By James Tamba Lebbie
Seldom do national institutions that rely on donor funding frown on
international criticisms. And if they do, they do so privately. In
contrast to such an attitude, local reproach, even if constructive
and justified, is considered an anathema, with the latter often
becoming a subject of scathing attacks.
And this has often been the case in countries like Sierra Leone, where the few existing
independent media and civil society groups are branded as detractors
or labeled as part of the political opposition (a strategy often used
to silence them, even if counterproductive) whenever they attempt to
perform their functions objectively, i.e., monitoring and reporting
on state institutions and actors and pointing out divergences from
acceptable democratic norms.
My comment is informed by the reaction and non-reaction by the management of our
so-called public broadcaster to two similar publications this year by Politico newspaper
and more recently, The Economist magazine.
In its 1 September 2012 edition, The Economist magazine published a piece with entitled: “A
small radio station in Sierra Leone offers big lessons for the UN”.
The article is on Sierra Leone’s failed experimentation of public
service broadcasting by shedding some light on the shambolic nature
of the SLBC, which contains the following excerpt:
“In Sierra Leone, which once hosted 17,000 UN peacekeepers, the UN tried
a bold new approach. By merging its station—the country’s most
popular—with the government-controlled Sierra Leone Broadcasting
Service, it hoped to create a truly even-handed public-service
broadcaster, a rarity in Africa. The UN provided some cash, though
the station was meant to pay its own way through advertising. Two
years on, all is far from well. Reception is poor thanks to shoddy
engineering. Programmes routinely start late and suffer
from government interference. Claudia Anthony, who recently resigned
as head of radio, said that the government persistently meddled, even
insisting on slots for the ruling party’s announcements. Money is
at the root of the broadcaster’s many ills. An independent audit in
2010 said that financial controls were 'very ineffective or
non-existent'. By mid-2012, the broadcaster was about three billion
Leones ($690,000) in debt. The UN admits that the service is 'not a
success' but says it is determined to support it until after
presidential elections due in November.”
Ten days after this publication, the management of the SLBC is yet to
come out with a rejoinder to this criticism. And if it has done so,
it has done it quietly and privately. But contrast this reticence to
the vociferous reaction to Politico’s news story on a leaked audited report published on 2 May 2012. The
newspaper and its editorial team came under a savage and vitriolic
attack by the management of the government-controlled SLBC. Its only
crime was to carry a front page news story on a leaked KPMG audit
report with the headline: “KPMG Indicts SLBC”.
The object was merely to inform the public (to whom the SLBC should
be accountable) about an audited report on the SLBC for the year 2010
prepared by that reputable accounting firm.
Among other issues, Politico highlighted KPMG’s concern over the “Control
environment” of the SLBC in which the latter states that “the
whole system of control, financial and otherwise established by the
corporation to safeguard its assets and ensure the completeness,
accuracy and reliability of its records were generally found to be
very ineffective or non-existent.” Besides, the story carried other
revelations in the audited report which states that “sufficient and
appropriate audit evidence is lacking” for “property, plant and
equipment amounting to 11 Billion Leones,” and that the corporation
has maintained an “unhealthy” cash management system.
In specific terms, the story mentioned a “flawed” procurement
process in the audited report relating to the SLBC satellite uplink
and a backup system for the TV channel, which the Board of Trustees
approved on 18 November, 2010 costing the institution a whopping sum
of US$ 397,505. Another specific revelation by the audited report was
about the Board of Trustees, which according to the report, “receives
sitting fees and are so paid even if they did not attend board
meetings. In addition the Board of directors are paid monthly
salaries, totalling to Le40 million per month. This is very unusual
as they are not executive directors and are not involved in the day
to day operations of the corporation.” Indeed, Politico
carried the story only after seeking responses from both the Director
General and Acting Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the SLBC to
some allegations contained in the audited report.
In a lengthy press release issued on 4 May, 2012 both as a rejoinder and
apparently as a filler to occupy space in the absence of serious
programming, the management of the SLBC accused Politico
of “making a story out of an inconclusive and unsigned document.” It states: “management
views the reporting of The Politico with suspicion,” adding that “while the SLBC strongly supports
the freedom of information and accepts Politico
as partners in the media, we call on that organ and indeed all media
to be mindful of the professional ethics of reporting, especially
inconclusive and unauthenticated reports.” So while the SLBC was
swift in condemning our story on its financial mess, it has remained
reticent to the article published by The Economist on the same subject.
And thanks to the UN, which has continued to serve as cheerleader for such a failed
enterprise at the expense of ordinary Sierra Leoneans, the editorial team of Politico
feels absolutely vindicated today by The Economist
by pointing out at the very administrative rot and incompetence that
characterize the SLBC management.
And that the UN can admit to an international publication that indeed, the SLBC is
“not a success” but will continue to babysit the entity with
taxpayers’ money until the November polls is both a mockery and a
paradox. What sense does it make for the UN to continue spending
money on a project it has admitted is not a success? And while one
could, perhaps, understand the need for a public broadcaster in
crucial elections like these, admitting that the existing one is not
working, yet supporting its existence is sheer hypocrisy on the part
of the UN.
In fact, the UN can be accused of being an accomplice in the demise of the SLBC
because under its very watch, the government has hijacked the
institution from the public; and under its watch the SLBC has
systematically derailed from its fundamental mission which is to
provide a level playing field for representation of all voices and
shades of opinion in the country, regardless of their background; and
under its watch the SLBC has been staffed by the most incompetent
people both at the management and editorial levels. And if the UN
were sincere with themselves after acknowledging the failure of that
institution, they could have supported robustly the establishment of
alternative media to counter the journalistic façade coming out of
the SLBC.
A testament to my indictment of the UN on its complicity in the collapse of the
supposed public broadcaster is the fact that it is still refusing to
make public the Elizabeth Smith Report on the SLBC. The report of the
study, commissioned by the UN with mandate to look into the
non-financial aspects of the operations of the SLBC, and done by
Elizabeth Smith who is the former secretary general of the
Commonwealth Broadcasting Association with vast knowledge in public
service broadcasting, was made available to the UN about six months
ago.
I’m told that among other things, the report calls for the complete overhaul of the
SLBC management and a lay-off of over half of the editorial staff,
most of whom were recruited on the basis of patronage and partisan
interests under the watch of the UN. And that the UN will refuse to
make public a report about a public broadcaster probably because its
content is unfavorable to the SLBC summarizes the UN’s failure to
side with the people of Sierra Leone in the context of establishing a
true and functional public service broadcaster.
(c)
Politico 14/09/12
