The statutory meetings of Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) are public business and therefore there can be no restriction as regards to viewing by members of the public and coverage by the media. In fact, these meetings are very similar to sittings of the National Assembly which are open to the public and the media because its business has to do with the issues affecting the people of this country. As such it is only logical that its business is open to the scrutiny of the public.

Very often the media cover meetings of various RDCs, and actually it would be good if they could do so more frequently as the people on the ground in many cases are out of touch with what is being discussed on their behalf. Unfortunately, the media in Guyana is Georgetown based and there is a perception among journalists that only what happens in the City is news and so many important matters at the level of the RDCs which have pivotal bearing on the lives of the people are left unreported and thus unknown to a large extent.

The business at statutory meetings of RDCs are in fact like a mini-National Assembly sitting and many of their Standing Orders are also similar, but unlike the National Assembly they deal with specific administrative regions.

Openness and transparency are all part of the deepening process of democracy and therefore as the democratic process evolves we should become increasingly open and transparent with respect to the peoplexs business.

Against this backdrop it was therefore shocking to hear that an NCN photographer was debarred from videoing the statutory meeting of the RDC of Region Four. This led to a walkout by PPP Councillors in protest.

Of course the Regional Chairman in a release sought to provide an explanation for the incident but the reasons he gave do not hold much water.

First of all he claimed when he questioned the NCN photographer as to which media house he came from there was no response and in any case he had no identification badge.

Well this is where the matter of these meetings being open to the public so whether the individual was there on behalf of a media house or not has no bearing because he/she could be there simply as a member of the public.

Media personnel are not asked to identify themselves as to which media house they represent when they go to cover sittings of the National Assembly so why should they be required to do so at the level of the RDC?

Secondly the Regional Chairman said he inquired from the Regional Executive Officer whether he had invited the media to which he replied in the negative. This again has no relevance because media houses do not have to be invited to these meetings as there is no law or regulation which prevents them from doing so.

So why then was the cameraman barred from the meeting? Was it because the meeting would have been discussing nuclear secrets or some unique scientific discovery only known to RDC members? The reasoning behind this whole incident boggles the mind and leaves only one possible suggestion and that is there was some sinister motive behind preventing the cameraman from videoing the discussions.

If there was nothing to hide then what was the big deal with the cameraman being there?

These are the questions which should be satisfactorily dealt with.

If a media person from a private news company was debarred by a government agency from covering an event there would have been a big hue and cry about lack of press freedom, dictatorial action etc.

It would be interesting to hear what these people who shout lack of press freedom have to say on this issue.

However, this matter should not be left hanging and the Councillors of that RDC should demand a full and satisfactory explanation of the matter before a full closure is brought on it because this could set a dangerous precedent in the work of the media.