ISLAMABAD: The Press Council of Pakistan has unanimously rejected the proposed creation of Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) and urged the government to ensure the Freedom of Press, if it intends to streamline the various institutions then it should table a Bill in the Parliament, says press release. The Press Council of Pakistan’s General Council, which met here on Friday, said the Press Council of Pakistan is the only forum which deals with the public complaints and redresses the grievances of people.

The meeting was presided over by PCP Chairman, Dr. M. Salahuddin Mengal. Members from All Pakistan Newspaper Society, Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, Pakistan Bar Council and Pakistan Commission on Women Status participated in the meeting.

Speaking at the meeting veteran journalist, Zia Shahid said the media community has always struggled for the right to information, Freedom of Press and rights of its readers. He said the PCP is an independent, autonomous and self-regulatory body, which has redressed public’s concern and worked for the implementation of code of ethics in newspaper industry.

He said all the media stakeholders had unanimously rejected the concept of PMRA. He said the stakeholders are not opposed to improvement of institutions dealing with the media dynamics, but the only way of betterment goes through the Parliament.

Pakistan Bar Council representative Kamaran Murtaza said the Constitution of Pakistan provides solution to the difficulties being faced by the government. Anwar Sajidi, Shahzada Zulfiqar, Syed Haroon Shah, Khursheed Tanweer, Gohar Butt, Nasir Zaidi, Irshad Ahmed Arif, Maria Iqbal Tarana and others urged the government to enhance the capacity of PCP and other bodies instead of their dissolution.

The Council in unanimous resolution observed with great concern that the nominations sent to PCP by major stakeholders was though forwarded to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for notifying same within stipulated period of 30 days, but the Ministry deliberately avoided doing so despite lapse of six months. The Council further observed that the Ministry is challenging the validity of Council due to non-issuance of notification. Thus the Council unanimously passed resolution that the stakeholders of PCP have exclusive authority to nominate members of their own choice, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has no authority to raise objection upon constitution of Council and its decisions.

The Council further declared that the Council has been validity constituted, and the general meetings of PCP held at Islamabad on September 17 and December 28, 2018, and the decisions taken and resolutions passed in both the meetings are legal, valid and in accordance with relevant law. So the objection of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting is baseless and the Ministry failed to notify same under section 7(2) of the PCP Ordinance 2002, whereas the nominees are representatives of major stakeholders of PCP and this Council validates the same unanimously, and reiterates that the previous meeting held on 17-09-2018 is also valid and legal in which important issues mentioned in the agenda papers were unanimously approved and implemented, including the appointment of Registrar PCP.

The News

Related Story

Dawn: PCP opposes creation of media regulatory body

PESHAWAR: Government firmly believes in freedom of press and freedom of expression and is fully aware of the importance of regional press as much as national newspapers and is striving for resolving their problems, said Principal Information Officer Mian Jehangir Iqbal.

He was talking to editors of local newspapers at a lunch hosted in his honour by Tahir Farooq, vice chairman of CPNE Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and chief editor of Daily Ittehad. Peshawar PID Director General Tariq Mahmood Khan and Deputy Director Shabidullah Wazir were also present.

Tahir Farooq welcomed Mian Jehangir Iqbal and threw light on the problems faced by the regional newspapers.

Iqbal said that the procedure of transparent distribution of government advertisements to the regional newspapers would begin for implementation next week and made it clear that no dummy newspaper would be given advertisements.

He emphasised that payments of government advertisements would directly be made to the newspapers saying that there is complete harmony among information minister, secretary information and PIO in this respect.

The PIO also made it clear that controversial payments would in no case be made against any claim.

Iqbal asked the editors and owners of the newspapers to submit in time their suggestions on government new advertisement policy to avoid any confusion towards this end.

He said that CPNE had already given their recommendations on proposed advertisement policy to the government.

The Express Tribune 

It seems like the newspapers are being subjected to economic sanctions in a bid to indirectly control the freedom of press. By subjecting the newspapers to economic death, an attempt is being made to end freedom of expression and information, which is against the basic rights of freedom of press.

The resolution termed the current media regulatory authority as an unwise measure dangerous for the print media. The print media obtained freedom after a long struggle and steps to bring it under a regulatory authority seem dictatorial and are creating uncertainty amongst the newspaper circles.

The resolution also expressed concerns over the various complaints of editors about restrictions on circulation of their newspapers.

