The National Media Commission [NMC] has denied the government’s demand for an “order for the retraction and apology to the Government of Ghana on the contents” of the militia documentary. The government also demanded “further disciplinary measure(s)” from the commission, but this was not granted.
The NMC ruling, however, contained disturbing comments elevated as conclusions and deliberate silence on issues on the substance of the documentary, which the Multimedia Group provided enough evidence to back its case.
The report signed by the NMC Chairman, Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh, whose inclusion in the NMC Disciplinary Committee the Multimedia Group objected to but was overruled, overlooked material evidence (audiovisual and documentary) submitted by the Multimedia Group and proceeded to make comments without substantiating them with any fact from the documentary.
Objection against Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh
The Multimedia Group objected the inclusion of Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh because he is the President’s appointee on the NMC and should not preside over case brought by the government, headed by the President. He is first appointee of the President to chair the NMC. Besides, the Multimedia Group also raised the issue of possible bias because the producer of the documentary had had reason to question his objectivity even while he [Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh] still worked as journalist with the state-owned Daily Graphic. In an article published in the October 4, 2010, edition of the Daily Graphic and captioned “Politicians in journalistic cloaks, the example of Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh”, Manasseh Azure Awuni described Mr. Boadu-Ayeboafo as a “Danquah-Busia traditionalist [an NPP sympathiser] in the pastoral cloak of journalism.” This article and a detailed objection was submitted to the NMC, the the objection was overuled.
Nine Issues and the Ruling
The government raised nine (9) issues in its petition to the NMC. The NMC’s ruling basically relied on the file photo used in the documentary promo and the name “militia” and ignored all the material facts and evidence and the issues raised in the main documentary. Even in the two instances, the Multimedia Group provided enough evidence to prove that no journalistic ethic was broken.
Even when the NMC had to talk about the fact that exposing the operation of the group at the castle was in the interest of the state, it said: “In the end, the Commission found out that the attempt to expose the fact that the group operated from the Castle was in the public interest.” The word “attempt’ was emphasised by the Information Minister, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, in media interviews as if the exposure of the group’s operation from the Castle was in doubt. The government admitted this, but the tone of the NMC in its ruling, appears too careful not to hurt the government in any way.
In fact, there are at least six (6) issues which the government was outrightly wrong and did not have any form of defence to back its claim, but the NMC, in its ruling, did not state even one instance when the government’s accusation against the Multimedia Group as contained in the complaint and its press conference was wrong. When it was clear the government was wrong, the NMC ruling either ignored the issue or just stated the complaint without comment.
This was despite the fact that the Multimedia Group, in its defence, asked the NMC to rule on each of the nine issues raised by the government before looking at the reliefs the government sought. The Commission failed to rule on most the issues even though they were either discussed at the hearing or contained in the government’s petition and the Multimedia’s defence. There was no agreement at the hearing that some issues be taken out.
At the last but one hearing, the Chairman remarked that the issues were many and there was the possiblity that either party would have some rulings going in its favour and some against it. However, the NMC ignored every evidence provided by the Multimedia Group and ended up without even one ruling or comment against the government even though there were more than enough evidence to do so as indicated below.
In each instance, when the Multimedia Group provided enough evidence to refute an issue raised in the government’s petition, the NMC was silent in its ruling on the matter or it just stated the issue and left it open. Here are the issues that were determined by NMC.
- Ayawaso Violence and Kumasi incident used to begin the Documentary
- Whether De-Eye Group is a vigilante group;
- Whether the Ayawaso Commission of Inquiry was right in describing Vigilante groups as Militias;
- And, finally, in the matter before this Commission, whether JoyNews was right in using the word “militia” in the context used by the Commission of Inquiry and with attribution to the Commission of Inquiry,
- Our checks with the Labour Department has revealed the Group is not licensed to undertake any job recruitment or placement. The Labour Department says it is an offence punishable by law to operate a recruitment or employment agency without a license.
- Our checks with the Ministry of Interior has revealed the Group is not licensed to undertake any security services or operations.
- The Group’s Registration details at the Registrar General’s Department has its nature of business as follows: “To train professionally and implement to operate employment for the youth, eg. Farming, electronics, carpentry and building.” This is not what the group was doing at the Castle.
- The Group said in the JoyNews documentary that it was an “NPP Family.” Vigilantes (in the context of the documentary) are associated with political parties.
- The 2012 Daily Guide report (which was submitted to the Commission) said it was a vigilante group formed to protect NPP Members against attacks. That story said the group had vowed to protect ballot boxes in the 2012 elections.
- The UTV report on the group two years before the JoyNews documentary said it was a vigilante group. The group did not contest any of these reports.
- The TV3 interview had the leader saying they were over 5000 youth across the country who believed in the ideologies and policies of President Akufo-Addo
- The group stated that it was trained by ex-military men.
- The website said the group undertook security training
- The leader of the Group is addressed as “Commander”
- The motto of the Group is: “Vigilance and Protection.”
- The Group was undertaking military drills as captured in our videos.
- Their salute is “Ahoo, Ahoyaha!” as used by the military
- The National Security has confirmed that in 2017, the Group forcefully took over the duties of National Security operatives stationed at the Kotoka International Airport. It took an operation led by the National Security Director of Operations to drive them out and redeploy National Security operatives there.
- At the time of the documentary, the National Security Minister, Kan Dapaah, said the National Security had placed surveillance on the what he said were illegal activities of the group and that the National Security was gathering enough evidence to arrested and prosecute them.
- The Commander of the Group is heard in the JoyNews documentary telling members of the group that the National Security had infiltrated their camps to get evidence and destroy them so they should watch out and expose the National Security operatives in their midst.
