[ad_1]
General news for Thursday, September 10, 2020
Source: www.ghanaweb.com
2020-09-10
Joseph Anokye is the head of the NCA
Click to read all about the coronavirus →
The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) has said that the National Communications Authority (NCA) is misleading the public about the details of a request it has made to the regulator.
According to the media rights advocate MFWA, the NCA has been misleading in public discourse about its request for information on FM stations.
The MFWA wrote to the NCA in July requesting information “under article 12 (1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and section 18 of the Right to Information Act 2019 (Act 989)”.
The letter, signed by the MFWA Executive Director and dated Wednesday, July 22, 2020, requested “the complete list of all FM stations authorized as of the second quarter of 2020, indicating the dates of the first authorization, the dates of the latest authorization renewals, locations and operational status (on air or off air). “
The MFWA also requested “the complete list of all authorized television stations as of the second quarter of 2020, indicating the dates of the first authorization, the dates of the last authorization renewals, the locations and the operational status.”
In response to the request, the NCA asked the MFWA to pay GH ¢ 2000 to access the information requested by the Foundation.
In a letter to the MFWA dated August 20, 2020, the NCA explained that the payment meets a requirement of Section 82 (1) (b) of the Electronic Communications Act of 2008, Act 775 to facilitate the generation of the search report.
In response to the NCA’s letter, MFWA Executive Director Mr. Sulemana Braimah took to Facebook on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 to say, “NCA paaa! Radio stations closed. We wrote to ask RTI the full list of stations you turned off and you said we should pay GH ¢ 2,000 for you to do a search for the list? A search for what? The list? Okay, we listen. “
In the first part of an article entitled “Public Access to Information: Exposing the Deception of the Ghana National Communications Authority – Part 1”, the MFWA alleges that NCA attorney Dr. Poku Adusei was not truthful. in their Facebook post on the nature of the information requested by the MFWA for.
In the report, MFWA said that they will continue their application even if it means going to court.
Below is a full description of the MFWA
Public Access to Information: Exposing the Deception of the Ghana National Communications Authority – Part 1
On July 22, 2020, the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) submitted a request for access to information to the National Communications Authority (NCA), Ghana’s frequency spectrum regulator. We did so in the exercise of our right under Article 21 (1) (f) of the 1992 Ghana Constitution and under the Ghana Right to Information Act 2019, Law 989.
Our request was looking for four main pieces of information, which normally the NCA should have proactively publicized. For the purposes of clarity and understanding by the public, the set of information we request is shown below:
1. The complete list of all FM radio stations (indicating company name, radio station name, location and frequency number) that were closed by the NCA following the audit of FM spectrum from 2017 of the Authority and in line with the 2018 decision of the Communications Court.
2. The complete list of all FM stations authorized as of the second quarter of 2020, indicating the dates of the first authorization, dates of the last authorization renewals, locations and operational status; that is, if they are on the air or not.
3. An explanation of the sudden replacement of your published Q2 2020 report entitled: “List of authorized VHF-FM radio stations in Ghana as of Q2 2020”, which contained columns for the date of first authorization and the date of the last authorization renewals, with one now excluding the dates of the first authorization and the dates of the last authorization renewals.
4. The complete list of all television stations authorized as of the second quarter of 2020, indicating dates of the first authorization, dates of the last authorization renewals, locations and operational status.
In our request letter, we indicated that we would like the requested information to be compiled in PDF format and sent to us by email. We should be invited to collect hard copies or any other format. We also add that in accordance with the provisions of Law 989, we would appreciate receiving the requested information within fourteen (14) days after receiving the letter.
The NCA acknowledged receipt of our letter on July 22. However, she ignored our request when the 14 days passed and there was no news from the Authority. Eager to assert our rights under the law, we followed up on our request with another letter on August 18.
On the same day as our follow-up letter, the NCA responded with two different letters via email.
The first, signed by the Director General, Mr. Joe Anokye, basically stated that the Authority was not going to provide the explanations requested in point (3) above and that with respect to the other requests, the Authority was in the process of evaluating the requests for further action.
The second letter, which was signed to the CEO by Acting Director (Legal), Dr. Poku Adusei, requested that we pay the massive amount of GHC 2,000 “under Section 82 (1) (b) of the Electronic Communications Act. , 2008, Law 775, to allow us to generate the Search Report “.
