By James Tamba Lebbie
Seldom do people try to make a distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. It becomes even more difficult to do so when those that have to make such distinction are carried away by narrow partisan ego at the expense of rational judgment and national considerations. And for those who can make that distinction, they would most probably agree that certain practices that are acceptable within the legal boundaries can be ethically unacceptable. The above comment is made in the context of the on-going ethical dilemma confronting some Trustees of our so-called public broadcaster, the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation.
As a Public Communications major at New York’s Fordham University I argued vociferously - in my thesis on public service broadcasting with Sierra Leone as a case study and in some fora I attended as well as articles I have written on the subject matter - that the governance framework of the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) is flawed to say the least. In particular, my swipe is at the composition of the Board of Trustees, the SLBC’s governing body, which has as part of its mandate, the formulation of policies and to insulate the entity from outside interference. Within the two year existence of this supposedly public institution, the signs are everywhere for anyone who cares to know that its direction is skewed more towards a government-controlled institution than a public entity despite propagated rhetorics on its “independence”.
As if it is in support of my position and argument that there is the potential for a pliable public service broadcaster, the Sierra Association of Journalists (SLAJ) last week issued a news release stating that it has resolved in a general meeting that “Easmon Ngakui who represents the Sierra Leone Bar Association and Festus Minah who represents the Civil Society Movement should resign or be recalled from the Board by the organisations they represent”.
“The release states that “Mr. Ngakui was elected in December last year by the main opposition Sierra Leone People's Party as a member of their Legal Team, while Mr. Minah who is the acting Chairman of the Board in the absence of the substantive, is Chairman of the ruling All People's Congress party in a constituency in Pujehun district”.
In the release, Umaru Fofana, President of SLAJ notes that “these two men cannot continue representing civil society organisations on such a sensitive Board when they are officials of political parties” adding that “there is, clearly, a moral question and a conflict of interest bordering on political partisanship, which makes the two men unfit to continue being members of an outfit whose key principle must be independence, impartiality and neutrality – especially political neutrality.”
But what says the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation Act of 2009? In Section 4(2), the Act states that “A person shall cease to be a member of the Board on any of the following grounds: (a) for his inability to perform the functions of his office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; (b) for proven misconduct; (c) if he becomes bankrupt or insolvent; (d) if he is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty; (e) if he fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Board without reasonable cause; or (f) if he resigns his office by written notice to the president.
This in essence, means the people against whom SLAJ has taken a position have not in any way, shape, or form violated the SLBC Act because the document is silent on such matters. And probably because of such an omission in the Act, the argument in the SLAJ news release was not one bordering on legality. Rather, it states clearly that the issue raised is of moral (and I would add, ethical) concerns and which constitutes a conflict of interest. As I write this piece, attempts to solicit the views of the two people singled out in the SLAJ press release has proved futile. While Easmon Ngakui said he could not comment on the matter, I could not reach Festus Minah on his phone for his response. However, my source in Pujehun told me Festus is indeed the APC Chairman of Constituency 88. My source also told me there are records of his participation as lead discussant in several radio discussion programmes on Radio Wanjei in Pujehun.
This means therefore that my argument would be based on ethical considerations within the context of a trans-Atlantic public media analysis. Ironically, the legal basis for my moral and ethical argument is enshrined in Section 11 (2)(c) of the SLBC Act, which states that the functions of the Corporation shall be guided by “promotion of fair competition based on internationally accepted principles for a public broadcaster, which include independent management, public service ethos and representation of all viewpoints and sectors of society in a non-partisan and objective manner”. No doubt, my focus on the above quote is on the phrases “based on internationally accepted principles for a public broadcaster” and “representation of all viewpoints and sectors of society in a non-partisan and objective manner”.
In terms of “internationally acceptable principles for a public service broadcaster”, I will take a look at the Board of Trustees of the BBC, which closely approximates the SLBC model of public service broadcasting. Like Sierra Leone, the BBC has a centralized management structure with a quasi-centralized editorial control. Moreover, the Queen through the Prime Minister, appoints all eleven Trustees of the BBC on the advice of the ministers in charge of the department for Culture, Media and Sports. However, the Trustees are strictly governed by a “Royal Charter”, an “Agreement” and a number of “Protocols” that forbid them from meddling into partisan matters.
In contrast across the Atlantic, the United States has a decentralised public service media editorial control but whose governance body – the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) – also constitutes a 15-member Board of Presidential appointees. As far as I know, there is no point in the history of US public broadcasting since its inception in 1967, that Board member has joined a political party and continue to part of the CPB. The argument I’m trying to make is that the SLBC has violated “internationally acceptable principles for a public service broadcaster” even if such a violation is ethical in nature. And under condition of anonymity, two of the Trustees told me their colleagues singled out in the SLAJ news release should resign if they subscribed to the same moral and ethical judgment.
But moral and ethical judgments aside. The SLAJ Secretary General, Ismail Koroma told me, as it stands now, if the SLBC Act is adhered to, there would be instances when the Board cannot form a quorum and by extension, reach decisions over the running of such an important institution. The SLBC Act states in Section 9(1) that “any member having a personal interest whether pecuniary or otherwise, direct or indirect through any member of his immediate family or business partner, in any matter to be considered by the Board shall disclose the fact of such interest and the nature thereof, and such disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of Board, and such member shall take no part in any deliberation or discussion of the Board relating to such matter”. According to my source, there are six functioning Board of Trustees in the country (even though there is provision for nine) and the Act states in Section 8(6) that “The quorum for a meeting of the Board shall be 5”. And taking into consideration the simmering political tension in the country, some of which ultimately has to do with disquiet by some opposition parties over the nature and scope of SLBC’s coverage of political events as we approach November for the multi-tier elections, the two Trustees that belong to the two dominant political parties (APC and SLPP) would have to excuse themselves from Board meetings if matters relating to either of the political parties are under deliberation. This means there will be four Board members – inadequate to form a quorum for a meeting.
So while moral and ethical questions are being raised over the partisan involvement of two Trustees of one of our most important public institutions, the point should be made that nothing in the SLBC Act suggests that it has been violated. This clearly tells us about the inadequate nature of the SLBC’s governance framework. Put in simple terms, our Trustees have clearly crossed the ethical line but the sacred document that should serve as a deterrent to such unacceptable practice is completely silent.
