Samson Lardy Anyenini writes: Do not destroy the National Media Commission

Last week, I made a promise. I hold myself there. The rule I imposed myself is to avoid writing about topics when they are discussing this platform. It is common knowledge that even the most stupid citizens have seen the hard and fast facts of the case that the NMC complaints committee ruled last week. No citizen in search of truth believes this as a sham decision. It was a ridiculous speech from someone who looked like he had never sat in the five-month hearing before a panel of about six people, and who would not mind him embarrbading and tarnish the reputation of an important constitutional body set up promoting the freedoms and norms of the media.

Read these facts, but check the following sacred facts in the process and tell me if it was written by the panel, and I doubt that the panelists approved it as a collective. This is a ridiculous abuse of the constitutional mandate of the panel and unfortunately affects the entire body known as the NMC.

1. Affirm that, just like the complaint, the response was disclosed to the public before being forwarded to the NMC offices is false. We made these corrections several times when the chair spoke about them, but obviously he was not interested in the facts but in equalization. The answer was delivered to the CNG offices before the Daily Graphic found it.
2. None of the documents submitted by one or the other party has been apologized in so-called excuses. Never the same thing was raised during the hearing. Who has smuggled it into this report?
3. The objection to the President presiding over this case is not only due to the fact that it is the first time that a representative of the President presides over the NMC, but also that in case of a loss of the offer, a party man not sworn in as a member of the CNM collides with the first meeting to express the winning vote. A critical point was the fact that he was going to try a journalist who had written to criticize him as a partisan politician doubling into an impartial media practitioner. The government was the first to oppose the GJA president being on the panel because of the glowing comments about the journalist and the work he has done. He did not participate in the process from that day even though the objection was rejected. Even judges refuse to preside over certain cases when no contestation of bias or potential conflict of interest is raised by a litigant.
4. Did JoyFM and Manbadeh provide non-controversial documentary and video evidence to conclusively prove that the group did not leave Osu Castle in October 2018, as the government claimed without any evidence? Yes! Perhaps the committee felt that the government had stated, even though it had expelled the group on the third attempt, that it had nevertheless approved a request from the group to use the Castle for a party in December 2018. Note that no evidence of this approved official application was offered.
5. Has non-controversial documentary and video evidence been provided to prove that the group was a "vigilante" with a known leader of the Invisible Forces, confirming that it was a "vigilante" group affiliated to the nuclear power plant? Yes!
6. Has documentary evidence without controversy been provided to the group leader stating that the group formed in 2009 "is composed of men and women from dynamic NPIs across the country, whose main objective is to protect members and ballot boxes from elections? " Yes!
7. The panel states that the group did not present any violence trait. Does it agree that is the same government group that was kidnapped on the third attempt and by a joint national security police operation? The author of the documentary showed the panel private and confidential conversations between him and the highest officials of national security, and what was it? Yes, as was heard in the documentary and as confirmed by journalist Kweku Baako, this group has had long battles against national security. Phew!
8. Was there a challenge or lack of evidence?
   

   Warning: "The views / contents expressed in this article only imply that the responsibility of the authors) and do not necessarily reflect those of modern Ghana. Modern Ghana can not be held responsible for inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. "