Ngorr Ciise wrote:

"Gassa: << My understanding of a bond is a writen or spoken agreement
guranteeing to
make good such agreement when required to do so. In other words, it is
similar to a bail bond and that none of the papers were actually required to
pay a deposit. It also seems to me that the idea is to ensure that any paper
that is convicted and fined has the  ability to pay the fine. Frankly Mr.
Hydara, if that is the case I don't have a problem with that. If I may add
also that the stipulated fines for skin bleaching and the possession of skin
bleaching creams and products seem to be much harsher than the above. >>
Emphasis mine.

No doubt you missed out on the absurdity of your reasoning - and seem
certain to miss out in the future of  such casuistic reasonings. Consider,
for instance, your reasoning that the bail bonds, which you reasoned or
assumed were prerequisited to ensure that media practitioners who flout the
obnoxious media laws of this ghastly regime can cough up the cash to pay any
penalties they are liable to pay under the law, as hitch-free or even fair.
Let's extend this preposterous argument to, say, business entities like
commercial entrepreneurs or enterprises, which like all private media
practitioners, are in business to make profits or simply run a good business
- and, as such, can flout the rules of the game. Supposing the strictures
that are currently heaped on the private media are to be applied to other
businesses, i.e., businesses must be in good stead to cough up or show up
front - before being registered as businesses - cash in the event of them
fouling the rules of the game and paying penalties. Can you imagine how many
Gambian bvusinesses would go out of business or never fail to be registered
in the first place were they to be the recipients of such ridiculous and
obnoxious rules as Decrees 70 and 71?"

Ngorr,

What is absurd is to look at the issue of decrees 70/71 in isolation of
other laws/regulations passed within the same period. Do you know, for
instance, that one can only be a commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP),
if one is ready to invest a minimum of one million Dalasis (D1,000,000)?
This investment package must also cater for the training of a number of
engineers and accountants. In return, the incumbent operator (Gamtel) was
obliged to charge at least 15 % more than the new investor for three years
to allow the new business to gain some market share. This regulation, you
must admit, is much harsher than the D100,000.00 (one hundred Thousand
dalasis) bond required of the print media to execute when registering. The
idea, as I was made to understand, was to allow only those who seriously
want to invest and have the funds to register. This is to ensure that they
operate an Internet service that is viable, profitable and at least provide
some long time employment for Gambians. In any business some degree of
regulation is required and The Gambia is no exception. If we had enacted
such types of legislation/regulations years ago we would not have been in a
situation where a significant stretch of our beaches are littered with
incomplete buildings that government is impotent to do anything about.  I
strongly believe that no matter how desperately we want investment in the
country we must have a screening process to gurantee their viability and as
far as I am concerned decrees 70/71 provides just that.

Futhermore there are a host of other taxes that most companies are required
to pay, which I believe does not apply to the print media and I stand to be
corrected. Some examples are the 35 % company tax and the D10,000.00
education levy on businesses whose annual turnover is beyond a certain
amount. Unfortunately I don't know the threshold but if anybody is
interested I can find out.

You also wrote:

"If you don't get the point, let me give you a basic Business Economics 101
proposition: that businesses ought to be limited by liability. In so far as
private madia practitioners in the Gambia are deemed as businessmen
competing in a business environment, they should fall under the protection
of this proposition, just as other businesses are. No business - be they
private media practitioners or commercial entrepreneurs - should be the
recipient of rules that  insist that they have up front the money they are
liable to pay in the event they are in breach of ridiculous and obnoxious
laws as Decrees 70 and 71."

Ngorr, the nature and consideration when eacting any legislation pertaining
to business cannot be the same for all. Business Economics 101 proposition
also recognises that. I am yet to see a limited liability newspaper or a
bank sued for libel or have you? These are two reasons why decree 70/71 are
specific to newspapers and not applicable to pharmacies. They are not meant
to stiffle or muzzle the press otherwise it would have done so long ago.
Moreover what would government gain from such a futile exercise considering
the possibilities provided by the Internet?

Have a good day, Gassa.







>From: Ngorr Ciise <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The private media in the first and second republics.
>Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:57:33 +0000
>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>