LESS THAN EVEN-HANDED

The ruling by the Appeal Court on Thursday that the Central Broadcasting Services Limited (CBSL) suffered unequal treatment by the State with respect to its application for a radio broadcasting licence, even as it granted one to another company, Citadel Limited which had made an application some years later, forms a crucial component of what certainly must be regarded as a landmark decision. The court has ordered the State to pay damages to CBSL (a company formed by the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha), for breach of its constitutional rights. The court also ordered that CBSL’s application for a radio broadcasting licence be placed before Cabinet within 28 days. 

Two different administrations, first the United National Congress and later the People’s National Movement, had been dismissive of Central Broadcasting’s application for a radio broadcasting licence. Under the present administration, however, Citadel’s application was fast tracked on the intervention of the relevant Minister, Hedwidge Bereaux. Bereaux requested the expediting of Citadel’s application and led to its speedy consideration by Cabinet. The State had clearly acted in a less than even-handed manner in the matter of the two applications. What exactly had informed the line Minister’s decision? Why had Cabinet without a broadcasting policy by which it should have been guided, decide to act? What were the criteria employed by it in reaching the decision which favoured Citadel above that of Central Broadcasting Services when there was no policy by which Cabinet could reasonably have been led? Why did it not act in a manner, normally expected of Cabinets, and first establish a broadcasting policy before, as lay people, acting in a policy vacuum? Is the country to understand that this has been the normal approach of Cabinet to the handling of matters of State, or was it merely an aberration?

There are more questions. Why had Cabinet felt compelled to act in a manner which inferred a rejection of CBSL’s application? It has been suggested that the hurried award to Citadel was based on the fact that Citadel was in essence a company that had been established as a result of a falling out in a group that owned an existing licence. A new licence then became an urgent matter that involved workers whose employment was in jeopardy. The point, however, is that regardless of the circumstance, Citadel was owned entirely or partially by a well known PNM activist and the Government should at the very least have been aware of the propriety of what it was doing, and how its decision would be viewed. Failure to be aware of this has now resulted in the Appeal Court’s ruling and an order that the Maha Sabha’s application be considered. If for no other reason, the State has to be aware that citizens are no longer prepared to accept treatment or decisions that they regard as unfair or biased. More and more citizens who have found themselves on the receiving end of state inequality are seeking redress before the courts. Thankfully the courts are manifesting that they are well up to the task.