Sharma Originating Motion misconceived
-asking Court to dismiss summons
WHEN the Sharma’s Summons for Notice of Motion & Conservatory Order that are designed to have the Court quash the findings of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting(ACB)resumes On Monday, the ACB  will contend  that the Originating Notice of Motion is misconceived. The ACB will also ask Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, S.C. to find  that the Motion is invalid and is not in conformity with the Rules of the Court.
This was embodied in an affidavit in answer by ACB Member Evan Persaud made on behalf of himself and fellow member Mr. Norman Mc Lean. This document has been filed in the Supreme Court Registry.
The Originating Summons and a Constitutional Motion thereto are expected to be heard jointly on Monday when the hearing is expected to continue before the Chief Justice at 1.30 p.m.
At an earlier Ex Parte hearing, the Chief  Justice  had granted the applicants, Chandranarine Sharma and Savitree Singh an Order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari which directed that the Motion be served on the Advisory Committee of Broadcasting.
The Order had also directed the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting to show cause why a writ or order of  certiorari should not be issued to bring to the Honourable Court to quash firstly, its findings that the applicants  were in breach of  Regulation 23A   the Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (No. 2)  Regulations 201 ( the Regulation)and secondly, its recommendation of sanction against the licencees for airing on Channel 6 on the 4th May, 2011, a commentary by Anthony Vieira  which was submitted  to the President (in his capacity as the Minister of Information) and requested in his letter  30th September , 2011,  to the applicants informing them  that  he had accepted  the recommendation  of the ACB and suspended their Television Broadcast licence 332/V/12/0T 2001 of CNS Channel 6 for four months.
A sanction contested on the ground that the ACB was not lawfully constituted  as required by  Regulation 23B (2) of the  Regulation, lacks legal authority  and its decisions were unfair, unreasonable, unlawful, irrational , procedurally improper, in breach of natural justice , ultra vires, null, void and of no legal effect.”
In his affidavit in answer Mr. Evan Persaud had said among other things, “That I am advised by my Attorney-at-law, Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C. and verily believe that inasmuch as the reliefs claimed under the Summons hereto are under Article 153 of the Constitution, I cannot properly be made a party thereto.
“That in any event I am likewise advised and do verily believe that  inasmuch as the Fundamental  Rights,(Practice and Procedure), Act. NO. 13 OF 1988  provides  for redress  under Article 153 of the Constitution to be  by way of Originating Motion, the Originating Notice of Motion utilized here is misconceived  and invalid and is not in conformity with the Rules of the Court.
“That I am also advised by my Attorney-at-law Mr. Ashton Chase and verily believe that there is no legal provision  for a Conservatory Order to be made against me.
“That I did not personally and individually tender any advice or made any recommendation  to the President His Excellency Bharrat Jagdeo resulting in or touching the suspension of the Applicants’ broadcasting licence Channel 6.
‘‘That, although as member of that statutory body, I did not make or purport to make any decision  touching the above matter in my individual official capacity. Further, that individual members of the ACB  cannot be made answerable for the acts and conduct of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB).
“That I am advised by Senior Counsel Mr. Ashton Chase and do verily believe that it was the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting in the course of its duties that did so. This is a statutory body established under Regulation 23 B (1) of the Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation, which acts independently as a collective body  and is answerable therefore  and not through the individual members thereof.
“That in the circumstances  I am advised as aforesaid  and verily believe  that the Originating Notice of Motion against me in my capacity as a member of the above Committee is misconceived as a matter of law.
“That I am further advised as aforesaid and verily believe that the relief claimed in the instant Motion is in any event not available under the
State Liability and Proceedings Act, 1984 against  an individual who is not an agent or servant of the State.
“That as to qualifications of members of the  Advisory Committee on Broadcasting the Affidavit by Mr. Woolford attached to the ‘Motion’ will be dealt with when the Motion is being treated with.  The qualifications set out in the  Regulations are not restricted to academic qualifications or practice.  Knowledge and competence have, also, to be taken into account.  Mr. Mc Lean’s true and full qualifications were not set out in the affidavit under response.   The response did not state that he also served as Deputy Commissioner of Police and Head of the Joint Services which included the Intelligence Units of both the GPP and the GDF and cases touching broadcasting  came within  his purview  and actual experience.  In addition, for years he was Head of Omai’s Public Relations Department and had to deal with the Media – both broadcast and newspapers.
“Mr. Case has been exempted from criticism hereto.  From August 2001 to May 2005, I was host of MTV Quiz  Show  at Channels 4  and 65, also news reader of News Update on the said Channels in April  2007 and News Editor. I was also the Media Assistant on the said Channels from 2000-2008, a guest on shows of Dr.  Love on Channel STVS Channel 4/12 appearances (2000-2001) and I was associated with Apex Forum Guest on MTV for more than 50 shows.
“That as to the allegation of removal of Mr. Case by me – Corbin is an Attorney-at-law and should know that intention to remove (even though with immediate effect) is not removal. It is only an intention to do so – a plan or resolve but not the actual removal, the said plan or resolve until effected was subject to change of variation,” the affidavit in answer said in part.
When the hearing of the matter is continued on Monday afternoon, Mr. Rex Mc Kay, S.C. and Mr. Neil Boston will appear for the applicants,  while Mr. Ashton Chase,  S.C.,  will appear for the  ACB Respondents.