The resolution stressed unity amongst all media teams, media organisations and other stakeholders and called upon them to formulate a joint strategy to ensure an end to indirect restrictions on the media.

In this respect, CPNE President Nizami was authorised to contact all media stakeholders, media organisations and journalist communities. The meeting also decided to organise an extensive media convention for promoting freedom of press.

Those who attended the CPNE meeting included; Arif Nizami (Pakistan Today), Zafar Abbas (Daily Dawn), Shaheen Qureshi (Daily Jung), Ayaz Khan and Tahir Najmi (Daily Express), Dr Jabbar Khattak (Daily Awami Awaz), Akram Saigal (Monthly Defence Journal), Rehmat Ali Razi (Daily Taaqat), Tahir Farooq (Daily Ittehad), Saeed Khawar (Daily 92 News), Qazi Asad Abid (Daily Nama Ibrat), Hamid Hussain Abidi (Daily Aman), Ijazul Haq (Express Group), Adnan Malik Malik (Daily Ummat), Maqsood Yousufi, (Daily Nayi Baat), Arif Baloch (Daily Balochistan Express), Muzzafar Ejaz (Roznama Jasarat), Shakeel Turabi (Sabah News Agency), Anwar Sajidi (Daily Intikhab), Moazzam Fakhar (Daily Jahan Pakistan), Muhammad Tahir (Daily Jurrat), Amir Mehmood (Monthly Kiran Digest), Ghulam Nabi Chandio (Daily Pak), Zulfiqar Ahmed Rahat (Daily Hotline), Abdul Rehman Mangario (Daily Indus Post), Abdul Khaliq Ali (Online News Agency), Ahmed Iqbal Baloch (Monthly Visionary), Sher Muhammad Khawar (Daily Appeal), Akmal Chauhan (Daily Wafa), Basheer Ahmed Memon (Daily Nijaat), Mehmood Alam Khalid (Monthly Farozan), Mian Fazal Elahi (Monthly Diplomatic Focus), Mumtaz Ahmed Sadiq (Daily Azadi Swat), Nasheed Roy (Daily Qaumi Awaz), Sardar Naeem (Daily Quaid), Ashfaq Ahmed Mufti (Daily Alhaq) and Zahra Abbasi (Daily Nau Sij) as well as a large number of participants from the journalist community. The meeting also discussed the distribution of government ads and other affairs. The details will be released soon.

The Express Tribune

Three factions of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) on Monday constituted a National Action Committee to fight for the media workers’ rights, including delay in salaries, retrenchment and freedom of the press.

“We will not allow the government and media owners to target the workers,” said the representatives of all the three factions of the PFUJ during a meeting at the Karachi Press Club.

The NAC, comprising president and secretary generals of all three PFUJs, Afzal Butt, Ayub Jan Sarhandi, Rana Azeem, GM Jamali, Nawaz Raza and Sohail Afzal Khan, would meet Prime Minister Imran Khan, the federal information minister, all media owners, APNS, CPNE and PBA to express their concern over the deteriorating situation in the media industry.

The meeting resolved that the present media crisis had threatened the freedom of press and basic, fundamental, economic and labour rights of over 25,000 media workers all over Pakistan.

The Express Tribune 

There has been a clear deterioration in the safety of journalists, the problem of impunity and of freedom of expression online. These were the main findings of the report submitted to the 120^th session of UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva by Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), in collaboration with IFEX, the global network defending and promoting the right to freedom of expression and information, and RIDH, the International Network of Human Rights.

The recommendations in the PPF-IFEX-RIDH report include that the government should appoint special prosecutors for attacks on journalists, start monitoring the judicial process, and ensure the implementation of the minimum laws that it has for the harassment of women in the workplace. There is a need to revisit the extent of powers that are enjoyed by the regulatory authorities, especially by PEMRA: before taking action against the media they should get judicial approval, or there should be a fair process. The Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) also needs to be revisited. We need to look again at the defamation laws and bring them in line with the minimum requirements which are there. These are the very minimum things that the government should do if it claims to be promoting freedom of expression.

Pakistan was reviewed for the first time by the UN Human Rights Committee on 11 and 12 July. The Committee, which consists of 18 independent experts, is mandated to oversee the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010, and as such is bound to respect it.

The UNHRC met to analyze the situation in Pakistan and will make recommendations aimed at promoting and protecting human rights in the country.

The Committee had highlighted in its List of Issues (shared with Pakistan prior to the meeting) its concerns about increasing control of telecommunications by the state and several Pakistani agencies, such as the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), as well as the censorship of television programs and websites.

