Weekend Mirror 22-23 June 2019

Elections must be held within three months ‒ Jagdeo 22-23 June, 2019 / Vol. 10 No. 78 / Price: $100

Internet: http: //www.mirrornewsgy.com / e-mail: weekendmirror@gmail.com

PAGE 10

CCJ ‘knocked us down on every point conceivable’ – Basil Williams admits

PAGE 9

SEE INSIDE

Harmon cuts Nagamootoo down to size PAGE 3

No guarantee that new house-tohouse registration will include all eligible voters – Shaddick PAGE 12

The path of progress is one all Guyanese will walk together under new PPP/C gov’t – Ali PAGE 17

AFC’s newly elected top leaders tainted by corruption, conflict of interest issues Diplomatic corps call for respect of the CCJ ruling PAGE 19

PAGE 27

2

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

CCJ rules that passage of the no-confidence motion is valid

T

he Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Tuesday (June 18, 2019) ruled on a trio of cases related to the motion of no confidence that was made in the National Assembly of Guyana on 21 December 2018.

In the judgment delivered today, the CCJ declared that the motion of no confidence in the Government is valid.

Guyana’s Constitution states that the Cabinet, including the President, is required to resign if the Government is defeated by the majority vote of all the elected members of the National Assembly “on a vote of confidence”. In December 2018, the Leader of the Opposition had moved “a motion of no confidence” in the Government. Mr. Charandas Persaud, a member of the Government, had joined the 32 Opposition members in voting for the motion so that 33 members voted in favour of the motion and 32 voted against.

Another provision of the Constitution required elections to be held within three months of the defeat of the Government on a motion of confidence, unless two-thirds

of the National Assembly determined a longer period before the holding of elections. Despite the Speaker of the Assembly declaring that the motion had been validly passed, the Government neither resigned nor announced impending elections.

This triggered a number of legal challenges in the courts in Guyana, which ultimately led to two days of hearings at the CCJ in May 2019.

There were three main issues before the Court.

The first issue related to the number of votes needed to pass a vote of no-confidence. The CCJ decided that the requirement for “a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly”, referred to a majority of the total number of votes or seats in the Assembly, irrespective of the number of members who actually vote. In determining that majority, the Court was of the opinion that the ‘half plus one’ rule was not applicable. The Court stated that the majority was clearly at least 33 votes.

The second issue was whether Mr Persaud was

ineligible to vote as he was a dual citizen. Dual citizens are not allowed to put themselves up for candidacy in elections to the National Assembly. The Court found that the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act required that a petition alleging that Mr Persaud was disqualified from running for office would have had to be filed in the High Court of Guyana within 28 days after

the publication of the results of the 2015 election. Since this case was filed in January 2019, the Court held that the challenge to Mr Persaud’s election to the Assembly had been out of time.

The Court also rejected the submission that Mr Persaud was absolutely required to vote against the motion of no confidence along with other members of the Government.

Another issue hinged on the differences between a ‘motion of no confidence’ and ‘a motion of confidence’.

It was argued that the provisions in the Constitution only applied to ‘motions of confidence’ which could only be raised by a member of the Government. The Court however held that the reference to ‘a vote of confidence’ in the Constitution included ‘a motion of no confidence’ which could be raised by any member of the Assembly, including the Leader of the Opposition.

The main judgment was delivered by the President of the Court, the Hon. Mr. Justice Saunders, with concurring judgments by the Hon. Messrs. Justice Wit and Anderson and the Hon. Mme. Justice Rajnauth-Lee. The bench also included the Hon. Mr. Justice Hayton. Mr Justice Wit said that while the Constitution contained provisions that prevented members from ‘crossing the floor’ and gave the representative of each both the Government and the Opposition the power to recall and replace a mem-

ber. Those provisions could not, and were not, meant to prevent members from so voting.

Mr. Justice Anderson said that there may be need for drafters to revisit the language of ‘confidence motions’ provisions in the Constitution to bring about more clarity. He also said that while challenges to disqualifications for elections were generally barred after 28 days after the election, in his opinion, there may be cases such as fraud where the Court would have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Madame Justice Rajnauth-Lee in her judgment stated that “there was nothing which prevented Mr Persaud from voting in favour of the no confidence motion” and she urged all to bear in mind that the rule of law was an important guiding constitutional principle of a sovereign democratic state like Guyana.

In the coming days, the Court will hear further arguments from the parties on the consequences that should flow from the validity of the motion of no confidence.

Granger’s unilateral appointment of GECOM Chairman ‘flawed’, ‘breached the Constitution’ – CCJ rules

T

he Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Tuesday (June 18, 2019) ruled that the process through which Reverend Justice (Retired) James Patterson was appointed Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by His Excellency, Brigadier David Granger, President of Guyana was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution.

The Court emphasized, however, that nothing in its judgment was intended “in the slightest degree” to cast aspersions on Justice Patterson’s competence and suitability for the position of Chairman of GECOM. Nor was there any suggestion that President Granger had not acted in good faith.

The Constitution stated that the Chairman was to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition.

Three lists, with a total of 18 nominees for the post of the GECOM Chairman, were submitted for consider-

ation by the Leader of the Opposition.

President Granger rejected the names on all three lists.

The first list was rejected as, in the President’s view, the qualifications and experience of the nominees did not seem to conform to the requirements outlined in the Constitution.

The second list was rejected by the President, as he found it to be unacceptable within the meaning of the Constitution and the criteria that he had set out in a ‘Statement of Qualities of the Chairman of the GECOM’ that he had submitted to the Leader of the Opposition.

Prior to the submission of the third list, the Government and the Opposition met and consulted on the “way forward on the selection and appointment of the Chairman”. After that meeting, the third list was submitted

to the President and rejected as being unacceptable. After disapproving the third list, the President advised the Leader of the Opposition that he would select a Chairman himself. This course of action is provided for by the Constitution if the Leader of the Opposition failed to present a suitable nominee.

The President justified his decision to appoint a Chairman himself in part on the ground that it would not serve the public’s best interest to further delay the appointment.

In determining the main issue in the case, the Court looked first at the proper meaning of Article 161(2) of Guyana’s Constitution.

That Article sets out the requirements to be satisfied for a person to be eligible for appointment as GECOM Chairman. It also sets out the general process for selecting the Chairman.

To determine the meaning, the Court looked at the drafting history of Article 161(2), observing that changes had been made to it to pro-

mote consensus and inclusiveness by involving the Leader of the Opposition in the selection process. The CCJ also stressed that “an onus is placed on the President not to find a nominee unacceptable merely because the nominee is not a choice the President would have himself made. The President should only find a nominee unacceptable for some good reason on objective grounds”. It was also found that the President could not, as a precondition to considering a nominee, include eligibility requirements that were additional, or different, from those stated in the Constitution.

The Court therefore found that the process was flawed and in breach of the Constitution. In a concurring judgment, Mme. Justice Rajnauth-Lee stated that by giving reasons why nominees

are rejected, the President will engender greater public trust and confidence in the Elections Commission. Mr. Justice Anderson, also in a concurring judgment, agreed that the process was flawed but did not think that, at the consultative stage, it was necessary for reasons to be given.

The Court concluded that the most sensible approach to the process of appointing the Chairman of GECOM is for the Leader of the Opposition and the President to communicate with each other in good faith and, perhaps, even meet to discuss eligible candidates for the position of Chairman before a list is submitted formally.

The CCJ having concluded that the appointment was in breach of the Constitution, the court invited both sides to present further arguments on how the issue should be rectified. This is expected to be done by June 24, 2019 when the CCJ is expected to grant consequential orders (orders to facilitate the implementation of the court’s decision).

3

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Harmon cuts Nagamootoo down to size ‒ Rescinds decision to reinstall AFC member as General Manager of GNNL

T

he Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, to reinstated Sherrod Duncan as General Manager for the Guyana National Newspaper Limited (GNNL) – publishers of the Guyana Chronicle – was rescinded by Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon.

Last Friday (June 14, 2019), he made it clear that Duncan, who was found guilty of several financial breaches, remains fired – in accordance with a decision taken by the company’s Board of Directors. “The Government’s position is that Mr Duncan is off the job,” he declared.

This position significantly undermines the clear instruction issued by the Prime Minister to the Board’s former Chairperson, Geeta Chandan-Edmond, for Duncan to be reinstated as General Manager. Chandan-Edmond

and three other board members resigned on June 4, 2019 in response to Nagamootoo’s decision.

Harmon said, “We respect the independence of these Boards, once these Boards are appointed. And my understanding is that the Board took a decision with respect to the termination of Mr Duncan and therefore it will require another Board to determine whether Mr Duncan will return to work or stay dismissed.”

The decision by Nagamootoo – a member of the Alliance For Change (AFC) arm of the coalition Government – was supported by party leader Raphael Trotman and Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan. Trotman had previously expressed that the decision to fire Duncan was too “harsh” while Ramjattan said it was too “extreme”.

AUDIT FINDINGS The audit into the management of resources at the Guyana National Newspaper Limited revealed several breaches in the disbursement of monies for services and employment procedures.

Chateram Ramdihal Chartered Accountants Professional Services Firm was contracted by the Auditor General to conduct a special audit on the overall management and governance of the Guyana Chronicle for the period of June 1, 2018 to September 10, 2018. The objective was to determine whether the spending of funds was in accordance with principles and regulations of the company.

A document containing the findings was leaked to the media.

It indicated that the General Manager, Sherod Duncan, spent over $5M

was spent on 21 transactions which did not adhere to the Tender Board Rules and procedures which govern the corporation.

According to the document, Duncan took an overseas trip with the marketing coordinator for the resuscitation of the publication’s New York edition. This trip cost an excess of $736,028, but there was no approval from the Minister for such an event and to date, no relevant documents were brought forward to support these expenditures.

Duncan, a member of the Alliance for Change (AFC), had travelled again in June to Lethem and was given an allowance of $200,000. In that instance, the Management Tender Committee did not give approval for his travel, and documents are also still pending.

According to the audit, Duncan also expended an-

other $721,000 to repair one of the company’s vehicles which he used, but there were no contract to validate such and these payments were made without the established approval process.

Apart from financial errors, the audit found that an editor by the name of Godfrey Wray was terminated upon instruction from the General Manager. But Wray’s personnel file did not indicate that his performance was poor. The services of a finance controller were also terminated by Duncan in September without notice, which is not in compliance with the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual.

According to the audit, Duncan also proceeded to hire one Adrian Persaud as the company’s social media coordinator, but a look at his recruitment indicated that the vacancy was not advertised internally or externally and no evidence of his qualification was provided at that

time.

GNNL also has a Management Tender Committee, which approves transactions ranging from $100,000 to $300,000 before payments are made. However, during period under review, no approval was given for nine such transactions valued at $1.6M. Another, five transactions valued at a total of $2.1M were never approved by the Corporation Tender Committee.

Meanwhile, for the four months examined, some $2.3M was spent to increase the entity’s social media presence in the areas of live streaming, social boosts and the social media department, but the company’s budget for 2018 did not make any provisions for this.

Furniture was also acquired for over $2.5M without any budgetary allocation.

The probe was ordered after the Coalition Government came under pressure.

Police clear Patterson hours after PPC is called on to investigate new findings pointing to ‘gross breaches and open violations’ S everal gross breaches and open violations were cited by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira, who, last Wednesday (June 12, 2019), called on the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) to investigate new findings relative to the use of taxpayers’ monies on a consultancy services for the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River bridge.

Her June 12, 2019 letter addressed to the PPC Chairperson, Carol Corbin, said: “In addition to the $161,514,420 approved

by Cabinet in November 2016, the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant Account) actually paid $215,371,182 in 2017 for the cost for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge and $74, 068,000 in two payments of $14,728,000 in January 2018 and another of $59,340,000 in February 2018 for the New Bridge feasibility studies.”

Teixeira noted that the new findings show that the Feasibility Study cost the taxpayers $293,439,182 or approx. US$1.4M – a whopping $131.92M more than what was revealed as the initial cost.

This is the second time that Teixeira has called on the PPC to investigate the matter of the Procurement of Consultancy Services for the Feasibility Study and Design of the New Demerara River Bridge.

CURIOUS TIMING Meanwhile, hours after Teixeira’s letter was made public, last Friday (June 14, 2019), the Guyana Police Force released a statement indicating that Minister David Patterson was cleared of wrongdoing in the procurement of Consultancy Services for the Feasibility Study and Design of the New Demerara River Bridge.

The statement said: “(With) reference to an investigation by the Special Organised Crime Unit ( S O C U ) i n t o t h e “ P r ocurement of Consultancy Services for the Feasibility Study and Design of the New Demerara River Bridge, please be informed that Legal Advice has been obtained to the effect that: There was no misuse of funds; there is no evidence that a criminal offence has been committed; and there is no evidence of any collusion between Arie Mol/ Lievense

CSO and the personnel from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.”

This disclosure from the Guyana Police Force comes months after the PPC was asked to investigate the procurement of Consultancy Services for the Feasibility Study and Design of the New Demerara River Bridge and produced a report on August 7, 2018.

The Police Force’s disclosure also comes months after the PPC report was sent to SOCU, which completed its own investigations into the matter since January 2019, according to SOCU Head, Sydney James.

SOCU’s involvement in the matter came after a call from the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) an investigation. The PPP/C, on August 16, 2018, forwarded to SOCU a report from the Public Procurement Commission.

PPC FINDINGS The PPC report made clear that there were clear breaches of Guyana’s financial laws in the procurement of Consultancy Services for the Feasibility Study and Design of the New Demerara River Bridge It noted that several

companies bid for the project – to do the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River bridge – and 12 companies were shortlisted. The report added that only two of the 12 companies made proposals.

As such the bidding process was annulled. It added that on November 12, 2016, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) approved the move for the project to be re-tendered.

The project was not re-tendered. Instead, a Dutch Company, LivenseCSO, was engaged by Patterson’s Ministry.

The report, on page 7, noted that the bid from LivenseCSO was “unsolicited” and added that Patterson then took the company’s proposal to Cabinet for approval. Cabinet granted its approval for the company to be engaged. The report said, “The PPC noted that the Minster of Public Infrastructure, by memorandum dated November 18 2016, made a request to the Cabinet for Government seeking consideration and approval to use funds from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation to fund the feasibility study and to commence a

contractual engagement with LievenseCSO as of the 1 Jan 2017. The PPC noted that this request to Cabinet was not forwarded through the NPTA but submitted directly by the Minister of Public Infrastructure.”

The report, on page 7, stated that monies to be spent on the project were taken from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant Accounts).

Notably, the General Manager of the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, according to the PPC report, disclosed that the Board of the Corporation was not involved in the decision to spend its monies. The report said, “He (Mr. Adams) stated that he had not signed the contract on behalf of the DHBC, but only because

he was requested to do so by the Minister of Public Infrastructure.

Additionally, a source close to the matter stressed that the findings of the Public Procurement Commission’s findings after it investigated the procurement of Consultancy Services for the Feasibility Study and Design of the New Demerara River Bridge are clear.

The source disclosed too that the Police Legal Advisor was ‘expected’ to make a positive pronouncement on the matter, ahead of the Alliance For Change (AFC) national conference, scheduled for Saturday’s (June 15, 2019), to ensure that Minister Patterson is cast in a positive light. [SEE ADDITIONAL REPORTING ON PAGE 21-22]

Minister Jaipaul Sharma moved to Public Infrastructure Ministry

F

rom July 1, 2019, Minister Jaipaul Sharma will be taking up his new portfolio as Minister within the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.

Minister Sharma currently holds the portfolio as Junior Minister within the Ministry of Finance.

This is the latest shakeup among APNU+AFC Coalition Government ministers.

4

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

EDITORIAL Coalition gov’t response to CCJ ruling a stark reminder that our freedoms must be safeguarded

F

ollowing the rulings by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, which is now illegal, has been sending out some worrying signals to the Guyanese people.

The comments coming from the President and other government officials can only be construed as an expression of defiance in the face of the CCJ rulings.

Three days prior to the Court’s rulings at the post cabinet press conference, the Ministry of the Presidency’s Director General, Joseph Harmon, advised that the government will accept the findings of the court and that they are bound by what the CCJ comes up with and that they would act accordingly.

