erroneous. When it was clear that the government was wrong, the NMC decision ignored the issue or simply stated the complaint without making any comment.
This is despite the fact that the Multimedia Group, in its defense, asked the NMC to rule on each of the nine issues raised by the government before considering the relief sought by the government. The Commission did not rule on most of the issues, even though they were either debated at the hearing, or contained in the government's motion and in Multimedia's defense. There was no agreement at the hearing to have some issues resolved.
At the penultimate hearing, the President noted that there were numerous problems and that it was possible for one or the other of the parties to have favorable or unfavorable rulings. However, the CNG ignored all the evidence provided by the Multimedia group and found itself without even a single decision or grievance against the government, even though there was sufficient evidence to do so, as shown below.
In each case, when the Multimedia group provided enough evidence to refute an issue raised in the government's petition, the NMC made its decision without saying anything or simply exposed the issue and left it open. Here are the issues that have been determined by NMC.
Violence and Kumasi incidents in Ayawaso were used to launch the documentary
The CNM stated that the commentary and the documentary badociation with the violence of Ayawaso West Wuogon was misleading, but that she could not cite any aspect of the commentary in the document she had found misleading. It is common practice that in documentaries, the background of the story is defined and that the Multimedia group explains with previous documentaries that documentaries, such as research, could have the background of the story or a definition of the problem it addresses.
The documentary "Sad SADA Saga" of 2014 on the SADA program failed in the north of the country, produced by the same media house, started with life in Agbogloshie in Accra. And the "Grounded Wheel documentary" produced by the same journalist started with the struggles of rural people to access basic necessities such as education and health, before moving on to how the money that could have been used to solve their fate is wasted.
This documentary was about a militant / militant group and the incidents of Ayawaso West Wuogon and Kumasi were related to the activities of the self-defense groups. These are related topics. The government's response to Ayawaso's violence was not a restructuring of national security, whose members are brutal. The government has launched a bill to combat activism, which means that there is a link between the violence we describe in documentary and activism / activism. Thus, a documentary on the subject of the vigilance of political parties can not be considered false when the background of the documentary contained these images. The narrative in the documentary does not in any way suggest or suggest that the masked men seen brutalizing people in Ayawaso West Wuogon were members of the De-Eye group. There was no confusion between the background of the documentary and the activities of De-Eye Group.
2. When the group of eyes left the castle
In its judgment, the NJC said: "About the exit of the D-Eye group castle, while the government insisted that the group be expelled in October 2018, the Multimedia group claimed that it was after the documentary that the expulsion had occurred. . The Commission abandoned this point with disinterest, without comment or conclusion, as there was no evidence to reach a conclusion.
The multimedia group has provided irrefutable evidence to the CNG that the group was still active at the castle after October 2018. The government has not provided any evidence to support its claim that the group was expelled. in October 2018.
READ PHOTOS: Krachi SHS alumni build a library for the school
The multimedia group provided the CNG with a video sequence of the group in the castle on December 10, 2018, talking about the Dombo program that the group had attended on December 7, 2018 at the Accra International Conference Center. This meant that it was impossible to leave the premises in October 2018. The Multimedia group also provided the CNM with evidence of the De-Eye Group website, which still indicated that the group had been operating since castle even after the broadcast of the documentary.
During the hearing, the multimedia group notably pointed out that the group's website always announced the location of its exploitation even after the broadcast of the documentary, but that the chairman of the NMC's disciplinary committee, Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh , said the group might have forgotten to change it on the site.
The government admitted to the Commission that the group met at the Chateau on December 21, 2018, filmed by JoyNews. The government has, however, stated that it has obtained permission to do so. At the end of the hearing before the NMC, the government did not provide evidence of the Group's letter of application that it promised to use to support its request.
Surprisingly, however, the NMC deliberately failed to take these facts into account and put the above commentary in the report as if neither party was able to produce evidence in support of the demand.
3. Using the file photo for online promotion
One of the problems the government had with the documentary was the use of a library photo in the online promotion of the documentary. This photo was titled "Photo File" in the online publication. At the hearing, the CNM agreed that it was the usual practice in journalism. Some members of the Commission, however, stated that there should have been an additional explanation. We asked if they were trying to change the rule and practice by introducing additional labeling. This image did not appear in the content of the documentary. However, the NMC used this base to describe the survey as a whole as not having met ethical standards.