During the examination of Pakistan, the UN Human Rights Committee tackled issues regarding freedom of expression, including blasphemy legislation and anti-terror laws, impunity for crimes committed against journalists, and an overly restrictive environment for the electronic media and film industry. Despite these concerns, the government delegation insisted that there is an “unprecedented level of freedom of the media available in Pakistan” and further claimed that all cases of terrorist violence against the media are addressed by the government and the judiciary, despite the evidence of high impunity presented by civil society organizations.

The experts on the Committee noted concerns regarding impunity for crimes committed against journalists and cited PPF’s figures, stating that 73 journalists had been killed since 2002 with only five convictions for these crimes thus far.

The Committee requested detailed information and statistics regarding crimes against journalists and subsequent investigations, prosecutions and convictions, as well as the same information regarding other crimes.

In response, the delegation of Pakistan stated that the allegations of a culture of impunity were inaccurate and alleged that crimes against journalists were a result of terrorists attempting to silence the media. Pakistan government delegation stressed that it investigates all cases of attacks on journalists as well as allegations of crimes committed by state agencies. However, the government failed to provide statistics on the investigations, prosecutions and convictions of these crimes as requested on numerous occasions by Committee members, confirming doubts about their commitment to fight impunity.

The Committee also reminded the government that criminal sanctions for defamation, often used to target dissident voices in the media, are not in line with the CCPR, and questioned whether the government had any plans or had taken any action to decriminalize defamation.

The Committee also raised serious concerns regarding challenges to freedom of expression online and the increasingly antagonistic regulatory environment for the electronic media and film industry.

Members of the Committee also raised concerns regarding the Code of Conduct issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. The Committee noted that there had been more than 20 suspensions of media channels in the past four years, and wondered what safeguards and oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure the authority did not violate freedom of expression. The delegation did not respond to these concerns.

One expert raised numerous concerns about the broad powers of the PTA expanded through the 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). This law enables the state body to restrict access to information and issue guidelines to information service providers on the internet without judicial oversight. Despite the government’s claim that the powers granted to the PTA are aligned with international standards, one expert requested detailed information on how this is possible without independent judicial oversight.

In response to these concerns, the delegation of Pakistan explained that open consultations in the drafting of PECA had been held, however, it noted that submissions received from civil society were vague; and, the delegation added, the final version of the act was a reasonable compromise between opposing opinions. They also ensured that there is a system of checks and balances within the PECA and that the powers of the PTA must be in line with the Constitution ensuring sufficient limitations on power.

Now that the Human Rights Committee has completed its initial examination of Pakistan, it will take note of the current human rights situation in the country and will publish its Concluding Observations on July 28, 2017. This document, which will include a list of recommendations, will provide the government with concrete steps it should take to amend its human rights record; it will also equip civil society with the tools they need to efficiently pressure the Government to make the necessary changes.

Responding to Pakistan’s UN review, Owais Aslam Ali, Secretary General of PPF, stressed two main sources of limitations on freedom of expression – threats to the physical safety of journalists and the policy framework in Pakistan. He said restrictions implemented by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) as reminiscent of the days of dictatorship.

Ali hoped that the government wouldbe more forthcoming in its written responses and take the safety of journalists seriously. He welcomed the government’s decision to set up an endowment fund for journalists who are injured or killed, but added that it does not address the issue of bringing to justicethose who inflict violence on journalists. Unless you tackle the impunity, simply paying the victims is not going to end attacks on journalists, Ali said.

Matthew Redding, Campaigns and Advocacy Coordinator of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX),noted that these limitations on freedom of expression have resulted in a citizenry that is deprived of important information.  He said government delegation seemed in many cases reluctant to even acknowledge there was a problem. Even when presented with very credible information from the experts, particularly with regards to threats against journalists and the violence that they faced, they seemed to pin this almost entirely on terrorists rather than accepting any sort of government responsibility for these attacks.

Links:

Freedom of Expression report submitted to UNHRC by PPF, IFEX & RIDH

“There is a need for all media within Pakistan to unite”: Pakistan Press Foundation

Responding to Pakistan’s UN review: In conversation with Owais Aslam Ali and Matthew Redding

Pakistan dismisses civil society concerns regarding freedom of expression before UN Committee

UN prepares to examine civil and political rights in Pakistan

LAHORE: The Provincial Assembly on Monday passed a unanimous resolution condemning an attack on the office of a television channel. The resolution demanded that the government take the necessary security measures to protect journalists and media houses.