On Tuesday (June 18, 2019) the Caribbean Court of Justice delivered its rulings as follows: The no-confidence motion was validly passed; the majority needed for the passage of the vote on the no-confidence motion was 33 votes, not 34 as the Coalition government claimed; the vote of former parliamentarian, Charandass Persaud was valid and Mr. Persaud was not required to vote against the no confidence along with other members of the coalition government; there was nothing to prevent the tabling of a no confidence motion by any member of the National Assembly; and despite the Speaker of the Assembly declaring that the motion had been validly passed, the government neither resigned nor announced impending elections.

The Caribbean Court of Justice also ruled that the process through which Reverend Justice(Retired) James Patterson was appointed Chairman of the Guyana elections Commission by the President was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s constitution.

After those rulings the Attorney General Basil Williams, spoke to the media outside of the Appeals Court and said: “The final court has spoken, there is no other course of appealing…the court knocked down on every point conceivable”.

Despite the ruling, however, the President David Granger in his address to the nation, advised that he would be working with the timelines given to him by the Chairman of GECOM, which was that election could only be held after house to house registration. Meaning that the best possible time for election is November month end. The President said that when a date was given to him by the Chairman of GECOM he would then issue a proclamation for elections. This was in clear defiance of the CCJ ruling – a ruling that made clear that elections are due in the timeframe that the Constitution dictates that they are due, not when GECOM dictates.

We then descended further into a phase of defiance and denial by the government. The Prime Minister erroneously stated that if elections were held now many young persons would be disenfranchised. Adding that this is calling for trouble in the country. This being a not so subtle message to the youths.

Next, we had the Minister of Finance, Winston Jordan at a public meeting in Bartica stating that “war would break out” if there is no house to house registration - crying “no registration, no elections.” This can only be seen as another misguided move.

As we descended further into absurdity we had the President questioning the decision of the CCJ. Declaring that he followed the Constitution in selecting the GECOM Chairman and the CCJ needed to advise him on where his decision was flawed. This despite the fact that the CCJ clearly outlined the reasons for their decision in its judgement.

The Caribbean Court of Justice rulings and the Coalition Government’s reaction to the rulings have served to reveal the true nature of the Administration. Their dictatorial tendencies are now on full display as they become desperate as they see their reign coming to an end.

Guyanese need not be reminded that the 28 years of the PNC rule in government were characterized by dictatorship, and all Guyanese suffered from a weak economy, poor infrastructure, rising national debt, depletion of our reserves, massive unemployment and citizens living in constant fear. It is extremely worrying that the current cabal running the country seems bent on returning us to those dark days under the PNC. In response to this, all Guyanese have a responsibility to call for the rule of law to be upheld. It was Nelson Mandela who said: “Freedom can never be taken for granted. Each generation must safeguard it and extend it. Your parents and elders sacrificed much so that you should have freedom without suffering what they did. Use this precious right to ensure that the darkness of the past never returns.”

Basil Williams attempted to advance another delay tactic Dear Editor,

T

here is the submission to The CCJ

by Guyana’s Attorney General Basil Williams of a purported confession statement made by defector Charandass Persaud that he knew beforehand that he was an illegal occupant of parliament, being a dual citizen. That late submission, according to him, is the the proverbial smoking gun which should cause The CCJ to rule in his favour.

Now, if we are to take Williams’ argument for what it is worth, then it meant that The Government side was aware of Charandass’ as well as others of its members’ dual citizenship and did nothing about it, only holding them there for “yes men” or rubber stamp purposes. That situation becoming a real problem only when Charandass voted against his own party’s coalition. Had it not been for Charandass voting with The Opposition, then this matter of dual citizenship would not have been an issue.

The supposed confession statement when taken in context is saying here you have two top government officials discussing their possible voting options at the no-confidence motion and one is

weighing in on his option in voting but instead of fixing the glaring anomalies in their house he is pointing to The Opposition instead, that they are guilty, because they have dual citizens also. In essence what Ramjattan was telling Charandass is that the law only applies to The Opposition and not for The Government.

And that has been my main concern with this government they believe that the law should be one of convenience crafted and suited to their own choices, whenever and wherever it seems fit.

That is not how the law runs, the law is there as a blanket statement for all government and opposition alike. If it is good for the goose certainly it is good for the gander.

Here is where the doctrine of clean hands come into play, you cannot now feign ignorance of the law when Charandass was a legal entity all along what suddenly makes him illegal on December 21st? For over three plus years he voted for bills and other major matters, which were legally passed in the house by his one vote then why is is his vote shunned and disregarded now? These are questions The Government needs

to answer? You cannot cherry pick when it comes to legal issues, which is not how the law works. Charandass was legal all along, which makes him just as legal on the 21st December, period, end of discussion!

So, let’s for discussion purposes say that The CCJ buys into that asinine reason that Charandass was an illegal occupant on December 21st hence his vote was null and void, then here is the real case scenario; then, the government has to go back and change all bills and decisions where Charandass’ vote merited passage through the house. It means that all decisions in the house involving Charandass has to be revoked, that is the law. Seeing Courts cannot make retroactive rulings, hence the original high court ruling stands.

The summary of all of this is you cannot pick and choose how the law should apply, what is good for one is good all, you cannot arbitrarily make decisions like that. Basil Williams is just trying another delaying tactic in stalling things at the CCJ. Sincerely, Neil Adams

Another case of political opportunism Dear Editor,

A

s I reflect on David Hinds’ letter to the press dated June 11, 2019, captioned ‘There is a difference between whistle-blowers and political spies’, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the political opportunism of David Hinds.

But reading his piece confirmed in my mind with much clarity that Dr David Hinds is not the sort of public commentator who can bring reason to the “political and intellectual chaos” in Guyana.

I say this because what is in the Guyana Standard News (Gov’t needs to flush out PPP moles from public service – David Hinds) clearly attributed first to Dr Hinds that he said: “the Government needs to flush out PPP moles from Public Service”.

This is not reconciling to what Dr Hinds is saying in this letter.

Rather, what Dr Hinds sought to do with his letter was cast aspersion on the Leader of the Opposition and former President of Guyana, Bharat Jagdeo.

But he failed to deal with the comments attributed to him just over a week ago in the Guyana Standard News.

My fore parents taught me that we must beware of such persons who seek to distort the issue by distracting and sidestepping the source of the debate as they attempt to change the narrative and tag the issue on someone else. Aren’t people who embody such characteristics liars,

cheats and intellectual slime?

This is what the Guyana Standard News quoted Dr Hinds as saying: “he shares this concern of the PPP’s access to citizens’ personal information while noting that the Government needs to act quickly and flush the public service of PPP moles”. As an academic, what evidence does Dr Hinds have that the whistleblowers are PPP moles or work for the PPP? Or is this his attempt to deceive the nation with his brand of subterfuge and trickery?

Dr Hinds is further quoted by the Guyana Standard News as saying that “the PPP is using the public service to undermine the Government and “it is just plain wrong”. Again, where is his evidence that the PPP is doing this? Why can’t public servants who genuinely care about the levels of the financial waste in this Granger regime not leak information to the public as a means of bringing this financial plunder to an end?

Reading Dr Hinds’ letter leaves the impression that he has suddenly woken up from a deep slumber. Hello, is anyone at home upstairs Dr Hinds? From day one, team Granger attacked many professionals in the public service and only this month we were reminded that two endangered species – one Valmiki Singh in the Telecoms Sector and one James Singh in the Forestry Sector are soon to be axed.

So, is Dr Hinds encouraging the construction of public service with no

independence of mind and no persons with adequate professional competence to ensure that checks and balances are adhered to at all times? Is Dr Hinds advocating for a public service that is totally populated by political minnows and bootlickers?

We had such a situation in 1976 when Burnham made the Sophia declaration when he said that the “State is but an arm of the party”. And guess where that took the nation? Within a decade of such a sycophantic PNC attitude of mind, Guyana was totally bankrupt, uncreditworthy in the books of the international donor community and was experiencing the highest rate of malnutrition and ailments ever seen in all of the histories of independent Guyana.

Is this what Dr Hinds is condoning?

Is he “ok” with putting into the grave, all of the political principles his former leader, Dr Walter Rodney, preached?

Some honesty for once, Dr David Hinds, would be a welcomed ingredient to the public political discourse. Especially in these challenging times, it is mandatory especially from people like Dr Hinds, who tries so hard to claim the title that he is an independent thinker. Or is it all a political sham and what we are seeing here is more hot air from another first-class political BS artist who claims that they are for the empowerment of the people?

Regards, Sasenarine Singh

5

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Granger is being obtuse when he claimed that the military was neglected for years under the PPP Dear Editor,

I

n his response to a letter to the editor written by a ‘concerned junior officer’ of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF), President Granger, through the Ministry of the Presidency, instead of addressing what appeared to be legitimate concerns raised by the junior officer chose to take aim at the PPP/C administration.

As Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the GDF Mr. Granger is expected to attend to all areas of concern, including welfare issues of both serving and retired ranks of the army.

The President’s response came across as a dismissal of the legitimate concerns of a junior officer who had no alternative but to bring his concerns to the attention of the public. They appear to be matters that ought not to be thrust aside as whimsical pieces of folly.

The nation is at a loss to know whether the concerns raised will ever be addressed. No mention was made that they would.

For the most part, under the PNC, the GDF’s role in operations remained limited while policy formulation remained vested in the Defence Board and/or the CIC himself.

Since independence, the CIC post has always been occupied by a civilian. In the current situation David Granger, a former

Commander and a retired Brigadier now combines both President and CIC. Ever since the Burnham era, the post of Chief of Staff remains the top career post in the GDF however, instances of influence peddling and political manipulations aimed at undermining the authority of the Chief of Staff became a hallmark of civilian rule under the PNC and now under the APNU+AFC coalition government.

The challenge the CIC faces is how to maintain a healthy and sustainable balance between civilian and military interests when it is an established fact that for most of his entire adult life Mr Granger has been in the military.

With a retired Brigadier as President and CIC maintaining such a balance will prove untenable and difficult to maintain.

In his response, Mr Granger took some digs at the PPP/C administration claiming; the force had suffered from years of organizational neglect, which caused the destruction of the National Cadet Corps and the ‘near extinction ‘of the GDF Reserve Force (Guyana People’s Militia).

Mr Granger must know that the members of the GPM are drawn from the public and have regular jobs. Under pressure from the IMF’s Economic Recovery Programme (ERP)

and within the meaning of affordability, the Hoyte administration was compelled to incorporate the GPM into the GDF making it the 2nd battalion of the army.

The Guyana National Service (GNS) shut shop in 1991 under the Hoyte administration.

In 1993 the GNS was de-commissioned and in its place a vocational training centre was established at Kuru Kuru at the Linden-Soesdyke Highway to facilitate one-year training courses minus military component.

The organization had become unsustainable because of the high costs of maintenance.

On its assumption to office, the APNU+AFC administration continued with the vocational training at Kuru Kuru.

With respect to the ‘destruction of the National Cadet Corps’ this was instituted by the PNC as a uniformed service mainly at Queen’s College but it was recently re-introduced by the Granger administration By the time the PPP/C came to government in 1992, the Cadet Corps had virtually disappeared so there could be no question of its ‘destruction’ under the PPP/C administration.

In its 1992 Elections manifesto the party stated: ‘‘Members of the army and police will be required to swear allegiance to the State and not to any political party. The Guyana National Service will be maintained on a voluntary basis and the Guyana People’s Militia will be transformed into a truly democratic reserve of standing army.’

As regards the claim of ‘defence operations and training being neglected during the former administration in the years 19922015.’ This should be regarded as a red herring. The records would show that in this area, training exercises especially at the unit and corps level were carried out every year, while jungle and open country exercises were held every three years.

Following Mr. Granger’s assumption to office, instructions were issued that jungle, open country and internal security training exercises, be held every year instead of every three years.

Call it re-capitalization or re-tooling the fact of the matter is that recapitalization of the GDF was initiated under the PPP/C administration with the purchase of the MV Essequibo, two Bell 206 helicopters, a Y12 fixed-wing aircraft, metal shark vessels, the return to serviceability of the Skyvan, and placement of a floating marine base at the mouth of the Pomeroon River.

In any event, Mr. Granger must know just as he opted as a matter of policy, that emphasis must be placed on the administrative and operational aspects of the army, in the same way, the previous PPP/C administration was within its right to determine its areas of emphasis within the meaning of the Constitution and the Defence Act. It is to be recalled that during the Presidential Commission inquiring into the conditions of Veterans from the Guyana Defence Force; The Guyana People’s Militia and the Guyana National Service mention was made that service conditions in the army prior to October 1992 were not conducive to the welfare of service men and women of the GDF. The period of heightened economic uncertainty characterized by Guyana’s un-creditworthiness had wreaked havoc within the institutions constituting the joint services.

Mr Granger is being obtuse when he claimed that the military was neglected for years under the PPP. A comparative budgetary allocations for the GDF below speak for themselves.

While in opposition, Mr. Granger had pressed for implementation of the recommendations contained in the Disciplined Forces Commission Report. And on assumption to office he commissioned the COI into the conditions of Veterans from the GDF, the GPM and the GNS. He has since dumped these recommendations and moved on with an entirely political agenda.

Yours faithfully, Clement J. Rohee

Purging threat to public servants is a dictatorial, Nazi, Hitler-ite obscenity Dear Editor,

F

or more than three weeks now, the public was shocked to learn that the department of public service in the Ministry of the Presidency transferred more than $20M of public funds to the children of Minister Simona Broomes in 2018 and 2019. The government remained silent until today, June 14th, when Joe Harmon, the Director General in the Ministry of the Presidency, who was the former Minister, announced that the funds were part of scholarship arrangements for the adult children. He did not explain why it took almost a month to provide information, nor did he provide information about the scholarships, whether these scholarships were advertised or whether they were special arrangements to benefit the children of ministers.

The payments were meant to be a secret and, clearly, the APNU+AFC government was angry over the exposure. Like any brutal dictatorship, there were consequences.

A whole department in the public service was fired by the new minister who replaced Minister Rupert Roopnarine, and who is also a senior WPA Executive. The reason for their firing was that they might have been responsible for exposing the secret. After first denying that any worker was fired, Harmon confirmed the workers were fired, but that the government reviewed the decision and

decided to, instead, suspend the workers until the completion of an investigation. While not confirming that the investigation is to find out who was responsible for exposing the information of the more than $20M transfer to Minister Broomes' children, the public knows that this is the reason.

The investigation is another set-up, a farce, an insult to the people, and adding salt to the injury. Today, it was announced that the investigation will be done by a senior PNC member, Mr. Lance Carberry. This is like putting cat to watch milk. Having been caught in an act of purging, APNU+AFC reverses itself, pretending to honor due process. But there is absolutely no impartiality, not even the pretence of impartially, in this obscene, fake investigation. The truth is that there has been an abuse of public funds and APNU+AFC is desperately trying to change the narrative.

As part of the change in narrative, APNU+AFC has their apologists calling for purging in the public service. The call from David Hinds, the WPA member, demanding that all PPP "moles" be purged is an open, obscene, Nazi, Hiltlerite threat to public servants. Who are PPP "moles" that Hinds wants purged? Persons suspected of voting for the PPP? All Indo-Guyanese people working in the Public Service? Anyone suspected of being a "whistleblower"? Coming in the week Guyana and the world observed

the anniversary of the brutal murder of Walter Rodney, it is tangible evidence that Rodney's freedom fighter party has been totally bought out by the dictators they once fought against.

It was nauseating when Volda Lawrence insisted her government is only obligated to hire "PNC" people. It is even more nauseating now as David Hinds demand a "purging". Volda Lawrence was repeating PNC's founding leader's mantra, Forbes Burnham's mantra, of party paramountcy. For more than four years now, every step APNU+AFC has made has been designed to restore the old PNC's philosophy of party paramountcy.

Now David Hinds wants to strengthen party paramountcy by layering it with an ugly Nazi, Hitlerite purge.

Essentially, every public servant will now have to openly become a card-carrying member of the PNC, a out-and-out PNC activist. Any public servant who is unwilling to become a card-carrying member of the PNC, who is unwilling to stoop at the feet of the PNC leaders will become suspect, will become deemed a PPP "mole". The demand for the "flushing" out of alleged PPP "moles" has already driven fear among public servants. In effect, the purging call is a threat to all public servants to carry out all instruction given, no questions asked, even if illegal and even if they are being asked to condone wrong.

