THE furore at the National Enterprises Ltd (NEL) 2024 annual general meeting (AGM) foreshadowed the pitched battle between the One Caribbean Media (OCM) board and the largest single shareholder, Corporation Sole, via the National Investment Fund. The debate has been structured as one of press freedom. The OCM board held that adding two Government representatives was an attempt to influence the media unduly.

Press freedom essentially means that the Government is held responsible for its actions. An independent news media uses its watchdog role to investigate and report on government overreach and wrongdoing, and hold those in power accountable for their actions.

An informed nation makes better decisions about its future. The commentary allows us to form opinions about the alternatives that face us. But with the rise of social media reporting, it is naïve to believe the legacy media holds the key to press freedom.

What we missed in the narrative is the repeated postponement of annual general meetings for government-controlled companies. For example, NEL was scheduled to hold its 23rd AGM on March 21. It was eventually rescheduled for June 6. There was a bland change to the agenda. Item 3 was changed to read: ‘to elect directors’.

At the meeting, the shareholders were justifiably angry at the lack of expertise in the list of proposed directors. Ms Ingrid Lashley affirmed, ‘We adhere to the philosophy that cash in the shareholders’ hands has greater value than ours.’

That AGM should have created questions about the OCM situation. Would the two new directors have enhanced the group’s performance? Should we allow the Corporation Sole to get more influence and set dividend policy to bolster the national budget?

‘The State is said to be permanent, outliving political parties and spanning many generations. The government, however, is the team of political officials who take office after an election with the task of running the State in the national interest.’ -Afra Raymond, May 2016.

At the next elections, we will vote on whether we agree with what is being done.

Why does Corporation Sole, the entity in which all the shares owned by the State are lodged, not sell the OCM shares to align with the Strategic National Objectives set out by the 2011 Ministry of Finance guidelines? OCM is not a strategic national asset. The ordinary NEL shareholders understood that politics does not have an excellent influence on business. They also understood that the choice of board directors contributes directly to the share value.

Mr Shakka Subero’s day job is to help his employer have smooth relationships with the Government. His proposed role at OCM is to help the Government better control the dividend and other policy issues.

Is he to be the Ms Lashley-equivalent in OCM? What skills does Subero bring to improve the company’s fortunes? The job skills are not comparable; the only thing in common is that his party card must be shiny. On the OCM board, his day job will disadvantage the other shareholders.

Notably, while the State has 23% shareholding, the other significant shareholders collectively have 37% ( Express, July 4). At NEL, the State owns over 60% of the shares.

There may be only two reasons for the State’s action.

There is a need for dividends to fund the ongoing Government programmes. Like Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s administration and the National Gas Company, should the dividend policy be used to execute non-company objectives?

The other reason is what Mr Brian Manning said: the current board and management are not performing well.

Bourse, a local stockbroker, noted in April 2019 that OCM faced profitability challenges. ‘The group’s revenue generation remains highly influenced by the cyclicality of media events such as sporting and election activity. A more competitive market environment has adversely affected profitability due to the growing popularity of more cost-effective advertising through social media and other digital avenues.’

It was reported that OCM has embarked on strategic transformational initiatives to improve operational efficiency and take advantage of the new digital landscape.

Are the OCM initiatives bearing fruit? The media industry benchmark study was last done in 2014. Since then, Market Facts & Opinions (2000) Ltd (MFO), the supplier of that data, has engaged fruitlessly the industry leaders for seven years. In 2018, MFO self-funded a pilot study and reported to the industry leaders that smartphones and social media had changed the media landscape. The data did not move the industry leaders, including the OCM group, to action.

Maybe Mr Manning is right. But is Mr Subero the right pick? I think not.

Noble Philip