The session chaired by Speaker Rana Muhammad Iqbal had earlier witnessed a token walkout by journalists from the press gallery in protests of the attack on Sunday. Journalists blocked the Charing Cross. Minister for Mines and Minerals Sher Ali met them and assured them that the government would take immediate measures to address the issue of security.

A resolution moved jointly by Law Minister Rana Sanaullah and Leader of the Opposition Mian Mehmoodur Rasheed was then passed by the House. It commended the media for its sacrifices and determination in the wake of terrorist attacks. The resolution condemned attacks on all media houses as well as efforts to curb freedom of expression. “Freedom of the press is a basic requirement of a democratic society,” it stated.

The opposition leader called on the government to seriously address the issue. The law minister said that media houses had received terrorist threats. “A meeting between the government and management of media houses earlier took place. Any lapse in media houses’ security will be addressed by the government,” he said. The law minister invited journalists as well as the opposition leader to review arrangements along with the CCPO.

The opposition took the opportunity to lash out against the Orange Line Metro Train project during the question hour. The opposition alleged that the government was ignoring other development projects and only focusing on the Rs165 billion train project. Rasheed said that funds from various departments and projects were being used for the train project.

A discussion on agriculture stretched the session to five hours with both the treasury and opposition benches criticising each other. The absence of the ministers of Food and the Finance annoyed opposition members. They demanded the ministers’ presence during the debate in accordance with a previous ruling of the speaker in this regard. The law minister dismissed the demand, saying that Agriculture Minister Farrukh Javed should do.

Javed told the House that potatoes were being exported to Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Referring to the issue of outstanding payments to sugarcane growers, the law minister said that 99 per cent payments – Rs132 billion – had been made for the year 2014-2015. “The inventories of the mills that have delayed payments have been seized,” he said. For the current year, he said, 87.7 per cent of dues had been paid. The process is expected to be completed by April, he said.

The opposition leader rejected all the claims. Rasheed criticised the government over the absence of a clear agriculture policy, lack of subsidies, mode of payment to farmers, as well as the figures cited by the ministers. “The import of vegetables from India is a challenge for local farmers,” he said. He demanded that a parliamentary committee be set up to address agriculture issues. The suggestion was supported by other opposition lawmakers. The law minister, however, proposed the inclusion of more members in the standing committee on agriculture with the condition that a report with suggestions be submitted within two months. The debate on agriculture will continue when the session resumes on Tuesday (today).

Express Tribune

At the same time PBA expresses grave concern over a controversial clause of the draft law which would require journalists to reveal their source in matters of national security importance. PBA believes that inclusion of this clause and its practical ramifications will curb freedom of the press and journalists in an environment which is already hostile towards journalists and their organisations. PBA urges the Government to ensure that all stakeholders, including PBA, are consulted on any such draft before its finalisation. PBA also believes that the bill should remain confined to its basic objectives ie welfare and protection of journalists, and should not touch the controversial and already settled matters.

Business Recorder

ISLAMABAD: Journalists from all over the country will stage a coffin wearing protest sit-in and hunger strike in front of the Parliament House after the month of Ramazan to raise their grievances and apathy of the government to resolve them.

The representatives of the journalist community during a seminar here on Wednesday to commemorate senior journalists who struggled for the freedom of press in martial law regime and were lashed on May 13, 1978 vowed that they would not leave the place of the sit-in unless the government accept their demands.

It is pertinent to mention here that for the first time in the Sub-Continent’s history, four journalists — Masoodullah Khan, Iqbal Jafri, Khawar Naeem Hashmi and Nasir Zaidi — received lashings on May 13, 1978 during the martial law regime of General Ziaul Haq.

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) president Afzal Butt said one hundred journalists would give an affidavit that if their health gets deteriorated during the hunger strike then no one should shift them to hospital as they would prefer to die on the road for the cause of journalists.

“The journalists are carrying out their professional duties in the face of potential threats and economic compulsions because no one including the government is ready to make any serious effort to resolve their problems,” he said.

The PFUJ senior vice president Saleem Shahid said 113 journalists have so far been killed in Pakistan but the media persons are still performing their duties without fear because they want to continue to play their pivotal role in betterment of the society.

Senator Shahi Syed said a number of people were killed on May 12, 2007 and on Wednesday 45 more were killed by the terrorists in Karachi so the people continue to lose their lives due to rising terrorism in the country.

