Every state institution is indebted and owed the rights of having
its decrees adhered to. This is especially so when the directives
are from the highest echelons, e.g. the presidency, courts,
ministerial etc.
All directives, regardless of their nature, ought to be respected,
followed and adhered to.
These decrees, whether legal or not, crude or otherwise, first
and foremost they have to be adhered to.
Whoever, thereafter, feels aggrieved or besmirched by the order,
has got to follow the right channels and seek legal redress
in a court of law.
This much said, this column is indebted to the members of the
public and its readership in particular to set perspectives right.
It is common knowledge that the health minister Hon. Hagletosie
is one of the chief officers in state institutions that the populace
widely hails. His popular support we believe emanates from the
way he goes about his duties.
Whatever reasons that guided his directives to the media, publication
and telecom industries may have been influenced by
factors best known to the health department for the good of the
people and the nation.
With all respects due, it could be however, rightly termed inconvenient
for the sake of infringing the rights of others.
However inconvenient or wrong it may be assumed, though,
the Telesom group is indeed quite wrong; in fact extremely wrong
to forego the order.
If at all Telesom may see that their rights have been trampled
upon, then they should have gone to the place to legally seek
redress.
If the real aim of the decree is to curb sub-standard dispensation
of services in the health industry, then the easiest way was
for the health department to dash to whatever, wherever or whoever
is being advertised and demand verifications.
The press would, in such instance, have played a bigger role in
exposing quacks. The noble course on both parts of the department
and the media would have blended each other instead of
the quagmire that may only inconvenience all the stakeholders;
thus health department, media, advertisers themselves and
members of the public or the consumers.
It is true that the players in advertisement industry are not to be
subjected to be the security guards for the health department. It
is not for them to ask for certified papers from doctors to check
their claimed professions; neither is it for the media to verify
the standards of labs, chemists etc.
We do respect the rule of law and adherence to stipulated regulations.
Both for the sake of good governance and ease of
beauricracy, or instill transparency and accountability, it would
serve the nation best if the ministry would review its orders and
physically dash to all suspected subjects as revealed in adverts;
thus media becoming dependable watch-dogs.
Telesom should apologize to the ministry and follow a righteous
alternative cue.
Meanwhile the media industry should not be jittery on the “tycoon
trampling” upon the “oppressed” but should push for
regulations and mode of taxation of the giant SMS servers for
the sake of development of the whole of the country. They should
not deem them as competitors since the cyber world modernization
is here to stay.
They should rather advance, defend and argue for the rights of
the populace.
This is what patriotism entails and how to be patriotic. Crying
wolf aside won’t pay.
tht_editor@hotmail.com