It is an open secret - the public servants

who were initially fired and then suspended were being punished because the government suspected they were the source of information that more than $20M from the public service department's budget was transferred to two children of Minister Broomes. For such transfers of public funds, there is no right of secrecy. This by law must be public information. Whatever reasons are proffered for the transfer of tax payers money to any citizen cannot be shrouded in secrecy. To now spend taxpayers money for an investigation of how the information became public is adding salt to the injury.

The threats, the "flushing" out, are all part of a purging policy belonging to brutal dictatorships. Such authoritarian purging have absolutely no place in even a fledgling democracy. Clearly, there were people bothered by the abuse of public funds and used their right of whistle blowing that all democracies today promote. In fact, in 2018, Guyana enacted whistle blowing as a right of all citizens. Whether the whistle blower is from that particular department or not is no reason for any one of those public servants to be fired or suspended. Not only has the whistle-blowing right been abrogated, the appointment of a clearly biased investigator renders this ugly incident an obscene, Nazi-like purging.

Sincerely, Dr. Leslie Ramsammy

6

Dysfunctional state of the City Council continues to prevail with yet another detrimental decision Dear Editor,

I

n a shocking move, the APNU+AFC majority on the Georgetown City Council voted at the Statutory meeting held on May 28, 2019 to immediately open a special bank account for the Social Development Committee which is headed by former Mayor Patricia Chase-Green. The PPP/C Councilors voted against the opening of this special bank account for important reasons which will be explained.

It should be noted that Councilor ChaseGreen is not only the current Chairman of the Social Development Committee but she has also been the Chairman of that Committee during the previous two Councils, meaning that she has been at the helm of this committee for more than a decade. This committee is comprised of seven Councilors as members with two of them serving as Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

It was Mayor Ubraj Narine himself who introduced the subject of a special bank account for the Social Development Committee at the statutory meeting. He actually pushed for such an account to be opened which seems to indicate that he was probably ill-informed and did not make any inquiries or do any research on the issue.

The question of a special bank account for the Social Development Committee has always been a problematic issue since there are no provisions in the laws or by-laws sanctioning a special independent bank account for the Social Development Committee to be managed by certain Councilors. I argued against the opening of this bank account and referred to the Keith Burrowes Report which had recommended the closing of this account since 2012.

I had also objected to a special bank ac-

count for the Social Development Committee at the previous Council where former Town Clerk Royston King seemed to have misinterpreted Section 148 (3) of the Municipal and District Councils Act Cap 28:01 which referred to maintaining separate (ledger) accounts for revenue and expenditures for money deposited into or spent from the authorized bank account for such purposes which was the general rate fund. The Municipal &District Councils Act (M&DC Act) also makes provision for loans taken out by the Council which are not considered as revenue and must be deposited into a separate loan fund.

To understand the structure of the Georgetown City Council, one must refer to the Municipal and District Councils Act 28:01 where the City Council consists of the elected Mayor and Councilors as the policy-making & oversight body while the administration of the Council is headed by the Town Clerk where decisions of the Council are executed and standard operating procedures are followed.

The Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Act of 2013 outlines the duties of Councilors in Section 8A and it does not include any power to undertake administrative duties which are under the control of the Town Clerk or the City Treasurer. So the activities of the Social Development Committee relating to selling of Mashramani and Carnival spots, issuing loans and bursaries and maintaining a separate bank account appear to be outside of what is permissible by law and also beyond the scope of Councilors responsibilities. The responsibility for executing all revenue-garnering activities or executing payment decisions of Council falls under the offices of the Town Clerk and the City Treasurer and not the Social Development Committee which appears to be usurping the

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019 responsibilities of the Town Clerk's office.

Further, Sections 60-69 of the M&DC Act refers to the formation of Committees and rules governing such committees. No committee has the power to enter into contracts unless such authority is given by the Council.

Selling of spots for Carnival and Mashramani can be considered as simple contracts which the Social Development Committee does not have the authority to undertake and this is an administrative task which should be performed by the Town Clerk’s office.

If there was ever a decision made by the Council to assign such responsibilities to a Committee or to certain Councilors, no evidence was produced to substantiate such claim such as the Minutes of a meeting where such decision was made. In addition, no such responsibility is assigned in the Terms of Reference for the Social Development Committee either.

A Commission of inquiry was authorized in 2012 to investigate the operations of City Hall due to accusations of corruption and mismanagement. The Commission was headed by Keith Burrowes and it made forty-five (45) recommendations which were to be implemented by the Georgetown City Council. It was reported that one of those recommendations included the closing of a number of bank accounts, including the Social Development Committee’s bank account which also existed at that time.

The Social Development Committee has never produced any audited financial statements for any monies which were collected, spent, disbursed or loaned over the years even though the Committee had been involved in numerous activities and events.

Everyone is aware that the Georgetown City Council has been experiencing financial difficulties for many years and so it would have been expected that all activities would be geared towards garnering more revenue or reducing expenses for the Council. But according to reports, the Social Development Committee was giving away free spots for Mashramani, offering discounts and also paying certain Councilors including Councilor Chase-Green for working Mashramani and Carnival while Council workers also received extra pay in addition to their regular salaries.

It should be noted that the Social Development Committee handles all Mashramani, Carnival and Independence activities for the Georgetown City Council in addition to other social events. Councilor Chase-Green had openly said at a statutory meeting that all monies from the Carnival celebrations must be deposited in the Social Development Committee account even before Council approved this new request.

The stated purpose for this new special bank account for Social Development Committee which will be opened with immediate effect was to allow staff and other community members to have access to small loans outside the “bureaucracy of the treasurer’s department”. In other words, the APNU+AFC Mayor and Councilors are stating that they intend to bypass the City Treasurer’s office and also violate the laws and existing procedures.

At a statutory meeting in September 2011, former Councilor Junior Garrett (deceased) “lamented the fact that the cash-strapped Council had apparently become a loan agency to certain senior members” (Guyana Chronicle 1/7/14). Citizens and former workers have alleged that the Social Development Committee bank account was used as a slush fund with no accountability and that monies were spent at the whims and fancies of those who controlled it.

Employees of the Georgetown City Council make contributions to their credit union which allowed them in the past to take out small loans from time to time from that institution. But the Town Clerk and City Treasurer have been illegally using those contributions for other purposes instead of remitting to the Credit Union and this has been going on for many years. As a result, the Council workers cannot obtain any loans from the Credit Union. The City Council has not yet brought the credit union accounts up to date so workers continue to be deprived of the benefits to which they are entitled from the Credit Union.

But the deliberate failure of the Council to remit employees’ contributions to the Credit Union is simply not enough reason to disregard or violate the laws and also the recommendations of that Commission of Inquiry, to open a special bank account which will be controlled by the Social Development Committee which is chaired by Councilor Patricia Chase-Green.

So even with new Mayor Ubraj Narine and many new Councilors on board, the dysfunctional state of the City Council continues to prevail with yet another unsound and detrimental decision to open a special bank account for the Social Development Committee to “bypass the bureaucracy of the Treasurer’s department”.

I call on all citizens to contact Mayor Ubraj Narine and also the Councilors to reverse this decision in the interest of accountability and good governance.

Sincerely, Bishram Kuppen, PPP/C Councilor – Georgetown City Council

If President Granger was serious about the sugar sector, different course of action should have been taken Dear Editor,

T

he GAWU has considered several media reports about His Excellency, President David Granger’s visit on June 07 to Albion Estate. The visit which was described by the June 09 Kaieteur News as a “surprise”, we noted, saw His Excellency saying quite a lot apart from the commitments he made. Notably, it was the first time that the President set foot on a sugar estate since he took office over four (4) years ago.

According to a statement of June 07, published on the Ministry of the Presidency’s website, President Granger is quoted to have said “I am here to find out what your problems are. I have come to fix things”. The rational mind would have thought that the President and his colleagues, who collectively occupy the decision-making chairs of the nation,

would have been well aware of the industry’s problems and how to go about fixing them. It appears, if President Granger’s utterances are anything to go by, that this was not the case.

It, undoubtedly, brings into question what factor/s influenced then the Administration’s policy toward the industry?

The President went on to say that he wants the “…industry not just sustainable but profitable…” and that is must “thrive”. On the surface, it seems, the President is saying the right things but we hasten to wonder if the President and his Administration were so interested in the industry thriving, as he says, why were the worthwhile suggestions that were advanced by the Sugar Commission of Inquiry (CoI), among others, ignored apparently. Many suggestions, had they been implemented, would have helped to put the industry on firmer ground and well on the path

to profitability.

President Granger also said he wants “… to guarantee employees’ livelihoods… to guarantee sugar’s position in the national economy… to safeguard the rural economy”.

Again these are lofty sentiments. But they come after sugar workers remain the only group of employees covered by the State’s umbrella to have effectively had their wages stagnated at 2014 levels though we now live in 2019 when circumstances of life are vastly different. It came after 7,000 ordinary, hard-working, decent, honest workers lost their jobs following their several expressions to draw attention to their plight. It came after the President’s men and women ignored the credible suggestions of the unions and the political opposition, to conduct a socio-economic impact assessment regarding its sugar policy. It came, too, after the IMF advised the

Government to put in place adequate safety nets for displaced workers. It came after the aspirations of thousands have been shattered.

It came after entire communities have been thrown into disarray. And, it came after millions of dollars in foreign currency receipts have been effectively lost.

We also saw the President reportedly saying, his Government “…since 2015 has been doing everything humanly possible to ensure the industry thrives”. Can we really take this statement at face value? We ask:- how can we? We recollect that the Administration recruited a certain ‘expert’ who had a long-held position to significantly reduce the scope of the industry. Or, how can we not remember that there was a sustained attack to reduce workers long-standing and hard-won benefits. Or, what about the billions channeled to (Turn to page 7)

7

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Guyanese people have had enough Dear Editor,

Questions that must be answered Dear Editor,

T

he saga of oil exploration and speculation prior to May 2015 cannot be rewritten to suit our nation’s happy ending. Suffice to say many tried and failed to find oil in commercial quantity, most notably Shell who walked away from the same block in 2014, now estimated to hold over five billion barrels in reserves; Shell accepted One dollar for those exploration rights in what must be in hindsight, the worst deal since the Dutch traded New Amsterdam, Berbice for New York!

Jan Mangal ascribes knowledge of Oil reserves to former President Donald Ramotar and Minister of Natural Resources at a time (April 2015) that would land ExxonMobil in hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for failure to report an event that would have major impact on the price of the company’s publicly traded stock (XOM) on the New York Stock Exchange. If ExxonMobil informed anyone of the discovery before making a public announcement, it would have opened the company to the serious charge of enabling Insider Trading.

I am sure ExxonMobil will speak to this allegation now that is made clear. The SEC who regulates the securities markets and facilitates capital formation, would certainly be interested in any legitimate, independent finding which provides irrefutable evidence of collaboration between those senior figures in the Guyana government and ExxonMobil.

The impact of such findings would reverberate throughout the business world on a global scale and include billions in fines for ExxonMobil and possible jail time for executives of that company.

Editor, while we should not rewrite the pre-discovery period, we can certainly take a closer look at the actions of Jan Mangal who acted as adviser to the Government of Guyana during the Production Sharing Agreement negotiation period. Strangely, during that period, Jan was an unknown man, he was not making public statements nor was he having much success impacting the negotiations.

When all the dust was settled, Guyana did not emerge with a great deal on the LiZA1 PSA, shortly thereafter another Mangal made oil news; Mr. Lars Mangal, Chairman, President and CEO of TOTALTEC Oilfield Services Ltd , a newly established company focused on the Guyana oil and gas industry, with the stated vision of “contributing to the development of the oil and gas industry in Guyana by providing technical support, engineering, partnerships and consultancy services to the local community, government and international operators and service companies in Guyana.” Surprisingly, this new company was able to secure the crown jewel of the ExxonMobil contracts, namely provision of the major Shore-base services to ExxonMobil.

Jan Mangal is quick to throw his thoughts on possible corruption into the public domain; I too have some questions that I would like to ask in the public interest.

1. Did Jan Mangal inform the Government of Guyana that his brother was bidding for ExxonMobil contracts?

2. If so, what action was taken by the Government of Guyana to ensure sensitive information was not passed on deliberately or inadvertently.

3. Did Jan Mangal do anything to assist Totaltec in its negotiations?

4. Did any action/inaction on Jan Mangal’s part affect the outcome of the PSA negotiations?

5. What were the reasons for the non-renewal of Jan Mangal’s contract as Adviser on Petroleum to President Granger?

I look forward to full explanations and examination of the obvious conflict of issues that existed with Jan Mangal, his role as consultant and the relationship of his brother’s company to ExxonMobil for it is here I must paraphrase Shakespeare ‘the man doth protest too much” and my every instinct suggests that the conscience bothers.

Sincerely, Robin Singh

T

his is the mantra of this Government and its subordinates: Ask no questions; whatever is handed down to you just simply accept; there should be no questions coming from the aggrieved party.

It is a highhanded, dictatorial attitude handed down to us by our local slave masters, the PNC/AFC Coalition. From the “boss” himself, this has been the pattern of their behaviour: a top-down, draconian, dictatorial approach; it is our way or no way.

Granger foisted a geriatric’s appointment on us in the person of GECOM Chairman Mr Patterson, and expects no one to question his so-called authority. The other Patterson gentleman did the same thing in his ministry with those arbitrary cash transactions wherein millions of dollars in public funds have been placed in his private account. He, too, is belligerent about those nefarious transactions, and wants no one to even ask about his stewardship of public monies.

Recently, we have seen another misfit in Minister Sarabo-Halley, and her arbitrary dismissals just weeks into office. This minister is doing some slave master duties in getting rid of staff.

You name a ministry and the corruption is there. Oh, what a wonderful Government we serve!

Now, the latest in this line of corrupt transactions is the call by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo for the reinstatement of the fired Sherod Duncan. Duncan, you may recall, was the individual who, within 3 months of his appointment, had squandered over $5 million in corrupt activities, including signing of dubious cheques while making overseas trips at lavish costs to taxpayers. This is the person whose termination Mr Nagamootoo finds was harsh and arbitrarily done, and said he should be afforded the opportunity to get back his job.

Now, my question is: What is harsh about terminating such a person? the answer is, “Nothing”. In Duncan’s case, his termination was an internal affair. If this matter had been taken to court, this man would have served jail time, yet Nagamootoo is making out a plea for this man. Isn’t this preposterous? If this is not the height of lawlessness, then tell me what is.

No wonder there is public discontent and a no-confidence vote against this Government. The people are saying we have had it with this administration, and it is more than enough time for them to call elections and let us have an installation of a democratic institution called government.

Respectfully, N. Adams

Skillful manipulations behind the scenes Dear Editor,

A

s the nation and the region await the CCJ ruling on the NCM, some skilful manipulating seems to be happening behind the scenes to deal with certain parts of the media.

The broadcasting authority pops up at strategic times in media releases to make threatening noises about the section of the media under its control.

From all the media releases, it is easy to think that this Government entity is taking steps to frighten the media into submission and control its coverage. It uses the cover of cleaning up television, radio and cable and is aided by some strong laws amended under this Government.

It claims to hold stakeholder forums to obtain this legitimacy. Who are these stakeholders and are they at liberty to act as

fearless media operators? Or are they Government supporters brought in to make the entity look good? If this body is so concerned about clean media, can it outline the support it is giving to the media under its control, outside of holding closed meetings and making public statements about regulation? How much is being earned by each of the members and consultants who attend these meetings? Is clean the same as transparency?

All this talk about clean is a joke when what is happening elsewhere is considered.

The President is still to file returns to the Integrity Commission. Has he offered any reasons for not showing how clean he is? And why is Minister Patterson not coming clean about the airport contract?

Yours sincerely, R. Shaw

If President Granger was serious about the... the industry but we see sliding production?

Certainly, if the President was serious, in our view, much of what has played out in the industry, during his time at the helm, ought not to have occurred in the first place.