We found that the demand for up to 2,000 GHC was very exorbitant, unaffordable and quite contrary to the fee provisions of the Law under which we had made the request, the Right to Information Law of 2019, Law 989. In addition, we found the amount it would be exorbitant because the information requested is or should already be in the custody of the Authority and we had indicated our preference for electronic copies to be sent to us through an indicated email address.
Later, however, the NCA’s acting legal director told the public through social media posts that the Authority was even lenient in charging GHC 2,000 for the information requested. According to him, this was because, per the MFWA request, we were looking to “make the NCA their investigative unit” because, as he put it, what we were looking for was an NCA search report to answer questions about the company names. , location, operational status, etc. He ended by stating that producing what we had requested involves “research and sweat.”
Contrary to the assertions of the Acting Legal Director of the NCA, the Authority has on its website the complete list of authorized FM stations as of the second quarter of 2020.
This information contains the names and addresses of the companies, their locations, frequencies and operational status of all authorized FM stations in the country. Below is a screen shot of just one page of the data containing the list of all licensed FM stations in the country as of Q2 2020, as published on the NCA website.
In the case of the list of television stations, the NCA has a similar data on its website and in the same format as the following table. Please note that the data published by the NCA in the format below does not provide information on the dates of the first authorization and the dates of the last authorization renewal, which is the only additional information that we seek in our application in relation to the list of authorized FM and TV. seasons.
So if the NCA has this data posted on its website, why is its Chief Legal Officer, Dr. Poku Adusei, telling the public that providing the information requested by the MFWA will involve “research and sweat?”
If the data, as shown above, contains the names and addresses of companies, location, frequencies, and status, why would the NCA have to do some sweaty research before producing the same information? The only additional thing we requested was the inclusion of the dates of the first authorization and the dates of the last renewal authorization, which is critical to the purpose of our request.
Is it the case that the information that the NCA has posted on their website containing the names and addresses of the companies of all licensed FM and TV stations, their frequencies, locations, etc., is not authentic and they will need to investigate and sweat to find the correct information? If that was the case, then we would be in trouble regarding our spectrum management.
Or is the NCA unable to find the dates the stations were authorized for the first time and the dates they renewed their authorization? If that was the case, then again, we are in trouble. But if none of the above is the case, then why should it cost us a whopping 2,000 GHC under an RTI Act to receive the requested information via email? Or is it the cost of the data to send the email?
The other information we requested was the full list of radio stations that the NCA had closed following its 2017 FM spectrum audit and in line with the 2018 Electronic Communications Court decision. Will the production of this list require investigation and sweat by the NCA? Does it mean you don’t have a record of the radio stations that you had shut down?
If this were the case, once again, we would have problems with the way Ghana’s frequencies are managed. And we ask again, if the NCA has the list, why should it cost us a whopping 2,000 GHC under Ghana’s RTI Act, to receive the list by email? Or is it the cost of the data to send the email?
Recall that we made the request in accordance with the Ghana RTI Act. Yes, the Law provides for the payment of fees. But still, as the RTI Coalition observed in a recent statement:
“The exercise of a fundamental human right such as the right to information should not be expensive; otherwise it is no longer a right. It is important that Public Institutions take into account that public information is already paid by taxpayers and, therefore, charging applicants for the search for public information is equivalent to a double charge ”.
The Coalition further pointed out in a moving manner that: “That is why section 23 (3) (d) of the RTI Act establishes that“ When the Information Officer decides to grant access; the notice will indicate the rate prescribed for the REPRODUCTION of the information ”. The Act continues and provides under section 75 (2) (c) that “Notwithstanding subsection (1), no fee or charge shall be paid for REPRODUCING information that is in the public interest.”
In defense of our right of access to public information and in the interest of the public to enforce it, we will continue to fight to access the information requested even if it means going to the Court of Justice to enforce this right. Money should not be a barrier to public access to information. The RTI law must be respected.
In the second part, we’ll tell more about deception and more reasons why what we asked for shouldn’t cost us a huge GHC 2000 to get access.
Send your news to
and by WhatsApp in +233 55 2699 625.
