Last week we saw what was obviously an attempt to intimidate and silence the media. The Secretary to the Media Ministry had written to the Derana TV channel asking them to explain why a speech by President Maithripala Sirisena had been distorted in one of their news bulletins.
Earlier, on 25 October the Media Ministry Secretary had written to them saying that an inquiry is being conducted into the distortion of a speech made by the president on October 12 at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute where he had among other things said that the CID, FCID and Bribery Commission had been working to a political agenda and that he was against the manner in which the former defence secretary and three commanders of the navy were hauled before the courts.
When a storm of protest arose from the yahapalana NGOs about the president’s comments, Sirisena backtracked and said that his words had been distorted by the TV news bulletins. It was in pursuance of this that the media secretary who is an appointee of the Sirisena faction had written to Derana TV on 25 October saying that they were inquiring into the matter.
The very next day on 26 October Derana TV had replied to the media ministry saying that the management does not get involved in editing the footage shown on the news bulletins and that this is done at the discretion of the news director and that the practice is that of a speech lasting 30 or 45 minutes the most that would be included in a news bulletin would be a segment lasting one or two minutes.
Derana TV had pointed out in this letter that there was no difference in the substance of the segment that they had broadcast and what had been stated as the president’s words in a statement issued by the presidential media division on the same day.
Despite this explanation, the media secretary had written to Derana TV stating that they had held an inquiry into this matter and that ‘before any further action is taken’ over the distortion of the president’s speech, for Derana TV to send in their explanation if there is anything to be said from their side. This letter was dated 11 November but had been sent to Derana TV only on 17 November and they had written back immediately saying that they will respond within seven days of the receipt of the letter.
Three weeks ago, the Secretary to the Media Ministry issued a very similar letter to the CSN Channel stating that their broadcasting license had been revoked. In this instance too the Media Secretary had issued a letter to CSN saying that ‘an inquiry’ had been carried out and that their license had been suspended because the conditions under which it had been issued had been violated. Three violations had been mentioned in the media secretary’s letter. The first was that if the name or address of the channel changes, it has to be notified to the media ministry. To this CSN had replied that the name or address of CSN had not been changed and that it had been operating from the same location in Battaramulla since the inception and that all correspondence from the media ministry and the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority had always been sent to its present address.
The second charge against CSN was that it had violated the licensing condition that none of its directors should be a member of a political party in Sri Lanka. To this CSN had replied that none of its directors, past or present had been members of any political party. The third accusation was that the licensing condition which requires that the previous years’s accounts be sent to the Media Ministry Secretary before 14 January each year had not been fulfilled. To this, CSN had replied that accounts are not submitted by any media organization to the Media Ministry and that the latter has also never pursued the matter either.
It is only too plain that the CSN license was suspended on trumped up charges. It is significant to note that this letter to CSN had been sent on October 25 – the same day on which the first letter was issued to Derana TV saying that an inquiry was being held against them. Rohan Welivita the Chairman of CSN said at a press conference that on 24 October, when the news bulletins had announced that CSN was to be banned, it was not told to them in a letter but ‘a key official’ in the Media ministry had phoned the various media institutions and said that the CSN license was going to be revoked. CSN had received the letter only later. Welivita stated that though the letter issued to them says that an inquiry had been conducted, no official of CSN had ever been called for any inquiry by the media ministry and that this was a unilateral decision by the ministry.
At that press conference Welivita had warned the TV channels present that “What happened to us today will happen to you tomorrow. You will get a letter with some lies written in it and they will do as they please. If we try to take it up with the relevant authorities, they will say they got to know about it only through the newspapers.” His words have proved to be prescient. Now Derana TV too has got an ominous letter from the media ministry and they are threatening further action. The banning of the Lanka News Web Today website was the beginning of all this. It is the TRC which can block websites and the TRC is under the president. The suspension of the CSN license and the action against Derana TV has also been taken by the Sirisena faction of the government.
The only cause for relief is that when CSN went to courts against the suspension of its license, the courts had said that the way the CSN broadcasting license was suspended does not appear to the court to be correct and ordered the Attorney General’s department which represented the media ministry to discuss the matter with the ministry and if any inquiry is being carried out, to allow CSN to continue broadcasting until the inquiry is over and to report back to courts on December 15. The nation is now counting on the courts to safeguard media freedom and democratic rights in the country.
In the late 1990s when the Chandrika Kumaratunga government was trying to misuse to the criminal defamation law to suppress the media, the courts used their discretion to hand down suspended sentences instead of imprisoning the newspaper editors against whom the government filed action. Two newspaper editors, Sinha Ratnatunga and Lasantha Wickremetunge were handed down suspended sentences. Had the courts not used its discretion in that manner at that time, that would have been the end of media freedom and democracy itself. There is a lot riding on the shoulders of individual judges in a situation like this.
Courtesy: Sunday Island