His Excellency is also quoted to say “[w] e are in the business of sugar and we will produce sugar. We will not produce retrenched workers…”. Again, we see the boisterous pronouncements by the President. While we are in the business of sugar, we cannot ignore that the President’s Government closed the Enmore Packaging Plant which output attracted the highest prices according to the Sugar CoI. Or that the Skeldon Co-Generation plant, which raked in nearly $10B in revenues in 2016, is also suffering now-a-days from a lack of bio-mass arising from the Skeldon estate’s closure. Or that the thousands retrenched by the Administration’s policy had their severance entitlements unduly and illegally withheld. Even, at this time, there is a certain segment of the displaced workers who,

notwithstanding a Court Order, are having an aspect of their severance payments withheld.

The President was also quoted by the statement to have said “…that Government is going to put the relationship between NICIL and the Corporation on a firm footing”. Again, the obvious question that pops up is why did the President allow the relations between the two bodies descend to the acrimonious expressions that have played out in the full view of the public. Why wasn’t the discord arrested earlier rather than be allowed to fester and explode into a raging war of words?

We nevertheless are hopeful that, indeed, the President, late than never, could bring the bodies to see eye-to-eye.

Our Union was perplexed too when we saw President Granger being quoted as saying he “…met with the sugar unions on December 31, 2016 and February 3, 2017 and, again, with the unions on January 19, 2018 because I am interested in working out with them how this industry will survive…

I want them to understand our plans for the industry”. Our Union did meet representatives of the Government, not the President, on December 31, 2016 and February 03 and 17, 2017 regarding what was said to us was a ‘consultative’ exercise regarding the plans to divest Skeldon Estate and close Rose Hall and Enmore Estates. While we harboured fears about the genuineness of those engagements, our Union approached it with an open mind but, it appeared, that the proverbial door was already shut on the other side. Nevertheless, the GAWU as well as the NAACIE did engage President Granger and leading members of his Administration, for the first and only time, on January 19, last year. A statement, by the Department of Public Information, about the engagement quoted His Excellency to say “[t]he Government and the Unions should engage until the issue is resolved”. Though the GAWU engaged in good faith and put several suggestions to the Government at the meeting, we have not since heard from the

(From page 6)

President or his Administration about further engagements.

While the President’s interest in securing the remaining state-owned sugar estates is a welcome sign, it is not a time for nice speeches, good words and photo opportunities.

Whether the President’s apparent new-found interest is connected to other national happenings is left to be seen. However, we require serious and concerted action. There must be, in our view, collective discussions and the sharing of ideas and thoughts. The workers, an important segment in the industry’s turnaround, success and sustainability, can no longer be alienated or treated with scorn or derision, but they must be included and treated with respect. We will look in the coming times to see if the President’s utterances are reflected in actions and deeds.

Yours faithfully, Seepaul Narine, GAWU General Secretary

8

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Statement by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, on the CCJ Rulings I

t behooves me to thank all of the people, including the civic minded Guyanese, such as Mr. Christopher Ram, who were involved the appeals that were advanced at the level of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). I am not thanking them because they are members of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) or because they coordinated their positions with us. I am thanking them because they were willing to step forward and address a serious issue for all Guyanese – the issue of the constitutionality of our government, the behaviour of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government in office and, primarily, the rule of law.

Today there is no room for gloating, nor is there room for triumphalism. It is time for the country to move on together. I had said, when the no-confidence motion was passed on December 21, 2018, that we have to work together to move the country forward. Today I want to reiterate this message.

Today the call is for the APNU+AFC Coalition Government to respect the constitution and hold General and Regional Elections as early as possible.

RULING ON VALIDITY OF NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION The CCJ has declared a victory for constitutional rule in Guyana.

I want to quote from the press release issue by the CCJ. It said: “In the judgment delivered today, the CCJ declared that the motion of no confidence in the Government is valid. Guyana’s Constitution states that the Cabinet, including the President, is required to resign if the Government is defeated by the majority vote of all the elected members of the National Assembly ‘on a vote of confidence’.”

The CCJ ruling was clear on several key issues: 1. The no-confidence motion was validly passed; 2. The majority needed for the passage of the vote on the no-confidence motion was 33 votes, not 34 as the Coalition Government claimed; 3. The vote of former Parliamentarian, Charandass Persaud, was valid and Mr. Persaud was not “required to vote against the motion of no confidence along with other members” of the AP-

“…what it (the CCJ ruling) does is show clearly that we had an illegal government in office, from March 21, 2019 – when the three month deadline for General and Regional Elections, after the December 21, 2018, vote passed. Article 106 (7) was triggered when the no-confidence motion was validly passed.”

NU+AFC Coalition Government; 4. There was nothing to prevent the tabling of a no-confidence motion by any member of the National Assembly, including myself, as Opposition Leader; and 5. Despite the Speaker of the Assembly declaring that the motion had been validly passed, the Government neither resigned nor announced impending elections.

The latter point is important for us because what it does is show clearly that we had an illegal government in office, from March 21, 2019 – when the three month deadline for General and Regional Elections, after the December 21, 2018, vote passed. Article 106

(Amendment). This Bill that introduced Article 106 (7) – said: “Clause 5 alters Article 106 to provide for the

to their cronies; they are privatizing assets that belong to the Guyanese people without any tender process; and they are spending $1.5B on outreaches. All of this is being done in the period that they are illegally holding office.

We will decide on how these matters are addressed, based on advice that will be solicit-

“From today onwards, anything outside staying in office for the purpose of holding Elections will be declared illegal by a PPP/C government – any contract, any transfer of lands, any privatization of state assets, any move to reconvene Parliament, any act that has nothing to do with holding Elections will be illegal.

Guyanese will deal with an illegal Government at their own risk. It is not business as usual.” resignation of Cabinet and the President following the defeat of the Government in the National Assembly on a vote of confidence. Although

ed. I will speak more on this matter at a later date.

From today onwards, anything outside staying in office for the purpose of

“The President clearly lives in a bubble. He is divorced from the reality of constitutional rule. He has to be severely diminished in capacity to argue as if he has full legal authority to declare when elections are held.”

(7) was triggered when the no-confidence motion was validly passed.

Article 106 (7) states that: “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”

The Constitution is clear.

The purpose of the Government remaining in office, after the passage of a no-confidence motion, was also clear in the Explanatory Memorandum, on Page 15, of Bill 14 of 2000 – Constitution

to join the CCJ we argued that we needed an external review to ensure insulation from political influence. Had we not had this external review then the no-confidence motion would have failed based on the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Last Friday (June 14, 2019), I had said that should

defeated the Government shall remain in office FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING AN ELECTION.” I had warned that many things were being done by this Coalition Government prematurely. I had said that if the CCJ ruled, in the manner it did, to uphold the validity of the no-confidence motion, the Coalition Government would be illegal from March 21, 2019.

However, the Government continued with its ‘business as usual’ disposition – they returned to the National Assembly to approve another $8B in spending for 2019; they passed the Sovereign Wealth Fund Bill, as well as other legislation; they have awarded billions in contracts; they have given out thousands of acres of land

holding Elections will be declared illegal by a PPP/C government – any contract, any transfer of lands, any privatization of state assets, any move to reconvene Parliament, any act that has nothing to do with holding Elections will be illegal. Guyanese will deal with an illegal Government at their own risk.

It is not business as usual.

Every time I met President Granger, he would say the matter is in Court. Today the final Court has spoken and we will be intolerant about anything that has nothing to do with holding Elections.

I want to say to our supporters and all Guyana. We will continue to act responsibly, abide by the rule of law.

Today, faith has been restored in the judicial system.

When the decision was made

we win today, it would be a sprint to elections and if we did not it would be a middle distance run. I said also that whatever the outcome we have to work to rescue Guyana from this corrupt, incompetent cabal that only works for itself. I had also said that we would hit the road if we had a decision in favour of the PPP/C to force the Coalition Government to hold early elections. You will see us speak very little on this matter until the consequential orders are given by the CCJ on Monday (June 24, 2019).

We want to respect the decision of the Court. This is our posture.

We hope the international community will take a strong position on this matter now that the final Court has spoken. To the Diplomatic Corps, I want to say that the matter is resolved definitively.

In the meantime, we have dusted off our plans and the Party goes into full election mode beginning tomorrow.

We will accelerate work at the party level.

RULING ON APPOINTMENT OF GECOM CHAIRMAN On the challenge to the unilateral appointment of the GECOM Chairman,

James Patterson, the CCJ was also very clear. In their press release, the CCJ said: “The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today ruled that the process through which Reverend Justice (Retired) James Patterson was appointed Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by His Excellency, Brigadier David Granger, President of Guyana was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution.”

We always argued that the President breached the Constitution in making this appointment. For over a year now we have had to live with his unilateral decision and all the problems caused by the partisan actions taken

by Patterson at GECOM. Today the CCJ was clear.

The appointment of Patterson was illegal and invalid.

This means President Granger cannot act in a manner that is above the Constitution. He cannot act with impunity. There is a Constitution and he must respect the Constitution.

We have seen that when it comes to these matters he places himself above the Constitution. However, he derives his power from the Constitution. Today this is an important ruling for us. It is about how Presidents act in Guyana.

On this matter, we have to return to the CCJ. The Court has asked that the two sides come together to arrive at a consensus position on the way forward. At this point arriving at a consensus position is something that will be worked out by the lawyers. We will engage at the legal level. If we do not have consensus, the Court will rule. At this time I will not speak about what our positions are. I want to assure Guyana that we are being reasonable, but we will not give in to positions that will run counter to ensuring that there is full respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

We hope that the staff at GECOM, as well as the (Continued on page 9)

9

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Statement by Opposition Leader...

GECOM Commissioners, take note of the decision and act accordingly by starting preparations for very early Elections.

I have seen that President Granger is talking about a date for Elections in November, as well as House-to-House registration. October, nor November 2019 will not fly with us.

The President clearly lives in a bubble. He is divorced from the reality of constitutional rule. He has to be severely diminished in capacity to argue as if he has full legal authority to declare when elections are held. If it is a normal situation, the President is

“We always argued that the President breached the Constitution in making this appointment. For over a year now we have had to live with his unilateral decision and all the problems caused by the partisan actions taken by Patterson at GECOM. Today the CCJ was clear. The appointment of Patterson was illegal and invalid.” empowered, within the fiveyear term in office to call elections at any time – any time within the five years.

It is at his discretion. When you have a valid no-confidence motion, Articles 106 (6) and 106 (7) take away that discretion. The powers

that the President has in a normal situation is not the same in the current situation. The Election timeline is guided by Constitution.

The President has to follow the law.

Today, we saw the use of a national address by the

“The President is using GECOM and the Voters’ List as excuses to desperately hang on to office, hoping his Government can spend taxpayers’ money to improve its political fortunes – all while the country is drifting.”

(From page 8)

of Electors is complied, is false. With the continuous registration process, persons are registered from the age of 14 and the last such process was conducted in July 2018. His claims that the current List of Electors is “corrupted” and “may hold as many as 200,000 incorrect entries” are false.

This is the same list that was used for the November 2018

GECOM and the Voters’ List as excuses to desperately hang on to office, hoping his Government can spend taxpayers’ money to improve its political fortunes – all while the country is drifting.

We think that Elections could be held within maximum three months. The CCJ has indicated that the consensus should be a prin-

“I have seen that President Granger is talking about a date for Elections in November, as well as Houseto-House registration. October, nor November 2019 will not fly with us…we think that Elections could be held within maximum three months.”

President to repeat old, worn out promises, and to mislead Guyanese people on the need for House-to-House registration. His claim that persons who turned 18-years-old are not included in the National Register of Registrants, from which the Official List

Local Government Elections without complaint from any political Party, including the one headed by the President.

It is unfortunate that the President would descend to such levels.

The President is using

cipled and practical position – a principled positon would be that Elections are held tomorrow, a practical position is two to three months.

I will address these matters further at my next press conference. (June 18, 2019)

CCJ ‘knocked us down on every point conceivable’ – Basil Williams admits A

dmitting that Guyana’s final court has spoken, Attorney General Basil Williams, said the APNU+AFC Coalition Government will accept the ruling delivered on Tuesday (June 18, 2019) to uphold the validity of the passage of the no-confidence motion.

He said, “The final court has spoken…there is no other course of appealing…the court knocked us down on every point conceivable,” he said.

The CCJ ruled that 33

votes was the majority needed for the passage of the no-confidence motion, in response to the Coalition Government’s challenge that 33 was not the majority of 65 Members of the National Assembly, rather it was 34 votes that were needed for the no-confidence motion to be considered validly passed.

The move to the CCJ followed a decision from Guyana’s Appeal Court.

The Court of Appeal on March 22, 2019, overturned the ruling of the Chief Jus-

tice, Roxanne George-Wiltshire, relative to one of the three cases that challenge the validity of the vote on the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018 – a vote that was upheld by Guyana’s Legislature. In a 2-1 vote, Justices Yonnette Cummings-Edwards and Dawn Gregory ruled that the 33 votes is not a majority of 65; rather it is 34. Justice Rishi Persaud voted to uphold the ruling of the Chief Justice, which was handed down on January 31, 2019.

Article 106 (6) of the Constitution states: “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”

Prior to the December 21, 2018 vote the Coalition Government boasted that it had 33 votes and, therefore, the no-confidence motion could not be passed with a vote of 32. After the vote, both President David Grange

and Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, accepted that the PPP/C no-confidence motion was validly passed in the House.

At the level of the CCJ, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo; former Government Parliamentarian, Charrandass Persaud; and political activist, Christopher Ram, are now challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal at the level of the CCJ. The three consolidated cases were: Christopher Ram versus the Attorney General,

the Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon and the Guyana Elections Commission; Bharrat Jagdeo versus the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Joseph Harmon and the Guyana Elections Commission; and Charrandass Persaud versus Compton Reid, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Attorney General, Bharrat Jagdeo, Joseph Harmon and the Guyana Elections Commission.

Cattle farmers picket MMA/ADA office The Mahaica Mahaicony Abary Agricultural Development Authority (MMA/ADA) office was recently picketed by disgruntled cattle farmers of Region 5. Several concerns, according to the farmers, remain unaddressed.

10

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

From the desk of Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo...

Guyana Under Review Several issues were addressed a weekly news conference held by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, on Thursday (June 20, 2019), ranging from the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s reaction to the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to the continued reports that hint of corrupt practices.

Comments from Granger, gov’t ministers raise concerns about whether CCJ decision will be accepted T he comments from top officials of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, including President David Granger, following the rulings by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Tuesday (June 18, 2019), raise questions about whether it will accept the decision of the Court.

This was according to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, during his weekly news conference on Thursday (June 20, 2019). “Are they really genuine in accepting the decision of the court?” he asked.

The CCJ ruled that the

passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018 was valid. It also ruled that Granger unilaterally appointed James Patterson as GECOM Chairman in breach of the Constitution.

Jagdeo said, “Since the decision from the CCJ, the government has publicly pronounced that it respects the decision, but the utterances after told different story.”

He referred to comments by the President. Granger said: “I have never gone outside of the Constitution.

If they tell me the process is flawed, they must let me

know what the flaw is…. there’s no way I can see the decisions I’ve taken were flawed.” According to Jagdeo, the CCJ’s well-reasoned judgement defined the reasons behind their ruling on his unilateral appointment of a GECOM Chairman. He said, “This is a President whose decision to unilaterally appoint the Chairman of GECOM was just adjudicated at the highest court and they said it was unconstitutional and flawed….clearly if someone had advised him, the Court, , in a well-reasoned judgement, told him why they

ruled the way they did.”

The Opposition Leader also noted that Granger said: “I cannot make a proclamation unless I am informed by GECOM…it is my duty, it’s not the duty of the leader of opposition, to decide when elections will be held; GECOM has to inform me and as soon as I get that information I will make a proclamation.” Jagdeo stressed that neither he nor the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C0 is telling Granger when Elections have to be held; rather the Constitution of Guyana is clear in this regard. Jagdeo

said, “I am not telling him when elections are to be held. The Constitution says when elections are to be held – Article 106 (7) says this. Does he really accept the decision of the CCJ?” Article 106 (7) states that: “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign

after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”

Acknowledging that Granger has since met with the Secretary General of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Irwin LaRocque, the Opposition Leader said, “Inviting the CARICOM Secretary General to say ‘I will respect the CCJ decisions’ means nothing in light of his other utterances – utterances Granger made on the same day. It shows he is unwilling to accept the decision of the CCJ. It is troubling…it helps to fuel some discontent.”

