SLBC, sinking before floating?

The recent happenings in and around our new pride, the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) have left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouths of more than just a few. With a yet-to-be-fully-constituted Board of Trustees who apparently feel they can determine and dictate even the editorial content of the broadcaster, the seemingly choreographed reshuffling of workers at what should be an independent public service broadcaster has left a lot to be desired.
I know it would have been naïve of anyone to have thought a smooth ride was all there would be in the way of attaining an independent public service broadcaster. Far from it! But it certainly should not have been any too ambitious for anyone to think that the SLBC would have been spared the latest hurdles confronting it. The atmosphere of uncertainty on the minds and in the psyche of its workers who expect to be sacked at will at any time can only take away the zeal in them. But that is an effect not a cause. So first the cause.
While I appreciate the fact that the current parliament eventually passed into law a bill that had left the draughtsman’s office during the House of 2002 2007, the current parliament did not do their initial homework well. They passed into law a bill that failed to address some of the most basic things. This reversed the entire projected timeline for the transition period of the corporation. And even when some people, notably the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists, tried to goad the House, some of them were defensive, maybe obstructive. They defied conventional reasoning until the Office of the President had to send the bill back to them.
For example, transforming a state-owned and state-controlled broadcaster to an independent public service would common sensibly presuppose that the Director General’s appointment should not be unilaterally done by the president. That was not considered. It would also necessarily follow that the tenure of office for such should be secure. Again that was not done as both were lacking in the bill. And on several radio programmes, some members of the legislative committee were incomprehensibly defensive of the absence of these basic things.
We respect our MPs. But they must be made to know that they are not necessarily the brightest in society and must therefore listen and accede to things said by those who probably are better informed about them. And they must always realise that much as our constitution so incomprehensibly entrenches loyalty to political party rather than country, they must think nation first. I say so because our constitution forbids MPs from sitting and voting in line with a party other than that under which they went to parliament. No matter the circumstance, it can be assumed. And it would appear that this has blotted the thinking of a good number of our MPs.
But back to the SLBC which is inextricably linked with our parliament in that they passed its status into law and they are charged to approve those who are nominated to be on its Board and to head its management team. This brings me to the rejection by Parliament of Dr Julius Spencer who was nominated by SLAJ to represent them on the Board of Trustees. Even though reasons are yet unclear as to why the former information minister was rejected, the build-up to it was suspect. Just after the Annual General Meeting of SLAJ in November last year where Dr Spencer was popularly elected, some officials of the information ministry notably on the Transitional Management Team brought up a new rule in the middle of the game. After they had received a letter of notification from SLAJ about the association’s choice of Dr Spencer, they wrote to SLAJ, and cunningly to other trustee institutions as well, instructing that they all send two nominees each between which the President could choose one and send to parliament for approval.
Remember, this was weeks or so after SLAJ had officially communicated with them their choice of Dr Spencer. SLAJ refused to do so quoting the SLBC Act which requires only one nominee. The association argued that, unlike other trustee institutions, they had chosen theirs at a popular election and so could not go back on it. After a back-and-forth challenge of the request, common sense was thought to have prevailed. But it would appear that the strategy was moved to parliament to block Dr Spencer’s nomination. This, it must be pointed out, came after a lot of time-wasting by parliament in approving the board. And then it turned out that all ruling party MPs on the committee on appointments voted against Dr Spencer.
But with the partial approval of the Board, there was even suggestion that the half that number who had gone through parliament, should go ahead to recruit a Director General and their deputy with the argument that they already constituted a quorum. How do you talk of a quorum even before the constitution of the Board! I would imagine the issue of a quorum can only come to play when the board has started to function.
Well while that is being thought out has come the latest salvo. The Board has gone ahead to attempt to dismantle the corporation. They have brought in as Ag Director General, someone who was sacked at the National Power Authority under some hitherto quirky circumstances and has never known journalism or broadcasting apart from listening to radio, reading newspapers and watching television. And this fits perfectly again with attempts by some ministry of information officials who advocated for the qualification of the Director General of the SLBC not to include knowledge of the media either academically or practically. This was when the bill was being discussed. So one can see how all the planks are falling in place.
Now there is an envelope somewhere containing application letters from at least four people who are interested in becoming Director General of the SLBC. I would imagine that instead of the new board concentrating on sacking staff, they should speed up recruitment or explain why they cannot do so now. Sacking the Director General on the grounds that he is himself an applicant for his current position is as farcical as it is whimsical, to say the least. He had already applied before his contract was extended in April.
What has changed now apart from the fact that someone probably on the board or in government does not wish to see Dr Ivan Ajibola-Thomas at the helm anymore. And this probably raises the question as to whether the board will be fair with him on a simple majority vote. And mind you a new management team has been contracted for three months. If only for recruitment of the substantive, all of that can be done in one month. If Ivan or any other applicant at that is not favoured and loses out on the recruitment, it should be on merit. I hold no brief for any of the applicants. I have profound respect for all those that I know have applied. But the right things must be done in the right manner.
I know Dr Ajibola-Thomas had sought to assert himself at the corporation as he should do. He had kicked against the Board dictating to him on many issues including signing a contract. From a bizarre one bordering on office space to another which sought to force down his throat a contract on the screening of the ongoing FIFA world cup. I will endeavour to tell you more of that and an alleged request made this week for money by one of the new kids on the top block. He said he needed the money for the Board. SLBC seems to be sinking even before it floats. We shall discuss this more on Monday.
By Umaru Fofana