4. Association with the president
The CNM also came to the following conclusion in its report: "Once again Multimedia provided evidence of attempts by government officials to remove the group from the castle, but it did badociate the president with this group and the group. Commission ruled that it was unfair, especially when the multimedia group subsequently issued a public apology to the president. "
This conclusion is absurd and insult the intelligence of the Commission. The documentary indicated that the commander of the De-Eye group was a former bodyguard of the president. The fact that government officials attempted to remove the group from the castle did not and does not negate this important fact.
In addition, as the documentary shows, it was De-Eye Group's "Chief of Staff" who told the President that the President was aware of the group's activities at the castle. This was not said in the commentary. The documentary producer only addressed the President to respond to the Group's allegation that he was aware of their activities in that country. The president denied and his full answer was taken up in the documentary. It is therefore absurd for the NMC to blame Multimedia for connecting the president. And the evidence that the government tried to remove the group from the castle has no correlation with whether the president is aware of the group or not.
And the multimedia group has not apologized to the president for linking it to the group. A comment on the morning show aimed to correct an erroneous impression that was not contained in the documentary.
This question of supposed excuses has never been addressed during the whole process at the CNG.
5. De-Eye Group at the Dombo event
The government also stated that the Multimedia group had not provided any evidence to support the claim that De-Eye Group had ensured the safety of the Dombo program. At the hearing where the Deputy Minister of Justice and Attorney General spoke about it, the only woman member of the Commission asked her: "Did you watch the documentary before saying that?"
Despite the substantial evidence provided by the Multimedia group, the CNG remained silent on this subject.
6. The question to the director of communication of the presidency
The multimedia group also provided evidence of the exact questions addressed to the communication director of the presidency to obtain a response sufficiently covering the subject treated and constituting in no case a violation of the ethics of the multimedia group. The government said the multimedia group had "maliciously" raised the issue of the president's spokesperson in the documentary. The proof of the question provided to the NMC was:
"Good evening, I called earlier." I'm reporting on De-Eye Group, a militant activist group of the NPP headed by Nana Wireko Addo, aka Choman, former bodyguard of President Akufo-Addo. I have information that the group operates from Christianburg Castle Some of the leaders of the group say that the president is aware of their operations in this country.I spoke to a source close to Jubilee House, close to the president, who has 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'll 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.
In the light of the above, the Multimedia group did nothing wrong or ethical, but the CNM remained silent.
7. The group providing security services
One of the issues raised by the government was that the documentary did not contain any evidence that the government was providing security services in Accra and outside. The Multimedia group gave proof in the documentary and directed the CNG towards the Dombo event, but did not consider commenting on this issue in its decision.
8. Aspersions on the president
The government raised the issue of denigrating the integrity of the president. Again, the Multimedia group pointed out that the link with the president was to the extent that his former bodyguard was the de-Eye group commander. This is the group that mentioned that the president asked him to know their activities, not the Multimedia group. The CNG ignored this issue in its decision.
9. Is the group vigilant / militia?
The Commission also stated that "the group did not show any violent behavior that could be qualified as a militia or self-defense group according to the documentary because the people of Ghana came to identify these groups ". By decision of the Media Commission, the government agrees with the government. The position that De-Eye Group are job seekers, not an activist as the Multimeida group says with evidence.
The multimedia group said it used the word "militia" after the inquiry commission set up by the government to deal with Ayawaso's violence ordered that the so-called political militia groups be called " militias ". In this regard, the multimedia group provided the NJC with the following script to justify the description of the De-Eye group as a militant / activist group:
On the name of militia, three issues are at stake:
Is De-Eye Group a self-defense group?
Was the Ayawaso Inquiry Commission right to describe vigilante groups as militias? And, finally, in the case before this commission, if JoyNews was right to use the word "militia" in the context used by the commission of inquiry and to attribute to the commission of inquiry, if the group De- Eye is a vigilance group
The government said the group was a team of jobseekers and Bryan Acheampong's statement said the leader ran a recruitment agency at the castle. The government argued that the group is a law-abiding group. The JoyNews survey, like any credible research, relied on primary or first-hand evidence as well as other secondary and independent sources to come to the conclusion that the group was what was known in Ghana as groups. of vigilance. Here are some facts:
- Our audits at the Department of Labor revealed that the group is not authorized to recruit or place. The Ministry of Labor says that operating an unlicensed recruitment or employment agency is an offense punishable by law.
- Our checks with the Ministry of the Interior revealed that the group was not allowed to carry out operations or security services.
- The information on group registration with the Office of the Registrar General has the following characteristics: "Training and professionally implementing youth employment, for example: agriculture, electronics, carpentry and construction. This is not what the group was doing at the castle.