Elections must be held within three months ‒ new GECOM Chairman needed O n Monday, June 24, 2019, the parties in the cases – relating to the challenge to the validity of the no-confidence motion and the challenge to the unilateral appointment of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairman – that have been ruled on by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will return to the court for the granting of court orders (consequential orders) that will give effect to the rulings.

In the judgment delivered on Tuesday (June 18, 2019), the CCJ declared that the motion of no confidence in the Government is valid.

Guyana’s Constitution states that the Cabinet, including the President, is required to resign if the Government is defeated by the majority vote of all the elected members of the National Assembly ‘on a vote of confidence’. The Court also ruled that the process through which Reverend Justice (Retired) James Patterson was appointed Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by His Excellency, Brigadier David Granger, President of Guyana was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution.

Explaining the positions of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) ahead of Mon-

day’s session at the Caribbean Court of Justice, he said, “For us in the PPP, the government is illegal. It has been so since March 21 2019...(James) Patterson’s continuation as GECOM Chairman is untenable. His appointment declared unconstitutional and therefore he has to be replaced.”

He added, “The lawyers are working on drafting our positions…they are working quickly. Both side will work on this, I expect, over the weekend….tight now the lawyers are the medium through which we seek consequential orders….I am prepared to meet with Granger to give effect to the rulings that say elections must be held in three months and we must have a new GECOM Chairman.”

GRANGER MUST RESPECT RULING Jagdeo added that President David Granger must respect and abide by the CCJ judgements – meaning that elections are held within three months – by September 2019 – and the appointment of a new GECOM Chairman.

On the latter point, he indicated that he is willing to engage with Granger on the appointment of a new GECOM Chairman. “I am willing to engage. I can have

new list ready in a matter of hours, consistent with ruling of CCJ.” The Opposition Leader expressed the hope that the consequential orders of the CCJ will take into consideration that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government is likely to use appointment of a new GECOM chairman as an excuse to delay further delay Elections – which, if the government had respected the passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2019, should have been held since before March 21, 2019.

On the issue of GECOM’s preparedness, Jagdeo said the three-month timeline that is contained in Article 106 (7) of the Constitution was inserted in the constitution based on technical advice from GECOM. “GECOM informed the constitutional reform committee that they could be ready in three months,” he stressed.

The Opposition Leader added that on the point of a Voters’ List, it was the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, who, on February 5, 2019, declared that the Voters’ List was clean – a stark contrast from President Granger’s claims that the list is “outdated and corrupted” so there must be a new house-tohouse registration process.

Jagdeo said, “The current list, appropriately updated, can be used to facilitate elections – contrary to what they have been peddling about people being disenfranchised and young people not being able to vote is a total falsehood.”

He noted that Granger said: “We cannot proceed on the current list of voters. It is outdated and corrupted. It may hold as many as 200,000 incorrect entries.” The Opposition Leader pointed out that the very Voters’ List that Granger is not calling “outdated and corrupted” is the same list that his unilaterally appointed GECOM Chairman and the Government-appointed GECOM Commissioners approved to be used for the November 2018 Local Government Elections.

He noted too that Granger said: “What’s more, those who have reached the age of 18 years since the last election are not on it.” Jagdeo pointed out that since the 2015 General and Regional Elections there have been three cycles of continuous registration to update the National Register of Registrants – from which the Official List of Electors is developed. The last such cycle ran from May 21, 2018 to July 15, 2018 – a process that allowed everyone who turned 14-years-old as at October 31, 2018 to be registered.

The Opposition Leader said, “It is a total lie (what

Granger said). It is beneath the president to so flagrantly lie to the people of the country.

This is to stir up anger among young people,” he said.

NO ONE WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED He explained that to ensure that any issues with the Voters’ List is address – consistent with the three-month deadline for General and Regional Elections – there can be a short period of Claims and Objections, which will allow for: • Objections to the names of any persons who has died, but their name is still on the Voters’ List; • Objections to anyone who should not be on the list, for any other reason; • Persons to get transfer from one voting area to another, in

the event that their changed their residence; and • For anyone who has not been registered to get registered.

“This process does not disenfranchise anyone and it could be done within the three months….house-to-house registration is nothing but a plot to delay the Elections,” Jagdeo declared.

The Opposition Leader reiterated that he CCJ and the Constitution are clear – there must be General and Regional Elections in three months.

“Elections have to be held within three months….three months from the date of the ruling. This is being extremely generous to APNU….elections should have been held by March 21 this year…Granger must act in accordance with the Constitution,” he said.

11

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

From the desk of Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo...

Guyana Under Review Several issues were addressed a weekly news conference held by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, on Thursday (June 20, 2019), ranging from the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s reaction to the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to the continued reports that hint of corrupt practices.

GRA, PNCR fingered in P another scandal

Granger presiding over the ‘give away’ of Guyana’s assets despite calls for his intervention

R

eports from whistleblowers that the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) handed over liquor worth upwards of $25M to the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) were addressed by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, on Thursday (June 20, 2019).

During his news conference, he charged that the wanton rape of Guyana’s resources and the giving up of revenues that should come to the State continues.

He also rapped GRA’s Commissioner General, Godfrey Statia, for his silence on other matters that hint of corruption at the Agency.

To date there has been silence on the racket involving the sale of vehicles sized

by GRA. Two weeks ago, information was released that two vehicles, bearing Venezuelan registration plates, seized by the GRA in Lethem, Region 9 and ended up in the possession of People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member, Carlton Beckles.

The vehicles were seized in May 2018, but then had a backdated registration, dated March 14, 2019, before they were handed over to Beckles.

Calls for answers on these matters continue to be ignored.

The list of liquor handed over to the PNCR

resident David Granger came in for blows by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, for failing to address the debacle involving the Special Purposes Unit (SPU), created under the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), to oversee the divestment of assets belonging to the Guyana Sugar Corporation.

During his Thursday (June 20, 2019) news conference, he noted that GuySuCo managers have appealed to Agriculture Minister Noel Holder to seek the urgent intervention of President David Granger to immediately remove Colvin Heath-London from overseeing the divestment of its assets, while accusing him of pursuing a “vendetta” against the company. In a letter to Holder, the GuySuCo managers also asked that an investigation be launched into the operations of the Special Purpose Unit.

In the letter the GuySuCo manager also expressed their concerns about the lack of information on proceeds (revenues) from “clandestine” deals.

“He has done nothing,” Jagdeo said.

Heath-London and the SPU has been fingered in the sale of scrap metal from the sugar estates that have

been closed in questionable deal, as well as in the sale of two GuySuCo transmission towers to a Bobby Vieira’s Multicultural Communications Inc. – without public tendering – for a mere $2.1M – when they valued millions more. These are the two most recent cases.

The Coalition Government not only appointed Health-London as Head of the SPU, but also as the Head of NICIL and Skeldon Energy Inc. The Opposition Leader has questioned the lack of oversight, relative to the actions of the SPU – more so given that the SPU Head is in charge of NICIL, as well.

He reasoned that the reason for Heath-London’s dual appointment by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government is to ensure that due process is bypassed. “We have to recognize that what has happened here is that all privatization decisions are being made by SPU and NICIL. There is no oversight…they dismantled the oversight mechanism…so every day we hear about who is selling out what….all without clarity,” The Opposition Leader said.

Under the former People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration,

Jagdeo reminded that everything that was privatized was made public and detailed in a published document. He said, “They have practically dismantled the structure for privatization that we put in place through the White Paper that we took to Parliament.”

He added, “…they’ve just set that aside, the entire privatization process, so they can make a decision about which entity to privatize and how the privatize and even accept a bid without any oversight.”

The process Jagdeo referred to related to the Privatization Unit. Its Board was made up of three government Ministers, a representative from Private Sector, another from Labour (Union) and another from the consumer bodies. According to Jagdeo, it is this group of persons which would ultimately make recommendations to the Cabinet – chaired by the President. All privatization projects were subject to a process involving these parties and also had to be transparently done.

The Opposition Leader noted that the Guyanese deserve greater transparency, not secrecy that could see the ‘give away’ of Guyana’s assets.

Meetings with the diplomatic corps continue

M

eetings have been held with the representatives of several diplomatic missions in Guyana, including the United States of America (USA), Britain, Canada and the European Union (EU).

This is according to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, who addressed the issue during his Thursday (June 20, 2019) news conference.

The meetings follow the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ),

which declared that the no-confidence motion was validly passed and that the GECOM Chairman’s unilateral appointment by President David Granger was unconstitutional.

The first meeting was

held on Tuesday (June 18, 2019) with the USA Ambassador to Guyana, Sarah Ann Lynch. On Wednesday (June 19, 2019) meetings were held with reps from the British High Commission, the Canadian High Commis-

sion and the EU. Asked about the meetings, Jagdeo said, “We briefed them on our position to move forward…we pointed out to them the threats to democracy from government and the use of inflammatory

language once again by the government.”

Meetings with the Secretary General of CARICOM, as well as representatives from other international groups are expected to continue.

12

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

No guarantee that new house-to-house registration will include all eligible voters – Shaddick A

date for the start of new national house-to-house registration has not been confirmed, according to Opposition-nominated Commissioner on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Bibi Shaddick. “In all the circles, everybody is not agreeing with each other. There are doubts. I know they are going ahead and saying they are training people, but there are doubts...GECOM is a constitutional body…we have to follow the law…GECOM does not make its own laws,” she said, during a recently televised programme ‘This Week in 60 Minutes’.

Shaddick contends that GECOM’s posture on the push for new national houseto-house registration was led by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) General Secretary, Amna Ally.

She said, “When she (Amna Ally) came to the Commission to talk with GECOM – after our March 2019 meeting with the President – that was the first place that house-to-house registration was mentioned, so it became a national rallying cry after that. GECOM is talking about house-to-house registration as a policy of GECOM, not as the law of the country and that is where the problem is between the three Opposition-nominated

GECOM Commissioners and the others.”

The Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner made the distinction between house to house visits – where GECOM visits homes to ensure that eligible voters are on the list – and houseto-house registration where GECOM recreates an entirely new List of Electors from scratch. She said, “Houseto-house registration is a good thing to add people to the list, but it a bad thing when you are using it to wipe out a whole national Register of Registrants. That is the aim of this current exercise.

That is not something that you do.”

POLICY MUST CONFORM WITH LAWS She explained that GECOM can make policy, but this must correspond to the laws of Guyana.

According to her, the reasons proffered to advance new national house-to-house registration, including claims that the List of Electors is bloated, do not hold water.

She said, “GECOM has a process, during claims and objections period for persons who died to be taken off the list…there is a process…they are saying too that there are people on the List who live overseas, but what is stopping Guyanese from living

overseas? What is stopping Guyanese from getting a job in Tortola or on a cruise ship?

Or in Barbados to teach? And come back to Guyana. Which law stops Guyanese from doing that? They are saying that there are people who do not live here, but you can’t take somebody’s name off the List who is a legitimate citizen. I cannot understand someone who gets a job overseas and is registered as a voter and will come home one day and find their name off the List of Electors.”

Shaddick stated that the law is clear on this issue. “As a result of what they want to do, Guyanese who have not been living here for whatever period of time, for work of whatever other reason, will be taken off the list….that is unconstitutional thing.”

Relative to the Legal Opinion by GECOM’s Legal Officer, Excellence Dazzell, who advised against a new national house-to-house registration, Shaddick said, “What the Legal Officer did was quote the law. That is the law…what is so ironic is that we went through a whole set of discussions and all kinds of recommendations to make sure that every day of the year GECOM will have a valid list of Electors, in the case that there is a need for by-elections or anything else….the legislation was

passed to say we will have a valid List of Electors every day of the year.”

The legal opinion points out that: “The use of the work ‘revise’ [in the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 15 of 2000] suggest that the process is not one where a ‘new’ List is generated, but one where the most recent list is updated or amended. “....I therefore advise that procedures be put in place to ensure the revision of the list, otherwise the Commission would be acting in defiance of the law and may prejudice aby by-election that may become necessary.”

TIMELINES On the question of how long a new national house-to-house registration would take, if it is advanced by the Coalition Government-aligned elements at GECOM, despite the objections of the Parliamentary Opposition, Shaddick was clear that it would take at minimum nine months.

“I am not talking about wiping out a whole national Register of Registrants, I am taking about GECOM going to each home in Guyana and making sure each voter in on the Voters’ List. That process in this country cannot take less than nine months, if it is to be done in any credible kind of manner,” she said.

Shaddick pointed out that it was the Government-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Vincent Alexander, who agreed that there could be no List completed earlier than in nine months. “It was the Commissioner Alexander who said you can have a List by the end of February 2020.

It is the same Commissioner Alexander who now says you can have a List by the end of October 2019, without having even started.”

Earlier this month, Government-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Charles Corbin, insisted that Houseto-House registration can be completed by October 31, 2019 – less than five months away. “The training is complete. I think that the offices’ clearances have been given for all the management areas across the country. Those have already been set up…. based on the available timetable, we are now in the same time scheme with respect to the process…our deadline for a qualified list is October 31,” he said on Tuesday (June 4, 2019).

However, this time frame was also the one that GECOM’s attorney, Stanley Marcus, presented to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in early May 2019, during the heading on the cases related to challenge to the vote on the no-confidence

motion that was passed in the National Assembly on December 21, 2018. Marcus had said that House-to-House registration will be completed in five months – from June to October – and a new list of electors would be ready on November 1, 2019.

Additionally, the timeframe touted by both Marcus and Corbin contradict what was said earlier this year by GECOM’s Deputy Chief Elections Officer, Roxanne Meyers. Meyers had revealed that the GECOM Secretariat has calculated that House-to-House Registration would take nine months to be conducted. “The technical analysis, by the secretariat, revealed that House-to-House Registration would take nine months.”

Shaddick stressed that the current List of Electors includes thousands of eligible voters and the push for new national house-to-house registration does not guarantee that a new List will capture all eligible voters in Guyana.

“All eligible voters must be on the List. You have a National Register of Registrants –from which the List is extracted – that has, up to today, all eligible voters. If you are now going to wipe out that whole register, how are you guaranteeing that you will get back all the eligible voters on that List?” she questioned.

Another week of no meetings at GECOM GECOM Chairman acted the second week, in unilaterally in taking action against Fora row, there has been no statutory meetings of the Legal Officer – Gunraj Guyana Elections Commis-

I

n a surprise move, the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), James Patterson, has written the Commission’s Legal Officer, Attorney-at-Law, Excellence Dazzell, expressing a loss of confidence in her capacity.

Since providing the Commission with a Legal Opinion warning against the move to national House-to-House registration – a view that clashed with that of the Coalition Government-nominated GECOM Commissioners – Dazzell has been under fire.

The Government-nominated commissioners maintained that Dazzell needed the approval of the full Commission to offer legal advice.

For months now the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) has objected to the push by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to conduct new national house to house reg-

istration – more so given indications that thousands of eligible voters risk being de-registered.

On May 13, 2019, an opinion was provided by GECOM’s Legal Officer and it confirmed the validity of these objections.

The legal opinion points out that: “The use of the work ‘revise’ [in the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 15 of 2000] suggest that the process is not one where a ‘new’ List is generated, but one where the most recent list is updated or amended. “....I therefore advise that procedures be put in place to ensure the revision of the list, otherwise the Commission would be acting in defiance of the law and may prejudice aby by-election that may become necessary.”

Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Sase Gunraj, told the Mirror Newspaper, that no decision

was taken at the level of the Commission to take action against the Legal Officer.

“As you are aware the Government aligned Commissioners had called for the Legal Officer to be sanctioned and investigated. No such decision was taken. Now we see this action, based on reports in the state-owned Guyana Chronicle. This is where we are, unilateral actions,” he said.

Gunraj added, “My concern, based on what was reported by the Guyana Chronicle, is that action was taken against the Legal Officer by the GECOM Chairman and she was not given an opportunity to respond. This breaches the rule of natural justice. So I don’t see how the GECOM Chairman can expect us to take this seriously.”

Additionally, GECOM’s Legal Officer has not commented on the matter since.

sion (GECOM). A meeting was expected to be held, as is the weekly norm, on Tuesday (June 18, 2019).