“We criticise Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf but salute our Army because it is rendering great sacrifices to root out terrorism. The terrorists have blown off 250 schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa due to which thousands of students have been deprived of their right to education,” he said.

Senator Mukhtar Ajiz Dhamra said he himself did journalism for three years and knew what kind of problems a journalist faces when he raises voice for the rights of the poor and the downtrodden segments of the society.

Senior Journalist Nasir Zaidi said the journalists had given innumerable sacrifices for freedom of expression and they would not tolerate any attempt to mute their voice by the powerful and influential segments of the society.

He said the journalists are facing financial problems but the government has not taken steps to ensure they get all their rights and live an honourable life in return of their services for the society.

Among others who spoke on the occasion included National Press Club (NPC) president Shahryar Khan, RIUJ general secretary Bilal Dar, RIUJ acting president Ishaq Chaudhry, Fouzia Shahid, Qurban Satti, Bakhtzada Yusufzai, Gulzar Khan and Bashir Usmani.

The News

The post Journalists to stage hunger strike for acceptance of demands appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

We come into this world crying, and by that we are marked as healthy. We leave it with our last words imparting whatever final wisdom they can to those who matter to us. In those moments, expression is free and fearless. All our lives, the desire to express what we feel even if — sometimes especially if — it flows against the tide of our surroundings, our friends, our family, is palpable; a living thing that beat its wings against the warm but stifling cage of our heart and yearns to burst forth. So often, we swallow it back down. So often, for good reason: to keep our friendships, to avoid hurting our family, to spare the dignity of a stranger we do not know, though we believe his opinions to be dreadfully in error. Not everything that yearns to be free should be at every moment. If you gave voice to every thought that flashed in your brain, your social and professional life expectancy would be measured in hours, not days.

We censor ourselves all the time. There is nothing inherently heroic or cowardly about that, good or ill.

It is a way of negotiating life. But when someone else makes that decision for us, snatches it from us, when the state legislates against our expression, we should fight that fight every time. We may not win every fight, perhaps we should not win every fight, but we should fight it all the same. Because even though 99 percent of expression is pointless, trite, repetitive, dull, offensive, vapid or shrill, that remaining one percent is worth more than we imagine. Very little of what comes out of a goldmine is gold but we keep the mine open because, in the filthy darkness, through that hard and tedious and sometimes dangerous rock, we know we will find those gleaming nuggets, precious beyond measure.

Exceptions to free speech, in societies that value it, are defined with painstaking narrowness precisely because violent criminals and (far more dangerously) the state will smell blood in the water and move against any speech it finds inconvenient, using any pretext it can. We may close off a vein of the mine to keep the whole structure from collapsing but we should do so extremely grudgingly and only when its necessity is beyond all doubt. After all, we do not know behind which forbidding tunnel the gold lies.

To be sure, there is a sharp line separating censorship and criticism, the distinction between permitting an action and endorsing it. Refraining from criticism and critique would be as disastrous to free speech as censorship. Hall said of the ever-controversial Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” There is a humility to this statement but also self interest: the right we defend today may tomorrow be our own. That said, nowhere is free expression utterly unqualified. To imagine this is pure romanticism. Generally, any time you use your speech to carry out another crime, to someone’s material or physical harm, you are not protected by free speech laws. A lawyer cannot betray confidentiality. A broker cannot commit fraud or engage in insider trading. A businessman cannot publish falsehoods against competitors to steal their clients. And so on.

There is another class of speech that can be and has been restricted. I will define it here as obscenity, though it carries different names and exists in varied precedents. Obscenity, for the purposes of this article, is speech that a) adds no possible value (that is to say, not a critique, or debate, or even pointed satire but purely meant to provoke or offend) and b) is incredibly offensive to a great majority of people in your country. To deny the holocaust, in France, is a crime. It is censored because it adds no value (the holocaust is probably the best documented genocide in history and mostly documented by the Nazi’s themselves) and is horrifically offensive. Why is the right to pornographically depict even Jesus Christ (believed to be the son of God by the majority religion in France) so staunchly protected and lionised, while holocaust denial is flat out illegal?

Simply put, it reflects what is unacceptable to that particular society. And there is nothing inherently illogical about this, though it lends a hypocritical tinge to the full throated, unqualified lionisation of free expression that so many have thrust to their chests like a flag pin. What constitutes an obscene abuse of free speech will vary from society to society. The great contradiction of globalism is that individual cultural differences, not to mention national borders, are still very much alive and well. If Pakistan achieved free expression and sat down to list its ‘obscene’ exceptions, we would probably not include holocaust denial — we rationally know it to be abhorrent but it does not strike us with a visceral blow — and instead choose to curtail anyone glorifying terrorism or mocking its victims. And no other society would have the right to force us to obey their cultural sensitivities rather than our own.