4. In the JoyNews documentary, the Group stated that it was a "family of nuclear power plant". Watchers (in the context of the documentary) are badociated with political parties.
5. The 2012 Daily Guide's report (which was submitted to the Commission) indicates that it is a self-defense group created to protect NPP members from attacks . According to this story, the group was committed to protecting the ballot box in the 2012 elections.
6. UTV's report about the group two years before the Joynews documentary said that it was a vigilance group. The group did not dispute any of these reports.
7. The TV3 interview offered to his leader that there were more than 5,000 young people across the country who believed in the ideologies and politics of President Akufo-Addo. The group said that he had been trained by former military personnel.
8. The website indicates that the group has undertaken safety training
9. The leader of the group is called "commander"
10. The motto of the group is "Vigilance and protection".
11. The group undertook military exercises as captured in our videos.
12. Their salvation is "Ahoo, Ahoyaha!" As used by the army
13. National Security confirmed that in 2017, the Group had badumed the functions of National Security agents stationed at Kotoka International Airport. It took an operation led by the director of national security operations to expel and redeploy national security agents on the ground.
At the time of the documentary, National Security Minister Kan Dapaah said that national security was monitoring the group's illegal activities and that it was gathering enough evidence to arrest and prosecute them.
The Joynews documentary reports that the group's commander told the group members that national security had infiltrated their camps to collect evidence and destroy it, so they had to monitor and denounce national security agents. them.
The group provided security services under the Dombo program at the Accra International Conference Center.
The argument that they were not heard in the media for acts of violence is lame because the names that the Attorney General submitted and the parliament added to the list of "vigilante" groups Of the country are not known to have been involved in acts of violence. The groups that were added to the bill to ban activism in Parliament on July 9, 2019 are: 66 Bench, Al Jazeera, Al Quaeda, Aluta Boys, Bahamas, Baafira, Kukurisung, Burma Camp, Eastern Mambas, Young Gbewa, Lions, NATO Forces, Pentagon, Rasta Boys, Group Se Se, Taliban Boys, Dragons, The Rock, and Tohazie. These groups are apparently obscure and do not make news of violence. If they add to the self-defense groups to ban them, on what basis would the NMC declare that the De-Eye group is not a self-defense group despite the aforementioned facts what is the group?
State Minister for National Security Brian Acheampong said the group leader was arrested after a third warning to stop operations at the castle. This can not be the mark of a law-abiding group.
At a press conference held on March 8, 2019, Information Minister Kojo Oppong Nkrumah said that the group's leader, Nana Wireko Addo, had been "expelled from the scene by a joint operation. involving National Security and Police personnel "It does not take a joint police and national security operation to simply ask a" law-abiding "person or group of people to leave the premises from a major public institution.
In the documentary, Fraser owireky Kegya, the group's chief of staff, complains about the criminal activities perpetrated by members of the group and warns that if they continue, he would let them wallow in custody for a while. would bring them to the meeting and dishonor them. In the documentary, one of the trainers was seen and heard congratulating the group for the past weekend, no group member was arrested by the police.
With these facts, we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Group corresponds to the description of what we have called vigilance political groups in Ghana.
THE SECOND NUMBER Was the Commission of Inquiry right to call vigilante groups militias?
There is no doubt that the Commission knew the difference between a self-defense group and a militia, but decided that what we call activism was not the exact description of the phenomenon.
Professor Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu (Lecturer in Criminal Law at the University of Ghana and former member of the UN Secretary-General's Independent High-Level Panel on Peace Operations) stated that these groups would be called "milita And not militiamen. Judge Emile Short (President of the Commission and former judge of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), President of the Commission, added that "even my friend Martin Amidu is a citizen vigilante" and what was happening in the country was not vigilantism.
Commission Secretary Kofi Abotsi later explained in a televised interview after the Commission reported to the President that the Commission was standing on behalf of the militia for what were known as militiamen. in Ghana. He stated that the Commission reached this conclusion after evaluating the evidence gathered on the organization and functioning of the groups: "In fact, the Commission listened to the evidence and acknowledged that the term appropriate to use was "militia" and no, "Mr. Abotsi said at the PM Express broadcast on Joy News TV, March 18, 2019." (https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2019/march-19th/party-security-are-militias-not-vigilantes- abotsi-defends-short-cssion.php) Our sources say that the commission The survey, in its final report, used the word "militia" to describe the phenomenon often described as a "self-defense group".
It seems that Ghanaian civil society groups agree with the Commission that we can not work with the definition of vigilance in the dictionary when we are dealing with the problem in question.