A letter from the Office of the GECOM Chairman, James Patterson, dated June 14, 2019, informed Commissioners that the next statutory meeting will be held on June 25, 2019. “This hiatus is to accommodate the availability of Commissioners to hear the results of the CCJ findings on current litigation which touch and concern GECOM,” the letter said.

Notably, the meeting scheduled for last Tuesday (June 11, 2019) was postponed to Thursday (June 13, 2019). However, there was no quorum and, as such, no meeting could be held.

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

PPP/C details priorities to be included in Manifesto ahead of General and Regional Elections The People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders is working on a detailed Manifesto, which will elaborate on the Party’s policies for improving the lives of all Guyanese.

Some of the priority actions of the next PPP/C Government will be to: 1. Restore– the $10,000 cash grant to school children. The APNU+AFC took away $1.67B per year, a total of $8.35B from Guyanese children.

2. Reinstate the water subsidies to pensioners. The APNU+AFC removed $500M in subsidies per year amounting to a $2.5B burden that had to be paid by our elderly.

3. Reverse VAT on essential services including water, electricity, and health care. The APNU+AFC imposed this on Citizens which led to billions in tax collection from Guyanese people and escalated the cost of living.

4. Reopen the closed sugar estates. Over 7,000 persons lost their jobs directly and another 4,000 lost their livelihoods indirectly.

5. Restore zero-rated VAT for machinery and equipment for agricultural, mining and forestry industries. For example, a tractor or excavator now attracts in excess of $5M in additional taxes.

6. Reverse cost of license and permits for doing business and accessing Government services. The APNU + AFC increased over 200 fees, e.g. vending licenses increased from $12,500 to a burdensome $65,000. This, added to the cost of living, hampered small business development.

7. Reverse land rents and drainage and irrigation charges. These have moved up in varying degrees, from $2,500 to $293,000 per acre, a policy that is suffocating many sectors including agriculture and tourism.

8. Remove age limits on vehicles. The APNU+AFC added at least $1M to the cost per vehicle, an unnecessary hardship for those aspiring to own a vehicle, especially young people.

9. Remove the restriction on used tyres. The imposition of this restriction increased the cost of tyres by 300%.

10. Reverse VAT on exports.

11. Reverse VAT on building materials.

12. Reinstate the joint services bonus. The APNU+AFC in a Grinch-like move took away the Christmas bonus from the joint services.

13. Remove VAT on data. The APNU+AFC has taxed the internet and your cell phone data.

14. Reverse the 2 A.M curfew. The arrogant implementation of this measure has not helped to address the noise nuisance issue and has affected quality of life and hurt job creation and businesses.

In addition to correcting these draconian impositions, the next PPP/C Government pledges to: 1. Create 50,000 jobs in the first five years.

2. Assist small businesses through the implementation of programmes to help small businesses grow by providing technical advice, small grants, loans, and training for workers. Women entrepreneurship will receive special attention.

3. Deliver 8,000 to 10,000 new house lots per year.

4. Implement a programme for affordable financing for home ownership.

5. Deliver quality health care and end drug shortages.

6. Improve the quality of and access to education at every level including offering 20,000 persons online University education.

7. Implement measures to expand the capability and increase the effectiveness of the security forces so that people can once again feel protected in their homes, on the streets and in workplaces.

8. Create conditions for our young people to prosper, realise their dreams and to involve them in all levels of Government.

9. Ensure better working conditions and remuneration for teachers, healthcare workers and other public servants.

10. Improve infrastructure (roads, wharves, bridges, airstrips, drainage etc) in Georgetown, other Towns and Villages across Guyana.

11. Extend and improve Government services and ICT on the Coast and in the Hinterland.

12. Ensure that revenue from Oil and Gas is not squandered and stolen and leads to the improvement of the lives of ALL GUYANESE. 13. Create the conditions and strengthen the institutions to expand and protect the civil, cultural and human rights of all Guyanese.

14. Improve governance, including expanding and strengthening measures aimed at fighting corruption.

15. Protect our national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The PPP/C has said that it is time to restore Guyana to the path of progress and prosperity.

Since taking office, the APNU+AFC cabal has put forward five budgets, spent $1.3 trillion, borrowed US $ 900M and increased taxes by approximately $88B per annum.

They are spending every year $1.6 B more for food allowances, $1.1B more for rentals, $1.2B more for local travel among other things, as part of their extravagant lifestyle. Meanwhile over 30,000 Guyanese have lost their jobs. The cost of living has skyrocketed and health care, education and quality of life have deteriorated rapidly.

13

14

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Hardships continue to increase…

Ordinary Guyanese suffering the consequences of the Coalition gov’t failures L

ife under the APNU+AFC Coalition Government continues to be bemoaned as increasingly difficult by Guyanese across the country. This week ‘Mirror Newspaper’ spoke to several Guyanese from East Coast Demerara communities about the current state of affairs – majority of whom, including several from vulnerable groups, lamented the increasing hardships they are facing. The general consensus was that the Coalition Government has failed to delivery for ordinary Guyanese.

BIBI MOHAMED (PENSIONER) said: “What can I say? I got a lil shop and sometimes you don’t get nobody. Business in and out. Things not good. What more I can say.”

EDMOND WILKINSON (LABOURER) said: “We need a change. They said we would get change, but it’s not change for the better, it’s change for the worse. We need a change back. Four year now since the APNU/AFC go in power and the first thing is they close down the sugar estate and they take away support from people. The $10,000 (cash grant) that people used to get gone and if a single parent have three children and used to get that money, it was a help; now without it, how could she afford to do the same thing now? At least the money was a help. People need help. We need changing.”

ANITA THORNE (HOUSEWIFE) said: “This government offline right now. We needed the government online. We not getting anywhere. We stagnated and things getting worse. No jobs for youths and no business on the go – things just stagnated. Even though our country has a lot of creative things to make money, the people getting poorer. All they doing is promising, but they not fulfilling. Only the PPPC I think got the belly to do for the people. I know they would have given us the $10,000 (cash grant) for the children and do what they promise the people.

The PPP will stand to its word. We see that before.

In the last election, the 2011, Comrade Jagdeo said everyone would be able to own their own home and he set that trend and it was almost completed. The poor people end up better. They get their loans and could afford to pay back their loans. Not now; now a lot of people vehicle’s being seized because they can’t pay the bank. Right now all we see is that nothing is going on, except corruption.”

MICHAEL PYLE (CARPENTER) said: “What I can tell you. I got one way to live, I going to ‘boot-hill’ just now.

We can’t turn back the time. We got to struggle. Thing gone up plenty. Crime all gone up. What people can do?

We got to try.”

LENNY SINGH (SELF-EMPLOYED) said: “So far I think this government is a no-good government.

Right now look at the sugar workers who are starving because the sugar estate close, and their children can’t even go to school. People can’t even afford to go to the market like before. They can’t even go to the shop to buy their grocery. The people need a government to bring back bread on the table. And the young people especially need help so they can see their way in life."

DONALD GAJRAJ (UNEMPLOYED) said: “Total disappointment is all we got from the Government. It was a set of broken promises that did not inspire any confidence.

I think they continue to fail on the big things. Crime is affecting the economic activity of the country and drives fear into the population. In terms of business we see the slowdown in business and we see the businessmen complaining. The population is affected because they cannot earn like they used to so that they could maintain their families, just look at what happened in the sugar sector, thousands of workers got sent home. In all of this the government doesn’t seem to concerned or interested about the people.”

15

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

LATCHMEE NARINE (HOUSEWIFE) said: “For the last four months my husband out of job. Up to today I beg for a passage to go to the bank to draw the little money I got there so I can come home and buy lil goods. But that is it. I draw the last $30,000 in my name. The account close now. I am a diabetic, but you go the clinic and they don’t have medication to get. I really can’t even tell you the struggle. You plant lil greens, but it not selling because now everybody planting a lil garden because of how hard things get. You mine (rear) lil chicken, but that and all not selling, because it got nuff people doing the same thing. So right now I frustrated. I got my two grand (grandchildren) with me and they depend on me and they grandfather. I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe if the government did do something for the people things would go so bad.”

TAJMATTIE KISSOON (HOUSEWIFE) said: “Everything you need to run house gone up. Three persons in my house working and still you barely managing. Water bill and light bill gone up. GWI come and put in the meter and they don’t come and read the water meter, they give you a estimate and you can’t do nothing, you got to pay the money. Sometimes the bill come $10,000 a month in water alone. This government not doing anything, to me, to help people.”

MOHINI SOOKRAM (UNEMPLOYED) said: “I just finished school and I am looking for a job right now, but it’s a wait. Cost of living gone up and the government hasn’t done much to change that.”

TARAMATTEE LALL (PENSIONER) said: “Right now things are very bad. Children come out of school and they can’t get jobs. The situation with the crime going worse and worse because right now I don’t even want to watch the news. I getting a pension and the pension money not worthwhile because you got the light bill and water bill, all gone up. The pension raise yes but you paying it back out in bill, so what left for you to eat? I pay $7,000 for water bill for last month alone. Tell me what left for I eat when you done paying bills? Things not going good.”

DELIMA AZIMULLAH (SINGLE MOTHER) said: “For a single mother, things are really hard. We lost the grant ($10,000 cash grant) and the vouchers (school uniform voucher support) have been cut.

The $10,000 used to help. I think things are just outrageous now. From what we know to now, things are getting worse. The government is doing much to help ordinary people.”

SURAJ NARINE (UNEMPLOYED) said: "When I tell you it hard, it hard. I have a mortgage all to pay and right now I don’t know what will happen tomorrow even.”

16

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

PPP members participate in wreath laying ceremony in memory of Enmore Martyrs

Large showing of support at PPP’s Enmore public meeting

17

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

The path of progress is one all Guyanese will walk together under new PPP/C gov’t– Ali T

he struggle continues, declared People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) presidential candidate, Irfaan Ali, during a public meeting held at Robert’s Square. “Together we will walk the path of progress,” he declared, adding that only the next PPP/C government can truly deliver for the Guyanese people.

The public meeting, held last Friday (June 14, 2019), attracted hundreds, who also gathered to also remember the Enmore Martyrs. In recognition of this, Ali said, “I want to emphasise that the sacrifices of the Enmore Martyrs were not only for the sugar workers, but for all workers in Guyana…. it is the inspiration of these martyrs, the fortitude of these martyrs that continue

to inspire the PPP….we will not sway…this I can assure you all….just like these workers, the PPP, every day, we are on the trail representing workers and the interests of Guyanese. I want to assure you that when the PPP speaks, we speak about the interest of all Guyanese,

regardless of how you look, who you voted for or any other thing…the main interest of the PPP is the representation of all our people… this is the only way we can take this country forward.”

Addressing the current state of affairs, he noted that workers’ rights are being

eroded on a daily basis.

“Workers’ interest is not only about their jobs and salaries. It is about the quality of life, the quality of service, the quality of government…. every day we see the quality of life, service, and government being eroded,” he said, adding that the increase in cost of living – increased water and electricity bills, etc. – is worsening the current situation.

Ali pointed out that all the major productive sectors in Guyana are on the decline, not just the sugar sector, but others, like the mining sector where 7,000 have lost jobs. “The pain of today is not confined to one group of people or to one region.

The pain inflicted by this government on the citizens of our country is one felt in

every single corner of this country….when they say that this is not the reality, this is a ‘nancy story’, then they are insulting the people on the ground who are feeling the pain….they do not understand the pain that the people of this country are going through,” he said.

The PPP/C presidential candidate added, “Let me assure you that the People’s Progressive Party understands your pain and we are working out a strategy to return hope, decent living conditions to all the people of our country…when we return to office, we will show the APNU+AFC what is meant by governance for all our people….no government can ever be successful if they believe that their only responsibility is to a few in

the top ranks of their party structure….when we return to government we will deliver a return of hope, progress, development and pride to our people and our country.”

Improved conditions of living for every Guyanese; better health and educational services; jobs; policy incentives to mobilise greater levels of investment; and an increase in opportunities for all Guyanese were among the promises made by Ali – promises that he stressed will ensure real and lasting change. “Very soon we will launch our manifesto,” he promised.

Other speakers at the event included President of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), Carvil Duncan.

‘We remain strong and ready’ – Jagdeo to supporters at PPP public meeting

T

he significance of remembering the sacrifices of the Enmore Martyrs must not be forgotten, according to Progressive Party (PPP) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo.

Addressing hundreds at Robert’s Square, who gathered for a public meeting last Friday (June 14, 2019), he underscored that the sacrifice of the martyrs continue to inspire thousands more Guyanese to ensure that the struggles of the past were not in vain.

He said, “We must never lose the sense of the occasion…this occasion is to commemorate the sacrifices of five sugar workers…sacrifices for the rights of others. “…why is it so fitting that we remember this occasion? It is because today the industry that so many people sacrificed to build together, people of all races, but predominantly indo-Guyanese across Guyana, that that industry is facing its worst time and it is not facing its worst time, because nothing better could have been done. It is facing its worst time in our post-colonial history largely because we have a vindictive government and they decided

to bring sugar to its knees,” “...the Government decided to ignore that course of action and decided to close the estates because they believed that somehow it would assist them … they probably hoped that the sugar workers would become disillusioned, they would flee this country and that they would change the electoral demographics of this country. But what went down effectively is to put 11,000 people – 7000 directly and another 4000 who depend on sugar for a living – out of a job; that is over 50,000 Guyanese in a population of about 800,000 people without knowing where their next meal would come from, how they are going to earn enough to send their children to school; in fact, we have seen a massive increase in poverty in the sugar belt.”

June 16, 2018, marked seventy years since five sugar workers – Rambarran, Pooran, Lallabagee, Surajballi and Harry – were killed at Enmore by police while protesting with hundreds of others for better working conditions.

GIVEAWAY OF ASSETS Even as the APNU+AFC

Coalition Government has worked to “bring sugar to its knees” the massive levels of corruption are being exposed.

He said, “Stripping assets, moving the operable assets to inoperable lists and putting them as scrap and then selling them off to [People’s National Congress] PNC officials for a pittance.

It is happening every single part of the industry and the people in National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) and [Guyana Sugar Corporation] GuySuCo are all guilty.”

According to him, the APNU+AFC Coalition Government is taking action that would make reopening estates difficult. In the case of the Wales Estate, which has been bought to a dismal position, Jagdeo noted that the sugar workers there will have to receive direct support from the next People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) government.

“What’s happening in sugar and all the other sectors can only be fixed by a change in government be-

cause the nature of this government is one that doesn’t focus on building wealth, on expanding welfare, on creating jobs, [and] on improving the lives of people. Its focus mainly is on vindictiveness and personal gathering for a cabal of a few individuals,” the PPP General Secretary said.

CORRUPTION WILL BE INVESTIGATED Jagdeo was also clear in declaring that every corrupt act committed by APNU+AFC Coalition Government will be investigated once there is a change in Government, after a PPP/C victory at the upcoming elections, and every Government official who is found guilty will be jailed.

“They used to talk about putting PPP people in jail.

When the Government changes, it will investigate every single one of those acts and then you’ll see who goes to jail. Then you will see,” he said.

The Coalition Government has been criticized for massive levels of corruption across government ministries and state agencies.

However, President David

Granger has not responded to this.

FEAR OF ELECTIONS On the issue of upcoming General and Regional Elections, the PPP General Secretary noted that the Coalition Government seems fearful of a return to the polls because of its dismal performance in office – from neglecting the people to it many broken promises.

The APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s promises, prior to the May 2015 General and Regional Elections, have proved to be untruths that were peddled to the Guyanese people, he said. “They failed on every single promise…not one of their promise have they fulfilled…this government

is untrustworthy when it comes to keeping promises,” he said, referring to promises about jobs, education, health care, crime, infrastructure and ending corruption.

Give the reality of the current state of affairs, he urged supporters to not be “sidetracked by the noises” coming from the APNU+AFC Coalition camp; rather they should focus on the prosperous future that lies ahead under a PPP/C Government.

“Whatever the outcome is on Tuesday (when the Caribbean Court of Justice rules on the challenge to the no-confidence motion), we’ll be strong and ready,” the PPP General Secretary declared.

