THE Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has hinted that it would lend support to court proceedings which may be put forward against the Broadcast (Amendment) Bill 2017.
THE National Assembly Friday night passed the Broadcast Amendment Bill aimed at shaking up the industry here, which the government said was handed out to friends and cronies of the previous administration.

The Broadcast (Amendment) Bill 2017 was piloted by Prime Minister , Moses Nagamootoo, who has ministerial responsibility for public information. Staunch resistance from the political opposition proved futile after more than eight hours of legal, moral and sentimental debate emerging from both sides of the House.
On Saturday, PPP Member of Parliament, Anil Nandlall, told the media at a press conference at the Office of the Leader of the Opposition on Church Street that there are several options which can be pursued by any member of the public whom he noted has a right to receive public information .

Nandlall said that such person or persons who may be aggrieved by the bill can obtain a conservatory order to stop the act from taking force “on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. “
He said the individual can also ask the court to strike down each provision in the act which may be deemed unconstitutional and in addition, seek damages for breach of constitutional rights. He said such moves would “have the impact of stopping the act from taking effect.”
Nandlall said that in discussion with broadcasters recently, such legal recourses were provided to the private broadcasters. A lot of them expressed an interest,” he said.

The 2011 Act was introduced by the then PPP government in 2011. Section 18 (1) (i) of the Act states that the Guyana Broadcasting Authority, which regulates local broadcasting, shall require operators to carry public service announcements free of charge. The Act further states that the Broadcasting Authority shall: “Require licensees to carry a certain percentage of public service broadcasts or development support broadcasts as public information deems appropriate as a public service at no cost.”

The Act did not put a cap on how long or how frequently such announcements were to be aired. This was left up to the discretion of the government. However, one of the amendments seeks to rectify this by putting a daily cap of up to one hour on the broadcast time for public service announcements. This has since been rejected by several private operators, who contend that it is an imposition on their air time.
Defending this particular amendment was Minister of Public Telecommunications, Cathy Hughes, who shared with the august body that sister CARICOM country, Trinidad and Tobago has similar legislation which requires up to two hours air time for PSAs. In addition, those two hours of programming are not to be interrupted by commercials. The amendment to the Guyana Act does not have such a provision.

On Friday evening, Prime Minister Nagamootoo had the final say in the debate before the bill was passed. He immediately sought to refute claims by Nandlall that consultations were not held before the amendments were proposed. PM Nagamootoo clarified that consultations were held in 2011.
He responded to claims by Nandlall too, that those amendments will likely land the government in court. “To say that these amendments violate the law is unmeritorious. If there are valid contentions to engage the attention of the judiciary, then the judiciary should adjudicate on such matters,” PM Nagamootoo told Nandlall.

He also noted that these amendments are features which seek to “enlarge” the Act and “put flesh on it,” since the government is seeking to improve and embellish the existing law. At the end of his presentation, a government-backed, 33-member vote trumped the 23 dissenting voices on the western side of the house.