- The Group provided security services at the Dombo programme at the Accra International Conference Centre.
- The argument that they have not been heard in the news for violence is lame because the names the Attorney General submitted and which parliament added to the list of “vigilante” group in the country are not known to have been involved in any violence. The groups that were added to to the Bill to outlaw vigilantism in parliament on July 9, 2019 are: 66 Bench, Al Jazeera, Al Quaeda, Aluta Boys, Asamankese Forces, Baafira, Kukurisung, Burma Camp, Eastern Mambas, Gbewa Youth, Lions, NATO Forces, Pentagon, Rasta Boys, Se Se Group, Taliban Boys, The Dragons, the Rock, and Tohazie. These groups are seemingly obscure and are not in the news for violence so if they are added to vigilante groups to be outlawed, then on what basis would the NMC declare that De-Eye Group is not a vigilante Group despite the above facts that point to what the group is?
- The Minister of State in Charge of Naitonal Security, Brian Acheampong, stated that the leader of the group was arrested after a third warning to cease operations at the Castle. This cannot be the hallmark of a law abiding Group.
- The Minister of Information, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, said at a press conference on March 8, 2019, that the leader of the Group, Nana Wireko Addo, was “evicted from the premises by a joint operation involving personnel of National Security and the police.” It does not take a joint operation of police and national security to simply ask a “law-abiding” person or group of persons to vacate the premises of an important state facility.
- In the documentary, the Chief of Staff of the Group, Fraser owireky Kegya, is heard complaining about the criminal activities by members of the group and warned that if they continued, he would allow them to wallow in police custody for some time after which he would bring them to the meeting and disgrace them. In the documentary, one of the trainers is seen and heard congratulating the group that on a particular weekend, no member of the group was arrested by the police.
- There is no doubt that the Commission knew the difference between vigilante and militia, but decided that what we called vigilantism here was not the right description of the phenomenon.
- Prof. Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu (a Criminal Law Lecturer of the University of Ghana and former member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations), made the pronouncement that the groups be called “milita” and not vigilantes. The Chairman of the Commission, Justice Emile Short (a former CHRAJ Commissioner and former judge on the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) seconded and added that “even my friend Martin Amidu is a citizen vigilante,” and what was happening in the country was not vigilantism.
- The Secretary to the Commission, Kofi Abotsi, later explained extensively in a television interview after the Commission had submitted its report to the President, that the Commission stood by the name militia for what was called vigilantes in Ghana. He said the Commission came to that conclusion after assessing the evidence it had received on how the groups were organized and operated: “The reality is that the Commission having listened to the evidence, recognised that the proper term to use was militia and not a vigilante,” Mr. Abotsi said on the PM Express show on Joy News TV, March 18, 2019.” (https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2019/march-19th/party-security-are-militias-not-vigilantes-abotsi-defends-short-cssion.php)
- Our sources say the Commission of Inquiry in its final report, used the word “militia” to describe the phenomenon often described as “vigilante groups”.
- It appears the Ghanaian civil society groups agrees with the Commission that we cannot work with the dictionary definition of vigilantism when dealing with the problem at hand.
- When the Vigilantism and Other Offences Bill was introduced by the government, the Executive Director of CDD, Prof. H. Kwesi Prempeh wrote this on Facebook on June 11, 2019: “Political vigilante groups as we have come to know them in Ghana are not “vigilantes” in the standard English dictionary meaning of the term. Thus, to draft a law that seeks, ostensibly, to disband and criminalize the activities of so-called political vigilante groups by relying on the standard English dictionary definition of vigilante (e.g., “a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate”) is to misfire completely, despite the best of intentions. So-called political vigilante groups in Ghana are not formed for the purpose of self-help law enforcement, despite the pretense and what the bill curiously assumes or suggests in the manner it has defined “vigilante group…”(https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=H%20KWASI%20PREMPEH%20VIGILANTE&epa=SEARCH_BOX)
- When religious groups, civil society organisations met the Parliament’s legal and constitutional committee to discuss the Vigilante Bill, they were unanimous in saying the name vigilante did not reflect the phenomenon that was used to describe the political party security groups and motives. The National Peace Council actually came with a written submission to this effect in which it disagreed with the use of dictionary definition for vigilantism in Ghana.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Latest Stories
-
We may all resort to vote buying if electorates prioritise such over development – Asiedu Nketiah
7 mins -
NDF engages mineral extraction communities in advocacy and litigation resolution
11 mins -
Adabraka in community A/R unites to combat electoral violence
18 mins -
Forestry Commission cracks down on endangered bush meat trade
19 mins -
Global GDP could plunge by 24% by 2,100 without urgent climate action
20 mins -
High Court dismisses lecturer’s bid to block Deputy IGP’s appointment
28 mins -
MTN records 35.5% growth in profit to GH¢3.76bn in quarter 3, 2024
51 mins -
Deloitte to hold training on navigating customs and excise duty Obligations
54 mins -
Akufo-Addo, Bawumia should have prioritised National Peace Campaign launch – Mahama
54 mins -
AGI works to clamp down on substandard foreign mattresses penetrating Ghanaian markets
56 mins -
Immigration Service intercepts 54 gallons of fuel
59 mins -
Ace Medical Insurance makes its mark at Ghana Club 100 Awards
1 hour -
Dafeamekpor takes Speaker to High Court to affirm vacant seats ruling
1 hour -
Government is not funding GMX music streaming platform – Director of Marketing
1 hour -
Energy sector not advancing enough – ACEP
1 hour