18

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Holding the APNU+AFC Coalition to account – a review of local happenings

Granger-led APNU+AFC Coalition Government flouting the Constitution, dissing CCJ

By Dr. Leslie Ramsammy

D

avid Granger and APNU+AFC have exposed themselves, they have revealed their cards. Less than an hour after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) made a ruling against the Government, he and APNU+AFC made clear they will not hold elections, at least not before November and, perhaps, even later. Like they did soon after December 21st, 2018, when the No-Confidence Motion was passed by the Parliament, they are still determined to frustrate the law and the Constitution.

In addressing the citizens of Guyana, Granger made clear, CCJ or no CCJ, he

will not hold elections until there is a new voters' list and until GECOM set the date for elections. He has clearly outlined his strategy for "dissing" the CCJ, just like he "dissed" the Parliament and the Constitution, post-December 21st, 2018. While insisting he and APNU+AFC will respect the CCJ's ruling, Granger revealed his intention to faithfully disobey the laws of Guyana.

The CCJ has spoken clearly, no ambiguity, leaving absolutely no room for equivocation. The CCJ reaffirmed that Guyana's Constitution is supreme, the No-Confidence motion was validly passed on December 21st and that the David Granger-led APNU+AFC Cabinet was obligated to resign and call elections within 90 days,

by March 21st, 2019. The rulings were a stern rebuke to a government that has steadfastly assaulted the Constitution.

Prior to the CCJ hearings and long before the rulings, President Granger and the Leader of the Opposition both led the many stakeholders in unequivocally

swearing they will respect and honor the rulings of the CCJ, whatever those decisions were. Given that every single stakeholder committed unconditionally they would respect and honor the rulings of the CCJ, there is no excuse for the President not to resign today, no reason for the Cabinet not to dissolve as of today. The continued resistance of Granger not to dissolve the Cabinet and not to dissolve the Parliament is a stubborn resistance to the rule of law. Guyana, therefore, returns to the March 21st status, we have an illegal government. Incidentally, the CCJ's rulings also means we have an illegal Chairman of GECOM, since James Patterson is obligated to resign immediately.

In spite of the promise made by David Granger himself, while insisting they respect the rulings of the CCJ, he and his party continue to resist the law and the Constitution, frustrating and impeding the democratic processes in Guyana. Granger announced immediately he will rely on GECOM to advise him on a date for elec-

tion, while reminding Guyanese that James Patterson had previously advised him GECOM will not be ready for elections before November.

The Constitution is clear and unambiguous on this matter.

The President is obligated to dissolve Parliament and hold elections within 90 days after the NCM. This is not up to GECOM. This is not up to David Granger. The Constitution prescribes to Granger what he MUST do. The Constitution does not allow him to pass the buck and delegate this function to anyone else.

The Constitution allows him to get agreement with the Leader of the Opposition for a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament for any extension.

The very least one would have expected of Granger, therefore, is for him to invite the Leader of the Opposition to an urgent, emergency meeting today, not tomorrow, not any day after that.

The CCJ while ruling that

the No-Confidence Motion was valid and that elections should have been held within 90 days, has provided a window for the leaders to dialogue and come up with consequential actions to give effect to the spirit and the law of the Constitution and our democratic processes.

The immediate response from David Granger is that he will not adhere to any reasonable timeline for holding elections. He will take his time and complete a new house-to-house registration for an entirely new voters list.

In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition has been unequivocal. In spite of the more than three months delay in holding elections already and more time to elapse, he and the PPP are ready to work with Granger and APNU+AFC for a reasonable resolution. The international community has already responded, appealing to all

stakeholders to adhere faithfully to the CCJ rulings.

Various stakeholders have also come forward to urge proper actions within the law are pursued.

Thankfully, the CCJ has considered the possibility the APNU+AFC might not act with any sense of urgency.

The CCJ realizes the original resort to the judiciary was never based on the interpretation of the law. The questions APNU+AFC raised were always absurd, like 34 is not more than 33. The CCJ realized the strategy was always intended to buy time. The CCJ is not unaware that while Granger and APNU+AFC insist they will honor the rulings, they will continue to find ways to buy as much time as possible. This is the reason why the CCJ has set June 24 as a date for consequential orders. Granger and APNU+AFC can run, they have run. But they cannot hide forever. Their time is up.

Backroom deals being made to sell off scrap metal from closed Another company terminates sugar estates – whistleblowers S hundreds of staffers H

undreds of employees of the processing outsourcing company, Emerge BPO, will soon be without jobs as the company on Tuesday served employees with termination letters stating that it is downsizing its operations in Guyana.

According to one of the letters seen by this publication, the company stated that one of its biggest clients recently pulled its contract which will see the company losing millions. As such, Emerge stated that it will be unable to pay employees and plans to downsize its operations in July.

Emerge BPO, Middle Street, Georgetown, is a nearshore leader in customer management, back office and transaction processing

services which opened in Guyana in July of 2008.

The company, which created employment for hundreds, was founded by Adrian Collins and his wife, Carole Fletcher, whose vision was to create a world-class contact centre in the heart of their native Guyana which would perform a variety of outsourcing services to clients and their customers in North America. Since its opening, the company has continued to develop at a steady pace and is still on the map as a leading nearshore hub for outsourcing from Guyana.

Just recently, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Emerge, Heidi Solomon-Orlick and the company’s Vice President of Oper-

ations, Dalgleish Joseph, announced an expansion with the investment of a new campus located at Camp Street, Georgetown. Expected to be completed at the end of 2019, the expansion was targeting some 1,500 to 2,000 employees with 3,000 more to be added within the next five to 10year period. After revealing that Guyana is 30 to 35 per cent cheaper than any other nearshore destination to do the outsourcing business, Solomon-Ordick had said that Emerge was in talks with several prospective clients about business.

However, with one of the company’s biggest clients recently pulling its contract, Emerge BPO has opted to scale down its operations.

taff members of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) itself have stepped forward to blow the whistle on a scandal involving the sale of Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) assets – from the closed sugar estates – without tenders to an exporter with a checkered past.

NICIL’s Special Purpose Unit (SPU) was formed by the coalition Government to coordinate the divestment of GuySuCo assets. But according to the staff who stepped forward on condition of anonymity, certain officials at NICIL/SPU have been making backroom deals with select scrap metal exporters and profiting handsomely from it.

One exporter in particular is an Indian national, who, according to the staff, is related to one of the officials. This exporter, the

staff said, was given the contract to purchase scrap metal from GuySuCo which he proceeded to export out of Guyana by the container load over the past year.

This, the staff noted, is despite the fact that the exporter was once implicated in a scandal involving the forgery of customs documents to export scrap metal.

“For the year, containers of scrap metal worth millions of dollars but given away for cheap have already been shipped out of the country (by the exporter) that originated from GuySuCo,” the whistleblower said.

He said the officials in question have met with the exporter and his associates right at NICIL’s office, where they discussed various avenues of buying assets from NICIL. Nor is that all. According to the whistleblower, the two officials were paid

$10 million and $5 million respectively for facilitating the scrap metal deal.

“After heat came from the media on NICIL and the SPU, these two officials have hastily been taking documents away from our office in an effort to remove traces of this transaction. It is a shame to see the blatant giving away of the assets of this company when there was no tender out and other legitimate businesses would have approached NICIL, but (were) turned away,” the whistleblower added.

NICIL’s SPU Head Heath-London, whose agency has responsibility for divesting GuySuCo of its assets, remains silent on this matter.

Meanwhile, another advertisement has been put out by the entity seeking bids for scrap metal from the estates being divested.

19

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

AFC’s newly elected top leaders tainted by corruption, conflict of interest issues T

he Alliance For Change’s (AFC) National Conference last Saturday (June 15, 2019) saw the election of controversial figures to the four top leadership posts – figures that have been fingered in corruption and conflict of interest matters over the past four years of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s term in office.

The four top leaders are: AFC Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan; AFC Chairman, Raphael Trotman; AFC Vice Chairperson, Cathy Hughes; and AFC General Secretary, David Patterson.

licences remain unaddressed.

As Minister of Public Security, he has also come in for criticisms over his handling of the escalating crime situation – with public calls for his resignation.

– instead it is close to $300 million that was spent.

Nagamootoo ousted

that Ramjattan had ousted Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, as the AFC’s preferred Prime Ministerial candidate for the upcoming elections, Nagamootoo left.

Commenting to the media, Nagamootoo said, “It’s not a contest…I have not thrown my hat in the ring, so it’s not like you have to vote for either Ramjattan or Nagamootoo or anybody else.”

However, Nagamootoo’s expressed interest has been public knowledge for months now.

Nagamootoo was also

W

eeks of infighting among the ranks of the Alliance For Change (AFC) ended last Saturday (June 15, 2019) with newly elected AFC Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan, named as the prime ministerial candidate ahead of the upcoming General and Regional Elections.

In accordance with the 2015 ‘deal’ between A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and AFC, the latter has the prime ministerial

CONTROVERSIAL Relative to Ramjattan, reports about the sale of gun Government in the period ahead. In early February 2019, when Ramjattan hinted that he would welcome consideration as a replacement to Nagamootoo, Trotman said, “Politics and elections are very fluid and it is simply too early to talk about replacing anyone… prefer not to be too hasty, but to take time to observe and assess before reacting emotively…right now I am not sure if anyone feels that he or she can do a better job by winning more votes nationally, and has national acceptability.”

As it related to his future with the AFC, Nagamootoo, tried to brush off the defeat and said, “I believe (that) at some point in time, Nagamootoo will have to make way for someone. That, for me, is the perfect transition. I’m not here as a dinosaur, to stay or an old boat dropping my anchor. That is not my thought.”

Meanwhile, AFC’s new General Secretary, David Patterson, said Nagamootoo will continue to sit in an ex-officio office within the AFC.

From left: AFC General Secretary, David Patterson; AFC Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan; AFC Chairman, Raphael Trotman; and AFC Vice Chairperson, Cathy Hughes

Guyana’s procurement laws, relative to the feasibility study on a new Demerara River crossing remain an issue under Patterson’s stewardship as Minister of Public of Infrastructure.

The Public Procurement Commission has pronounced on the illegal nature of this undertaking. The report said: “The PPC noted that the Minster of Public Infrastructure, by memorandum dated November 18 2016, made a request to the Cabinet for Government seeking consideration and approval to use funds from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation to fund the feasibility study and to commence a contractual engagement with LievenseCSO as of the 1 Jan 2017.” The PPC noted that this request to Cabinet was not forwarded through the NPTA but submitted directly by the Minister of Public Infrastructure. The PPC also noted that Cabinet considered the memorandum submitted by the Minister of Public Infrastructure and in November 2016 approved a total sum of $161,514,420 to be used from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation to cover cost for the feasibility study for a new bridge across the Demerara river. To date, new information indicates that more than $$161,514,420 was spent

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Patterson’s latest corruption controversy relates to the deposit of US$9,000 into his personal bank account of Public Infrastructure Minister, David Patterson.

Notably, Minister of Finance, Winston Jordan, made it clear that it is not the norm for a foreign company to deposit monies into a Government Minister’s personal bank account – monies that Patterson claimed was a reimbursement of monies he took from Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) to fund a ‘business’ trip to China. To date there has been silence from Patterson, who promised documentation to show that there was no corruption.

The handout of contracts, in total disregard of due process, is another unaddressed issue. From January 4 to April 28, 2019 – contracts of $479.9M were issued by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure, through ministerial tender board – most via selective tendering or without any tendering process being followed at all. Of these companies, local media reports indicate that at least two have no business registration – yet each received contracts over $24M each.

Additionally, breaches of

WORRY The failure of the Alliance For Change to change the status quo and its failure to send a clear message to the Guyanese people on the issue of corruption was lamented on by a long-standing Party Member.

Speaking on the grounds of anonymity, the source expressed “shock” at the results of who were elected to the four top Party posts during the AFC’s National Conference.

The source said, “I was hoping that the delegates at this congress would have taken the golden opportunity to elect credible leaders to run the party. We all know that many of those persons who were elected have been involved in scandals after scandals. Cathy Hughes, David Patterson, Raphael Trotman, Khemraj Ramjattan and the others are all involved in massive scandals that they have provided no clarity on, in the public domain, or at the level of the Party.

“The AFC from its creation was supposed to be a clean and honourable party.

However, it is now a Party of grabbers. All these high ranking officials in Government have forgotten the values upon which the party was founded and are now just involved in collecting as much as they can get their hands on.”

The source noted that the AFC’s inaction when it comes to the reports about corruption and conflict of interest concerns, specifically in the cases of Patterson and Hughes, is likely to cost the Party support at the next General and Regional Elections.

position while the presidential post goes to APNU. The People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) led APNU has decided to stick with Granger as its presidential candidate.

Ramjattan told reporters moments after the party’s National Conference ended that a large section of the membership felt that he was “fit and proper” to be the prime ministerial candidate.

After the decision

CONCERNS IGNORED In the case of Hughes, the use of her public office as Minister of Public Telecommunications, bolster her financial standing and that of her company, Videomega Productions, remains unaddressed.

This conflict of interest was disclosed after the revelation that massive contract of $832,200 for sample work, paid for by the Department of Energy, a department within the Ministry of the Presidency, was given to Minister Hughes’ company. The admission came from Even the Department Head, Dr. Mark Bynoe, on May 3, 2019, admitted that the contract was not supposed to go to Videomega Productions and due diligence was not done.

Since then, more information in the public domain, indicates that, in Minister Hughes’ Ministry of Public Telecommunications three contracts were awarded to her company, Videomega Productions: • June 4, 2018 – Advertisement of Vacancies $939,738 • June 25, 2018 – Facebook Page - $119,670 • September 21, 2018 – CTU/ITC Roadshow 2018

- $2,291, 128 Videomega Productions benefited, also, from: • Ministry of Public Infrastructure: September 19, 2018 – Television advertisement - $256,500 • Ministry of Business: September 28, 2018 – Video for Caribbean Tourism Diaspora Forum - $198,800 • Ministry of Education: July 12, 2018 – Video Production - $1,487,700 • Ministry of Natural Resources: May 25, 2018 – Artwork - $1,420,115 • Ministry of Public Health: July 27, 2018 – Advertisement - $3,592,236 MISLEADING GUYANESE Meanwhile, Trotman has been involved in the controversial renegotiation of the ExxonMobil contract, which saw Guyana coming out on the weaker end.

He was also involved in the attempt to hide the US$18M signing bonus from Guyanese Since 2016, the APNU+AFC Coalition Government collected a US$18M signing bonus from ExxonMobil, but kept the monies off the books, placed it an ‘outside’ account and kept its receipt a secret from the Guyanese people for over a year. supported by former AFC Leader, Raphael Trotman – a former People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member who broke ranks with his Party and joined the AFC – to be the AFC’s prime ministerial candidate at the next General and Regional Elections.

According to an AFC press statement, at the January 26, 2019 meeting of the AFC’s National Executive Council, Trotman, in his address, reaffirmed his confidence in the David Granger/ Moses Nagamootoo leadership to guide the Coalition

It was only in December 7, 2018 that a leaked letter confirmed the receipt of the US$18M. Still the monies were not transferred to the Consolidated Fund (the treasury) and not reflected in the last three annual budgets – 2017, 2018 nor 2019.

The letter, which was leaked to the media, and exposed Government’s denial that a signing bonus was paid was written by Finance Secretary, Hector Butts and sent to Bank of Guyana Governor, Gobin Ganga.

The letter, dated, September 20, 2016, read: “I shall be grateful if you would arrange for the under-mentioned Foreign Currency Account to be opened at the Bank of Guyana, in order to receive a deposit in the form of a signing bonus to be given by ExxonMobil. This account shall not be treated as part of the Bank’s foreign reserves.

Instead the proceeds should be held in the currency of the deposit, that is, United States dollars, and invested in secured interest-bearing securities.”

The letter was copied to Trotman, who had refused to admit that a signing bonus was paid by ExxonMobil.

20

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Procurement Commission asked to investigate new details of massive spending on feasibility study for new Demerara crossing S

pecific areas of misconduct were cited by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira, who has called on the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) to investigate new findings relative to the use of taxpayers’ monies on a consultancy services for the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River bridge.

