In recent times, the landscape of radio broadcasting in our society has shifted in a concerning direction. Prominent radio presenters, such as Aunty Naa and Mama Efe, begun addressing serious issues like marital disputes, rape, and other critical matters that traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of the courts or traditional leaders.
These radio personalities, lacking the necessary legal training and authority, often make unprofessional determinations on these sensitive issues, leading to a myriad of problems.
One of the fundamental tenets of natural justice is the principle of audi alteram partem, which means “hear the other side.” This principle ensures that all parties involved in a dispute are given a fair opportunity to present their case before a decision is made. However, this principle is frequently disregarded in these radio programs.
Enlightened individuals who understand the legal implications of such cases often refuse invitations to these shows, aware that the radio stations lack the legal competence to adjudicate such matters. Unfortunately, when these individuals decline to participate, their images are often displayed on the radio stations’ platforms, leading to defamation and public shaming.
Those who agree to participate in these so-called kangaroo courts often face unfair treatment. A glaring example of this malpractice involved a defilement case where the host instructed the underage victim to slap the accused person on live broadcast. This not only compromised the legal proceedings that should have followed but also violated the victim’s right to privacy and protection, as their identity was exposed to the public.
Moreover, these radio shows sometimes coerce accused individuals into making financial payments to complainants, regardless of the legal merits of the case. Such practices undermine the legal system, as justice becomes a matter of public spectacle rather than a structured, fair process. This has led to numerous households being torn apart by the irresponsible adjudication of personal disputes on air.
The role of the National Media Commission (NMC), the regulatory body responsible for overseeing media practices, comes into sharp focus here. The NMC’s apparent lack of action against these abuses represents a significant oversight. The Commission must recognize that this form of media malpractice not only infringes on fundamental human rights but also poses a serious threat to social order and the rule of law.
Without immediate intervention, the situation may deteriorate further. The unchecked proliferation of these radio programs undermines public trust in the legal system and erodes the foundational principles of justice. It is imperative for the National Media Commission to step in and regulate the content and practices of radio stations, ensuring that they adhere to ethical and legal standards.
In conclusion, while radio can be a powerful tool for education and community engagement, it must not overstep its bounds into areas where professional legal intervention is required. The protection of justice, the rights of individuals, and the integrity of societal norms depend on the responsible and ethical use of media. The National Media Commission must act decisively to curtail these unprofessional practices, safeguarding the rule of law and the rights of all citizens.
Edwin Kobina Coleman
