Recording of private conversation was done by Gildharie
–admission now raises questions about professional ethics

“THE recording of the conversation was a decision by the reporter for whatever reason he chooses,” the Kaieteur News admitted Wednesday.

The admission was by way of an article published in the Wednesday edition of the paper, amidst widespread speculation about the circumstances in which the leaked 19-minute telephone conversation was recorded.
One of the questions being asked is whether it was indeed recorded by the reporter, Leonard Gildharie; another is what if it was obtained by way of wiretapping, in which case we could be dealing with a legal infraction.

The answer given has now raised new questions related to the professional ethics of Mr. Leonard Gildharie, a senior Kaieteur news reporter.
The 19-minuute recording of the private conversation on October 25, between the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Anil Nandlall, and a senior Kaieteur News reporter, Mr. Leonard Gildharie, was released last Monday. The release was done by publisher of the Kaieteur News, Mohan Lall, also known as Glenn Lall. He subsequently made a report to the Deputy Police Commissioner, Mr. Balram Persaud, premised on the contention that the contents of the recording indicated that his life, the lives of his family and staff members are under threat.
However, Gildharie’s admission that he recorded the conversation without the consent of Mr. Nandlall has not answered how Lall came into possession of the recording; and if the reporter did not hand over the recording, this could possibly constitute a legal infraction.
Meanwhile, international code of ethics for practising journalists set the benchmark for ethical standards in the press. It covers four main areas: accuracy, newsgathering, protecting the vulnerable and privacy.

GLOBAL STANDARDS
United States of America Code: Code of Ethics of the Media Council states that journalists should respect people’s privacy.
The Standard for Canadian Excellence in Electronic Journalism states that journalists will respect the dignity, privacy and well-being of everyone with whom they deal, and will make every effort to ensure that news-gathering and reporting does not infringe privacy. The very standard also denounces the use of clandestine news-gathering techniques that are in contravention of the human right to privacy.
In India, the Code, according to the country’s press council, says that the Press shall not intrude or invade the privacy of an individual and things concerning a person’s home, family, religion, health, sexuality, personal life and private affairs are covered by the concept of privacy.
Similarly, the South African Press Code stipulates that the press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives and concerns of individuals.
The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), New Zealand, in its Journalist Code of Ethics, makes two strong points: one, that in all circumstances, they shall respect all confidences received in the course of their occupation; and two, that journalists must respect every person’s right to personal privacy and journalists must resist compulsion to intrude on them.
The United Kingdom’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) says journalists must obtain news material by honest, straightforward and open means.
Also, on the issue of privacy, the Press Complaints Commission, regulatory body for British printed newspapers and magazines, consisting of representatives of the major publishers, makes it clear that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
In all these codes of ethics, it is clear that there must be a balance in news reporting, when it comes to breaching the human right to privacy.

UN OBLIGATIONS
This expression is in line with several United Nations (UN) policies.
First, the United Nation’s (UN) Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, which is applicable to all member states, makes it clear, in Article 12, that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Secondly, the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by Guyana in 1977, in Article 17, reiterates the same message.
Thirdly, last December, the UN General Assembly, of which Guyana is a party, unanimously voted to adopt a resolution calling for online privacy to be recognised as a human right – ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age’. For the first time, the General Assembly established that human rights should be applicable both offline and online. The resolution has been introduced by Germany and Brazil after the revelations of the extraterritorial extension of US surveillance in cyberspace. The resolution calls upon the 193 UN member states to “respect and protect the right to privacy, including in the context of digital communication” and “to review their procedures, practices and legislation on the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance.”
Additionally, Guyana’s Constitution, Article 154 (A), makes it clear that local functionaries in the judicial system, including judges, are required to take into account international law and Guyana’s treaty obligations in their deliberations. Article 154 (A) addresses the protection of human rights.