On June 11, 2019, when the government introduced the Vigilance and Other Offenses Bill, the Executive Director of the DDC, Professor H. Kwesi Prempeh, wrote this on Facebook: "Political vigilante groups like us we know them in Ghana are not "Vigilantes" in the standard English dictionary sense of the word. Thus, drafting a law that purports to dissolve and criminalize the activities of so-called self-defense political groups by relying on the definition of the English dictionary in the English dictionary (for example, "a member of a self-proclaimed group of law enforcement citizens in their community without legal authority, usually because legal agencies are considered to be inadequate ") is a complete failure, despite the best intentions. The so-called self-defense political groups in Ghana are not formed for the purpose of enforcing the law through their own means, despite the factual statements and what the bill oddly badumes or suggests the way that he defined "self-defense group …""(https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=H%20KWASI%20PREMPEH%20VIGILANTE&epa=SEARCH_BOX) When religious groups, civil society organizations met with the Parliament's Constitutional and Legal Committee in order to to discuss the Vigilante Bill, they were unanimous in saying that the name of vigilante did not reflect the phenomenon used to describe the groups and motives of the security of political parties. The National Peace Council actually submitted a written submission opposing the use of the dictionary definition for vigilance in Ghana.
This means that some influential sectors of society agree that with regard to the problem to be solved, the use of the dictionary definition can not take into account the type of "vigilance" in the Ghanaian context.
THE FINAL AND THE MOST IMPORTANT part of this is why we are here, and the Media Commission needs to make a decision. Did JoyNews violate journalistic ethics by using a term prescribed by a board of inquiry to describe a practice to which the board of inquiry attributed that term and badigning it to the board of inquiry?
The answer is no.
At the school of journalism, students learn that journalists are not experts and should not portray themselves as such. Potential journalists are encouraged to rely on expert sources and points of view and to badign these views to the appropriate sources, except when writing or expressing their opinions.
JoyNews has not created the term militia nor introduced its use in this context. The documentary made it clear that the situation was called "vigilance" and indicated that the Inquiry Commission had given the name "militia". He then played the voice of a member of the Commission, giving the complete reason why the name had to change if the nation were to cover the full scope of the threat and find an appropriate solution to it. A journalist or press house that uses the term prescribed and duly attributes the source of the term can not be considered to have committed an act contrary to ethics, even if the Commission is mistaken.
Indeed, when journalists are asked to rely on experts and sources in reporting, we are aware that this entails an additional responsibility to obtain appropriate and credible experts or sources. It may be wrong to talk to a man or woman on the street and consider him an expert on important issues.
The crucial question, then, is whether the commission of inquiry set up by the President of the Republic of Ghana had the credibility and integrity necessary to allow a reasonable man to rely on their judgment or statements?
The answer is yes.
The members of the Ayawaso Violence Investigation Commission are people whose powers are irreproachable and whose judgment or decision on the reasonable man would be accepted. Even the opposition party, which might be unreasonable, could not raise issues with members of the commission. Le président et le gouvernement ont été unanimement félicités par les groupes de la société civile et le grand public pour avoir choisi ce que beaucoup estimaient être des membres très crédibles et compétents de la société.
Lorsque le vice-président Mahamudu Bawumia a juré parmi les membres de la Commission le 8 février 2019, il a déclaré: "Je ne connais personne qui puisse vraiment mettre en doute l'intégrité de la commission."
JoyNews, après la déclaration de la Commission Ayawaso, a cessé d'utiliser les «groupes de vigiles» dans nos actualités. Nous avons utilisé «milice» et lancé une campagne #DisbandPartyMilitiasNow bien avant la diffusion du documentaire. Monsieur le président, le journaliste et la maison de presse, à l'instar de nombreux Ghanéens, estiment qu'il s'agit de l'un des meilleurs choix de membres pour constituer une commission d'enquête. Le gouvernement a été hautement félicité pour la qualité de la Commission. Si les journalistes doivent s’appuyer sur des avis d’experts et attribuer des voix, et à cet égard, le journaliste et la maison de la presse s’en remettent aux vues d’experts de ce qui est considéré comme une commission très crédible et irréprochable, alors quelle règle en matière de journalisme a été enfreinte? Même si quelqu'un n'approuve pas l'opinion de la Commission, qui a le droit de le faire, peut-on reprocher au journaliste de ne pas avoir été éthique pour avoir fait référence à sa déclaration et l'avoir attribuée?
En savoir plus http://www.manbadehazure.com/2019/07/behind-the-flawed-ruling-facts-the-nmc-ignored/
Source link
