Ministry of Information explains registration denial to "Arche-Pachatak" with "procedural moments"
To be sincere, the official answer of
the Ministry of Information to the repeated application, submitted by
the new founder of "ARCHE" for its re-registration with the
state, was a surprise...
Of course, the surprise was not in
the registration denial – there were no illusions about the
reluctance of the authorities to continue seeing in in the Belarusian
media space from the very beginning.
Surprising was the
argumentation chosen by the officials to justify the denial.
The
deputy minister of information Liliya Ananich (whose signature stands
under the document, received by the editorial board) has the
following opinion:
"According to the form of application
for the state registration of a mass media, established by the ruling
#14 of the Ministry of Information of the Republic of Belarus of 6
October 2008, the form must be signed by the founder (or founders) of
the media.
The possibility of signing of the application by
other persons, including those acting on the basis of the power of
attorney, is not provided for.
In violation of the provisions
of the aforementioned ruling of the Ministry of Information, the
application of the state registration of the "Arche-Pachatak"
magazine was signed on the basis of the power of attorney by a person
who did not have powers to do it.
Moreover, the application is not
sealed by the legal entity which acts as the founder of this printed
mass media."
The application for the re-registration of
the magazine on behalf of the public corporation "Haisak",
to whom the rights of the founder had been passed in full conformity
with the legally determined procedure. The application was passed by
the acting chief editor of "ARCHE" Aliaksandr Pashkevich,
who is also one of the two co-founders of "Haisak". He had
the power of attorney on such actions, issued by the head of the
organization. Thus, A. Pashkevich was an empowered person, and it is
quite unclear how he could violated Article 12 of the Law of the
Republic of Belarus "On mass media", which sounds as
following:
"During the registration of a mass media with
the state the national government agency in the sphere of mass
information, the founder (founders) or the persons empowered by them
pass an application in the form determined by the national state
government agency in the sphere of mass information."
We
suspect that if the ministry's officials were forced to explain their
position, they would start telling that passing documents and signing
them are two different things, that's why the only thing that could
be done by the co-founder of the public corporation is to bring the
documents to the ministry and pass them to a responsible official. A
statement which is not signed directly by the head of the
organization by which the media is founded, is not a document but a
void paper. We also cannot rule out that some uncritically minded
people would even believed that officers of the Ministry of
Information are interested solely in the correspondence of the passed
documents to the formal requirements of the legislation and ignore
the criterion of political loyalty. However, unsoundness of such a
thought becomes evident after recalling how the new founders of
"ARCHE" had passed the registration documents to the
Ministry of Information the previous time in exactly the same way and
received the first registration denial on the basis of the person
proposed as the chief editor to the qualification requirements. At
that time, the document "signed on the basis of the power of
attorney by a person who did not have powers to do it" and "not
sealed by the legal entity which acts as the founder of this printed
mass media" was accepted for consideration by the Ministry of
Information, and the answer was signed by Liliya's Ananich direct
boss, the minister of information Aleh Praliaskouski. It means that
at that time the application of the "ARCHE" founders was
not a void paper, and started being considered as such only after the
officials ran out of serious arguments against the re-registration of
the magazine? Let it be, in such a way the Ministry of Information
"whipped itself", having eloquently witnessed the
unprofessionalism of its officers and their inclination to the use of
"double standards".