ACTING Chief Justice Mr. Ian Chang, S.C., heard an ex-parte motion from C.N.  Sharma that the suspension of his television licence by former President Bharrat Jagdeo ought to be quashed, since the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB), which had so advised the President, did  not have the legal authority to so do.
Thereafter, Justice Chang called on the ACB to prove otherwise.
Represented by Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashton Chase, the ACB had disclosed that it was the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB), and in the course of its duties, it did so advise the President.
According to Senior Counsel, Aston Chase, “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 therefor and not through the individual members hereof.”
Mr. Evan Persaud, the second named respondent of the ACB, who had made the affidavit in answer on behalf of his colleagues, after being advised by Mr. Ashton Chase, had said, “I 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 the 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.”
On the other hand, Mr. Rex Mc Kay, S.C. and Mr. Neil Boston for the applicants, said in support of their contention that the suspension should fail for lack of authority.

They also said that the applicants were entitled to, but were denied, an oral hearing, the ACB failing to recognise the consequences of an adverse finding against the applicants, which were likely to lead to an infringement by the State of the applicants’ fundamental right of freedom of expression.

They contend that the ACB failed in its duty to give the applicants an opportunity to be heard, and to take reasonable steps to have an oral hearing to acquaint itself with all the relevant information, so that it may make an informed decision whether the applicants had infringed any provision of the amended  Regulation 23 A (a), (b). (b), (c) and (e) of the Postal and Telegraph Act Cap. 47: 010. A hearing in the circumstances was wholly inadequate when considering the likely consequences of an infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
The  lawyers for the applicants noted that the nature of the advice and recommendation purportedly  tendered to the  President qua Minister of  Information, and the process by which it was reached,  required that reasons should be given; and failure of the ACB to give reasons rendered the decision unfair and a denial of natural justice, they claimed.
When the parties met last Monday afternoon, they concluded their arguments, and the Chief Justice decided that his decision would be delivered early next year.