7/30/2019 Milton Samuda statement

1/6

STATEMENT FROMMILTON J. SAMUDA

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

TO ALL EDITORS

August 30, 2013

Since returning to the Island last Friday, I have taken note of therelease by the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) in relation tothe meeting between its team and mine. I have also taken noteof the report concerning the resolution passed at the recent 70th

Annual General Meeting of the PAJ.

In relation to the joint meeting, I too am disappointed in theoutcome of the meeting particularly because in that meetingalthough there was substantial meeting of the minds for a jointrelease yet, ironically, as two disciplines schooled in the use ofwords, we could not agree on the words which would accuratelyreflect that substantial meeting of minds which in fact occurred.

In my view the critical aspects of the meeting were:

1. I recorded my disappointment that although the PAJsaid it had investigated the matter, that investigation didnot at any time include a discussion with me. I told themeeting that in my view an investigation must includeboth sides.

2. I re-stated that I did not select the journalists.Though itmay be convenient to think that I influenced or choseTVJ to be represented is simply not factual.

3. There definitively was an agreement by the journalists topre-conditions for the interview in that there was anagreement by the journalists to restrict their questioning

7/30/2019 Milton Samuda statement

2/6

to the areas that would not prejudice my clientsimminent hearing. If in accordance with their tenets of

journalism they could not participate for ethical reasons,I would have expected them to say so and it would have

been understood and accepted. If the journalisticprinciples that the PAJ espouse are applied to these

journalists then they had the option to decline theinterview, not to attend or to leave at any point. Theyagreed to and participated in the process in which wewere balancing the public interest matter with theguidelines for a fair hearing.

4. The PAJ's complete rejection ofpre-conditions for

interviews as inimical to free and open coverage and ofthis only being facilitative of public relations.

5. From my legal discipline, I re-asserted that thejournalists had an obligation to honour their commitmenthaving agreed to the pre-conditions. Clearly, this is thecore issue that separates us on this aspect of thematter.

6. The PAJ emphasized in our discussions, and weagreed, that if the principles are as they say, theacceptance of pre-conditions for the interview washighly unprofessional by the journalists and should nothave been accommodated in the first place; and furtherthat the journalists should have disclosed the conditionsagreed and obtain prior clearance from their supervisorsor editors to enter any such agreement, which they didnot.

7. I pointed out that the journalists having showed upequipped and ready for an interview, having agreed topre-conditions, I assumed that they had clearance fromtheir supervisors or editors.

7/30/2019 Milton Samuda statement

3/6

8. That in acting as counsel to my clients, in thosecircumstances I was not then and am not now cognizantof any rule which prohibited the press from makingagreements, including pre-conditions, in relation to

interviews. Accordingly I did not think that theagreement was outside accepted norms.

9. The assertion in the meeting by the PAJ Team that thejournalists ought to be dismissed for agreeing to the pre-conditions. However, this is not reflected in their publicpositions.

10. The agreement by the journalists themselves to the

erasure of the tapes and the provision of edited versions(which were subsequently provided) afteracknowledging that they had breached the agreement isof some note about the journalists own position in thematter.

11. My contention that the journalists were never coercedinto handing over the tapes. It should be noted furtherthat the journalists before then, without prompting, had

even promised that they would not use those areas thatwere outside the agreement.

12. The PAJ noting that TVJ's newsroom carried a releasein which it was stated that the tapes were demandedfrom the journalists and my definitive statement that atno time did I use my position as TVJ Chairman tocoerce the journalists into handing over the tapes. Theywere handed over voluntarily after I requested to them

to do so.It is important to note that the reporter in his account ofthe circumstances has not substantiated this claim bythe PAJ of a demand from me or intimidation by me.

7/30/2019 Milton Samuda statement

4/6

13. The conversation I had with the journalists was never,ever acrimonious.

14. In response to PAJ assertions that I stood in conflict with

the media house of which I am Chairman and my role topreserve and protect a free press in Jamaica, Ireiterated the importance of my duty to protect myclients from circumstances which might prejudice theirright to a fair hearing in prospective proceedings.

15. That at all times I acted in my role as counsel. Theinterview was held at my law office and the journalists atall times knew the capacity in which I acted.

16. I wish to assure that in my role as TVJ Chairman andRJR Board Member for 17 years, I have never onceacted in a position to influence their editorial content,even when it relates to my activities in my several otherduties.

17. My stating in the meeting that, having regard to whattranspired that if the opportunity presented itself again I

would behave differently in that either the interviewwould not have been held at all (which was my originalposition) or, in respect of the tapes, I would not haverequested them of the journalists but instead would haveprotested my concerns to their supervising editors.

18. The acceptance of the PAJ that much work needs to bedone on its side in educating journalists about not onlytheir rights but also their responsibilities was clearly

stated and accepted.

19. My raising a concern that the PAJs draft Code ofPractice allows the use of deceit to obtain information inthe public interest.

7/30/2019 Milton Samuda statement

5/6

The meeting, in my view, made considerable progress in tacklingissues such as the interpretation of public interest, journalisticintegrity, ethics and training, who is a public person and mediaaccess to public persons, the lawyer/client relationship,

perceived intimidation and conflict of interest.

During the meeting the question of payola influence was alsoraised by the PAJ and should be ventilated.

It is my view that members of the public would benefit frominformation and discussion concerning the Draft Code of Practiceof the PAJ.

I commend both teams - the PAJ team led by Wyvolyn Gagerand including Cliff Hughes, Ben Brodie and Roxanne Marr(representing PAJs legal counsel, Bert Samuels); and my teamled by Patrick Foster, Q.C. and including attorneys-at-law NigelJones and Danielle Chai for a candid, no holds barred andenlightening meeting.

Turning now to my obligations as a director of the RJRCommunications Group and of TVJ. I have a duty to those

companies to attend to their welfare and that of theirshareholders. I had and have no desire to see my companies inan untenable position. I have always maintained that leadershipmust act in the best interest of those it leads and not out of anysense of narrow self interest. I am no exception.

Please note therefore that my stating in the meeting with thePAJ, that having regard to what transpired that if the opportunitypresented itself again I would behave differently, was an

indication of my acknowledgement of the regrettable position thishas led to on several fronts. I regret this entire episode and that,while honestly acting in my capacity as legal counsel, there wereaspects of those duties which caused questioning and doubtabout my commitment to press freedom and to my role to protectthe integrity and credibility for the RJR Group. My commitment

7/30/2019 Milton Samuda statement

6/6

to press freedom remains rock solid. In relation to the RJRGroup, I can confidently state that all stakeholders in our mediaorganisation should have no doubt about my commitment tothese media institutions and my vigilance in supporting their

integrity, journalistic and otherwise, in the future.

As an immediate step I recused myself from the BoardMeetings in the RJR Group this week, to allow for full and frankdiscussions without my presence or perceived influence.

Additionally, I have requested leave from the Board, until theinternal processes of RJR are finalized.

As soon as the internal processes of RJR are finalized, I will

make a final decision along with them and communicate itpublicly, in due course.

Milton J. SamudaAttorney-at-Law