Emblazoned on the front page of the Stabroek News on February 3, 2007, just under the title piece, in bold type the following slogan appeared: "This gov't is misusing taxpayers' funds in an effort to suppress this newspaper".

That slogan and a series of others in the following months on the front pages constituted perhaps the single most potent arrow in the quiver of the Stabroek News as it battled the government for 17 months over the arbitrary and punitive cut-off of state advertising.

Last month, out of the blue and perhaps with an eye to the approach of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, the Government of Guyana advised the proprietor of the newspaper that ads would finally be restored in a fair proportion.

As was the case when the ads were first halted in November 2006 there was no credible explanation of why this was being done – a stark example of how governments can intrude heavy-handedly in areas best left to institutions and self-regulation.

And while the ads have returned for the moment it is unclear if they have been restored because the government recognised the error of its ways or there is some other motive.

In November 2006, after almost 15 years of state advertising with the Stabroek News it was suddenly all gone. Most disturbingly and thoroughly out of kilter with democratic governance there was no explanation.

Several letters to the Government Information Agency (GINA) which served as the clearing house for all government ads produced anodyne and meaningless answers. For example, in one letter, GINA said: "Your concerns have been noted and have been referred to the relevant authorities for review". What did that really mean? There was no further explanation even when a follow-up letter was dispatched.

Stabroek News then went on the offensive. In January 2007 it issued a press release exposing the government cut-off and charging that it was a gross attack on press freedom prompted by the newspaper's independent and watchdog outlook.

Before day's end and after weeks of silence and subterfuge, GINA kicked into full gear and released a statement charging that Stabroek News had no monopoly on state advertising, no longer had the largest circulation of the private newspapers and based on what it nebulously described as 'feedback' was not as popular as the state-run Guyana Chronicle and the privately-owned Kaieteur News.

This was all news to Stabroek News. Never before had it been made aware that there was a government policy to apportion state advertising between the state paper and the putative highest selling private daily.

Moreover, if indeed this argument was to prevail where was the data to underpin it? Stabroek News was the only newspaper with audited figures. The rival newspaper, Kaieteur News was not known to have audited figures while the state paper was known to have very low circulation.

Further rubbishing the government's argument was its continuing supply, in enviable quantities, of state ads to a private weekly newspaper closely connected to the ruling party.

How then could the government justify the pulling of ads to a 21-year-old newspaper which had established itself as a market leader and a source of unbiased, trusted and credible reporting?

How could it do this when it was a signatory to the hemispheric press freedom Declaration of Chapultepec which says in Principle Seven 'the granting or withdrawal of government advertising may not be used to reward or punish the media or individual journalists'.

Rewind to the middle of 2006. In the midst of a highly charged election campaign, the incumbent, President Bharrat Jagdeo launched a bitter attack on the proprietor and Editor-in-Chief of the Stabroek News, David de Caires.

De Caires was accused of being behind a new party which emerged on the scene and appeared to threaten the two-party stranglehold on Guyana's politics. President Jagdeo then kept up his attacks on this newspaper which had in the preceding months reported fearlessly on his plans to launch casino gambling without the full consultation that he had promised the public and a secret memorandum with a favoured hotel investor.

The die was cast. Elections in September led to a comprehensive victory for President Jagdeo albeit with a reduced number of votes. Within two months of his new term the ads were gone.

The cut-off of ads was roughly equivalent to about 20 percent of gross advertising revenues and over the period about $30 million or US$150,000 – a substantial sum considering the tight economic circumstances and the competitive environment.

The embargo forced cost-cutting measures and dampened morale among staff but only for a short while. The newspaper fought back with every tool at its disposal. It mobilised support locally, regionally and internationally.

Within weeks of the feud, Stabroek News had secured the backing of the private sector, the labour movement, human rights organisations, the political parties and public opinion.

Support also poured in from regional and international journalists groups and newspapers. The waves of support left the government completely isolated but defiant and unwilling to countenance reasonable compromises.

Stabroek News itself had suggested that ads be divvied up on the basis of the paid circulation of the newspapers and their target audience.

A distinguished team of Caribbean journalists met President Jagdeo on the fringes of a Caricom meeting and offered their services to help formulate a mechanism for the sharing of state advertising. These eminently sensible proposals were both ignored by President Jagdeo.

The pressure continued on the government in the form of a request by the Press Freedom Rapporteur of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for an explanation of the decision.

The government dithered for months and when it finally responded could provide no convincing explanation. The Rapporteur at this point called on the government to review the decision.

The ante was then upped by the newspaper when for the first time in its history and on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the cut-off, its employees picketed against the government. The occasion was the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting in Georgetown.

Apparently unprepared for this embarrassment, the government resorted to having the police prevent Stabroek News employees from holding placards outside of the venue — an act unheard of in years of peaceful picketing. But the point was made and news of the government's abuse of press freedom filtered onto the Commonwealth stage and further.

The insidiousness of the government's press freedom assault which led to about 30 ministries and government agencies pulling ads was further exposed when several large state corporations shockingly followed suit without explanation despite longstanding commercial relationships with this newspaper.

The campaign against Stabroek News was further unmasked when local governments were prevented from placing ads by their regional executive officers who are in turn controlled by central government.

This sparked another round of searing condemnation of the government. By then, cracks had begun to appear in the government's resolve and as clandestinely as they had been choked off, the ads returned after 17 months.

No one knows what the government might do next though it has since shut down for four months a television station which has been one of its harshest critics over the broadcast and re-broadcasting of a threat to the President.

The penalty has been decried as excessive and not befitting the transgression. The point has been made that no business in a competitive environment can sustain being shut down for four months.

The cardinal lessons to be apprehended from the Stabroek News experience is that press freedom cannot be taken for granted and certainly cannot be left within the discretion of the government.

All freedoms have to be protected through institutional mechanisms where the state's actions must also come up for review.

No government should be making decisions on where state advertising is placed as the temptation to reward friends and punish critics can often be irresistible.

The business of distributing ads should be the province of reputable advertising agencies which can consider circulation and readership in allocating across the media.

The showdown between the Government of Guyana and Stabroek News also underlines the importance of alliances across sectors and the synthesising of pressure in various forms – the front page of the newspaper, picketing and testing the institutions entrusted with adjudicating these matters.

Yesterday in Guyana, today in Bermuda, tomorrow in some other part of the region; the best safeguard is regional solidarity and the internationalising of these issues in every available forum.