Is the desire for free expression universal? Absolutely. If you have never felt it, you almost certainly hold few opinions that, right or wrong, are terribly interesting. Is the right to free speech absolute? No, nowhere is it absolute. In a society that values free speech, can you legislate against holocaust denial? Denial of other war crimes and genocides? Obscene depictions of a spiritual figure who is, in an incredibly personal way, central to the lives of the people of your country? All of the above? You can. Should you, and which ones? That depends on the society. But these exceptions must be carefully, narrowly selected and defined because free expression, by and large, is worth tolerating a great deal for.

Free expression is the sunshine and the rain in which ideas, art and societies flourish. A casual reading of the World Press Freedom Index is compelling: there is a stark difference in the living profile of the top 10 countries and the bottom 10. Whether prosperity, education and social welfare bring freedom or the other way around, I certainly know which group I would rather aspire to be in. Because when ideas, ideologies and art of all shapes and forms, good and bad, collide with each other in the freewheeling, madly energetic marketplace of ideas wonderful things can happen. Cultures evolve. New ideas are born that may change the world, or at least our corner of it. Art rises that lifts a people and tells their story.

Truths are spoken that burn us and yet set us free. A small spark from an unassuming soul could ignite a generation, and these sparks are too precious to be lost in the chill of censorship.

No, free speech is never absolute. No right ever is. But every society owes it to itself to throw open as much of that mine as it can. There is gold to be had.

Daily Times

“It is not the CCP investigating competitive practices that we take virulent objection to. What we object to are the arbitrary and unreasonable actions that accompanied their covert investigation against the apex broadcasters’ body, unfortunately on the very evening that the 21st constitutional amendment was being voted upon in parliament. Surely this is no mere coincidence.

“By all means the press is open to a CCP investigation of all unfair trade practices, if any. We uphold this facet of the CCP’s function. But the meaningless and self-serving press release by the CCP after its action mentions two frivolous charges – the first, that a centralised clearance system has been operating for the financial recovery of media dues against defaulting advertisers, including government – a system that exists in over one hundred countries of the world, and indeed has existed in Pakistan well before 1947. The second charge is equally absurd, where the PBA is accused of fixing rates of commissions to advertising agencies at 15 per cent (although obviously not the quantum of advertising commissions themselves) – a standard practice that is carried out in almost all the countries of the world, and is far older than the creation of Pakistan. Does the CCP really mean to imply, that all regulatory agencies in the world who have accepted these practices as not being inconsistent with competitiveness, are totally negligent in the performance of their duties?

“Clearly the CCP has got it deeply wrong, and particularly when they accompany this with the draconian actions of arriving virtually unannounced to impound the entire legal record of the PBA. The bona fide of this cat-and-mouse action are highly questionable. The CCP could have asked for the required information which the apex body of the broadcasters would have provided willingly. And never has the PBA ever refused to provide the information, which has never been asked for.”

The CCP press release states that section 4 of the Competition Act “prohibits decisions by an association of undertakings that may prevent, restrict, or reduce competition in the relevant market.” We ask: “Has the CCP ever considered the rate centralising and rate fixing taking place by the Press Information Department in the Federal Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage in this context? Surely there appears to be a major legal asymmetry here.

“Clearly the need of the hour is for immediate steps to be taken by the CCP if they are not to completely lose credibility in the eyes of the nation. Firstly, all seized documents must be returned without any further delay so as to allow the PBA to perform its day-to-day functions with respect to the press.

Secondly, a future procedure to deal with cooperating media bodies that exist to further the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution, should replace the existing cat-and-mouse game. Such an evolved procedure should not only be deemed reasonable by all democracy-loving people, but also significantly appear to be reasonable to the nation.

“Let the investigation of the CCP continue without prejudice. We welcome it. But let them learn to work within the parameters of what is reasonable in law and what is sustainable in natural justice. Otherwise, we in the media, when confronted by unreasonable decisions in being lumped together with errant poultry-feed manufacturers, auto dealers and cement manufacturers, might begin to believe that something other than the course of justice is being served by such unreasonable and arbitrary actions.”

Daily Dawn