Her June 12, 2019 letter addressed to the PPC Chairperson, Carol Corbin, said: “In addition to the $161,514,420 approved

by Cabinet in November 2016, the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant Account) actually paid $215,371,182 in 2017 for the cost for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge and $74, 068,000 in two payments of $14,728,000 in January 2018 and another of $59,340,000 in February 2018 for the New Bridge feasibility studies.

“Thus, it appears that the feasibility study by LievenseCSO cost $293,439,182 and was not completed in 2017 as publicly stated.

“Therefore, the cost of the Feasibility study for the New Demerara River Crossing Bridge/ Crossing was far in excess of the original figure given on March 7, 2017 that the feasibility study had begun by LievenseCSO and that the value of the contract was US$709,091 USD or GY $146.3 M, and, far in excess of the figure approved by Cabinet on November 25, 2016, “of $161,514,420 to be used from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation ( Asphalt Plant Accounts) to cover costs of the Feasibility Study for a New Bridge Across the Demerara River.

“In fact, the Feasibility Study cost the taxpayers $293,439,182, or approx. US$1.4M. This is $131,924,762 more than what the PPC had investigated and found.”

Teixeira charged that the new information requires further investigation by the PPC. She said, “The new information that has come to light that, in fact, the contract for the feasibility study appears to either not been completed in 2017; or, the contract price was increased beyond Cabinet’s November 25, 2016 decision, again without NPTAB, or, that the real cost of the contract inked between the MPI and the company were never revealed, or all of the above, as monies continued to be drawn down from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant) in 2017 and 2018.

“Furthermore, this new information on the actual disbursements on the contract for the Feasibility Study of approximately USD$1.4 M exposes several new and worrying

violations behind the award of the contract to LievenseCSO.” She stressed that the information exposes a level of collusion, conspiracy and corruption that requires urgent investigation and intervention with a view to bringing criminal charges against the Minister of Public Infrastructure, Mr. David Patterson and other persons connected to the award of the contract for the Feasibility Study and payments to LievenseCSO. Earlier this month, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, indicated that the Parliamentary Opposition would be writing to the Public Procurement Commission to investigate recently disclosed details surrounding the use of taxpayers’ monies on a consultancy services for the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River bridge.

On August 7, 2018 Public Procurement Commission issued its report, following its investigation into the procurement of consultancy services for the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River bridge made clear that there was breach of Guyana’s procurement laws. That report was then sent to the Special Organised Crimes Unit (SOCU) for action.

BELOW IS THE FULL LETTER: Mrs. Carol Corbin, Chairperson Public Procurement Commission 262 New Garden Street Queenstown Georgetown June 12, 2019 Dear Madam Corbin, REF: New Evidence with regards to the Award of the Consultancy for the Feasibility Study and Designs for the new Demerara River Crossing /Bridge On September 18, 2017, I wrote to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) Ref:-Violation of the Procurement Act and Regulations

with regard to the Selection and Award of Contract for the Consultancy for the Feasibility Study and Designs for the New Demerara River Crossing/ Bridge.

I am pleased that the PPC did respond and investigated this matter, and, on August 7, 2018, I received a copy of the Report which detailed the findings, conclusions and the recommendations of the Commission.

However, new information has come to light that, I am of the firm opinion, requires further investigation by the PPC. I, therefore, am forced to return to my letter of September 18, 2017, page 3, where I stated that: “Eleven months later, {after the tender was opened on December 8, 2016 by NTPTAB} the media reported on November 24th and 26th, 2016, that Minister Joseph Harmon, Minister within the Ministry of the Presidency, announced that LievenseCSO, a Dutch company, had been selected by the National Tender and Procurement Administration Board to do the Feasibility Study for the new Demerara River Crossing.”

On page 4 of the said letter, last paragraph, I stated that: “It is of interest that one of the media houses reported on March 7, 2017 that the feasibility study’s first phase had begun by LievenseCSO and that the value of the contract was US$ 709,091 USD or GY $ 146.3 M. Other than this one reference there is no available information on the cost of the contract nor its terms of reference on any government website or any pronouncement by any government official.

Of further interest is that the Department of Public Information reported on March 4th, 2017 that the Minister of Public Infrastructure made a presentation to the Cabinet on the new Demerara River Crossing. However, on March 15th, 2017, the media reported that LievenseCSO had completed the first stage of the feasibility study which it had commenced on January 15, 2017 and this was presented to the Minister.”

The PPC Report, on pages 7-8, noted that: “…this request to Cabinet was not forwarded through the NPTAB, but submitted directly by the Minister of Public Infrastructure. The PPC also noted that Cabinet considered the Memorandum submitted by the Minister of Pubic Infrastructure and, on November 25, 2016, approved a total of $161,514,420 to be used from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation (

Asphalt Plant Accounts) to cover costs of the Feasibility Study for a New Bridge Across the Demerara River.”

Further, paragraph 4.4 of the conclusions in the Report, pages 9-10, states that: “In spite of the opinion of the PS, MPI, that the project was regarded as a project of the MPI, the fact that funding for the consultancy was provided by the DHBC and the contract described the “Client” as the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, it must be concluded that this was a project of the DHBC.” Page 8 of the Report refers to the admission by the General Manager of the DHBC, Mr. Rawlston Adams, that the Board of the Corporation was not a party to the decision to use these funds for that purpose, as approved by Cabinet, and further, he had signed the contract “only because he was requested to do so by the Minister of Public Infrastructure.”

Two reports in the media purportedly emanating from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure gave different periods for the duration of the contract, one stated that the contract was from January 15, 2017-March 15, 2017 and the other stated that it was from January 1st 2017 to August 2017.

What is known, however, is that the consultancy report was submitted and received by Minister Annette Ferguson (Minister Ferguson, MPI and DHBC representatives were photographed with Mr. Mol from LievenseCSO) as reported in the media on August 30, 2017.

Some of the findings of the Feasibility Study including drawings of the location of the new Bridge (Versailles-Houston) were published in the media in September, 2017. The MPI also announced that it would cost US$170M to build the new crossing and it would commence in 2019 and be completed in 2019.

It would therefore not be incorrect to assume as did the PPC in its report, dated August 2018, the pubic, the media, and, myself as the complainant, that the consultancy was completed by August 2017.

New information has come to light that, in fact, the contract for the feasibility study appears to either not been completed in 2017; or, the contract price was increased beyond Cabinet’s November 25, 2016 decision, again without NPTAB, or, that the real cost of the contract inked between the MPI and the company were never revealed, or all of the above, as monies continued to be drawn down from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant) in 2017 and 2018.

In addition to the $161,514,420 approved by Cabinet in November 2016, the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant Account) actually paid

$215,371,182 in 2017 for the cost for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge and $74, 068,000 in 2 payments of $14,728,000 in January 2018 and another of $59,340,000 in February 2018 for the New Bridge feasibility studies.

Thus, it appears that the feasibility study by LievenseCSO cost $293,439,182 and was not completed in 2017 as publicly stated.

Therefore, the cost of the Feasibility study for the New Demerara River Crossing Bridge/ Crossing was far in excess of the original figure given on March 7, 2017 that the feasibility study had begun by LievenseCSO and that the value of the contract was US$709,091 USD or GY $ 146.3 M, and, far in excess of the figure approved by Cabinet on November 25, 2016, “of $161,514,420 to be used from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation ( Asphalt Plant Accounts) to cover costs of the Feasibility Study for a New Bridge Across the Demerara River. In fact, the Feasibility Study cost the taxpayers $293,439,182, or approx. US$1.4M. This is $131,924,762 more than what the PPC had investigated and found.

Furthermore, this new information on the actual disbursements on the contract for the Feasibility Study of approximately USD$1.4 M exposes several new and worrying violations behind the award of the contract to LievenseCSO. The PPC report on page 5, 3rd paragraph, with regards to the tendering process at the NPTAB in 2016 and the role of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure states that: “The Evaluation Committee… received NPTAB’s “No Objection” to the Report. NPTAB also subsequently provided approval for the Evaluation Committee to open and evaluate the financial proposal of the MMM Group (Canada) in Association with CEMCO Inc..

The Evaluation Committee noted that this company’s bid price was US$848,959 {approx. $175M} exceeded the budget of US$800,000 set for the project…. (page 6) MPI reported to NPTAB on November 17, 2016 that negotiations with the sole eligible bidder (MMM Group/CEMCO) were unsuccessful… The MPI informed the NPTAB of their consequent decision to annul the tender, and re-scope the needs of the project, with a view of retendering at a later date.”

Yet the MPI had already written to the Ministry of Finance on November 3, 2016 requesting approval to re-allocate the funds previously approved for the project, and, on November 10, 2016 the Ministry approved the MPI’s request. In other words prior to the MPI letter to NPTAB of November 17, 2016, saying the negotiations were unsuc(Continued on page 21)

21

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Procurement Commission asked to... (From page 20) cessful, the MPI had already pulled the plug on the tender and funds 2 weeks before.

Worse yet, a day later, November 18, 2016, the Minister of Public Infrastructure,

by Memorandum dated November 18, 2016, made a request to the Cabinet “seeking consideration and approval to use funds from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant Accounts) to fund the Feasibility Study and “to commence a contractual engagement with LIEVENSECSO as of January 1, 2017.”

The fact that the MPI wrote the company MMM ( Canada) Group in Association with CEMCO on November 22, 2016 (see page 7, PPC Report) - after he had submitted the Memorandum to Cabinet on November 18, 2016 and prior to the Cabinet decision on November 25, 2016 - advising that the tender was cancelled becomes highly suspect.

Further checks have found that there was no appropriation for the MPI in the 2016 Budget for a Feasibility Study for the New Demerara Harbour Bridge crossing.

Nor were any funds allocated to the DHBC for such purposes by way of a subvention or grant in that year. The MPI 2017 Budget also lacks an allocation for this study and $150M is assigned to the DHBC for maintenance of the Bridge. The fact that the Minister of Public Infrastructure stated in the National Assembly during the 2019 Budget debate that another $100M was being requested under his capital budget for consultancy services for the new Demerara River Bridge/ Crossing and refused to answer question on this during the Estimates creates more confusion and suspicion with regards to this issue.

As a result of this information, I am once again writing the Public Procurement Commission. This information exposes a level of collusion, conspiracy and corruption that requires urgent investigation and intervention with a view to bringing criminal charges against the Minister of Public Infrastructure, Mr. David Patterson and other persons connected to the award of the contract for the Feasibility Study and payments to LievenseCSO. These gross breaches and open violations include: The Minister’s interference in a statutory body, the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, and, circumvention of the Chairman and the Board, is in violation of the laws of Guyana and the CCJ

ruling of 2006 in the case of Brent Griffith vs the GRA; The Minister has committed numerous infractions of the Procurement Act, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act Section 85 (b), The Audit Act, and, the Criminal Offences Act Sections 333, 338 etc., with regards to the entire process leading up to the award of the contract and subsequent payments to the company into 2018; The Minister had no appropriation for the Feasibility Study in the 2016 Budget yet he proceeded to tender for a large project of approx.

US$800,000 attracting 22 foreign and local companies, knowing fully well there was no appropriation but he expected that he would find the money somewhere, in this case from the revenues of the DHBC Asphalt Plant.

This level of recklessness and irresponsible behavior with public funds and public projects must not be condoned.

Further such behavior by a public servant as defined by the Criminal Offenses Act S 333(1) which includes the President and Members of Cabinet cannot be allowed to pass with no consequences.

There is no doubt anymore that the Minister and his staff manipulated the tender process and the entire process of awarding the contract for the feasibility study to ensure that the company LievenseCSO was given the contract; The Minister illegally and un-authorisedly drew down on revenue generated by the DHBC (Asphalt Plant account) for years 2017 and 2018 totaling $293,439,182 during and after the contract was publicly known to have ended; The Auditor General needs to examine the contract and its duration and investigate the movement of those monies for the years 2017 and 2018 from the DHBC Asphalt Plant with a view to seeing who were its recipients and the availability of documents to substantiate these disbursements.

I, therefore, conclude, as I did in my first letter to you on September 18, 2017 that the public expects unflinching diligence by the PPC in order to protect the Guyanese people’s interests and uphold the constitutional and legal provisions with regards transparency and accountability of the country’s assets and resources.

Sincerely, Gail Teixeira

22

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

(Acknowledging the public interest in this matter, this week, the Mirror Newspaper publishes the full judgment of the CCJ on the challenge to President David Granger’s unilateral appointment of James Patterson as the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.)

CCJ rules that Granger’s appointment of Patterson as GECOM Chairman flawed, in breach of Constitution J udgment of the Honourable Justice Saunders, President and The Honourable Justices Wit and Hayton and concurring judgments of The Honourable Mr Justice Anderson and the Honourable Mme Justice Rajnauth-Lee, delivered by The Honourable Mr Justice Saunders, President of the CCJ.

INTRODUCTION [1] Reverend Justice (Retired) James Patterson (“Justice Patterson”) was appointed on 19 October 2017 by the President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, His Excellency David Granger, as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (“GECOM”). The President made the appointment in accordance with the proviso to Article 161(2) of the Constitution. Mr Zulfikar Mustapha, the Appellant (“Mr. Mustapha”), complained that the process engaged by the President in appointing Justice Patterson was flawed. He asked the Court to quash the appointment and to direct the President to choose one of 18 persons who had been nominated for appointment by the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo. The Attorney General, the Respondent in these proceedings, maintains that there was nothing wrong with the process and that Justice Patterson was properly appointed.

BACKGROUND [2] In its present form, the material part of Article 161 provides as follows: 161. (1) There shall be an Elections Commission for Guyana consisting of a Chairman, who shall be a full-time Chairman and shall not engage in any other form of employment, and such other members as may be appointed in accordance with the provisions of this article.

(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (4), the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals

from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit and proper person, to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly: Provided that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for, the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

[3] Justice Patterson’s appointment followed a series of written exchanges between the President and the Leader of the Opposition between November 2016 and October 2017. At the outset, on 22 November 2016, the President invited the Leader of the Opposition to submit a ‘list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President’ from among whom the President would select the Chairman of GECOM. The Leader of the Opposition submitted a list of six persons on 21 December 2016.

On the following day, the President requested the curriculum vitae (“CV”) of each person on the list. The CVs, which were requested so as to ‘guide’ the President ‘in making the selection’, were forwarded on 28 December 2016. A few days later, on 5 January 2017, the President advised the Opposition Leader that the six nominees were ‘unacceptable’ within the meaning of the Constitution.

The nominees were found to be unacceptable, according to the President, because their CVs did not ‘seem to conform to the requirements of…

Article 161(2).’ The Leader of the Opposition was then urged to submit a new list of persons for the President’s further consideration.

[4] The Opposition Leader sought from the President

information on the kind of candidate that might find favour with the President.

On 14 March 2017, the President accordingly provided a Statement of the ‘Qualities of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission’.

According to the President’s Statement: 1. The candidate should be a person who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court under Article 129 of the Constitution and under section 5 of the High Court Act, Cap. 3:02.

2. That person should have been an Attorney-at-Law for a minimum of 7 years, according to section 5 of the High Court Act, Cap. 3:02.

3. In the absence of 1 and 2 above ‘any other fit and proper person’ should be appointed according to Article 161(2) of the Constitution.

The categories of persons specified above are necessary because such persons should have the following characteristics: a) That person is deemed to have wide electoral knowledge, capable of handling electoral matters because he or she is qualified to exercise unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters; b) That person will discharge his or her functions without fear or favour, that is, he or she will not allow any person or organization to influence him or her to compromise his or her neutrality; c) That person will discharge his or her functions neutrally, between the two opposing parties, as he or she would have done in Court between two opposing litigants; d) That person will not be an activist in any form (gender, racial, religious etc); e) That person should not have any political affiliation or should not belong to any political party in any form, apparent or hidden; and, f) That person should have a general character of honesty, integrity, faithfulness and diligence in the discharge of his or her duty as Chairman.

[5] The Leader of the Opposition submitted to the President a second list of names on 2 May 2017. Each

nominee’s CV was also provided. The President, on 2 June 2017, again rejected the Opposition Leader’s submission. He found this second list also to be unacceptable within the meaning of the Constitution and the criteria set out in his Statement. Again, no specific explanation was given as to what made the list (or particular nominees named in it) unacceptable. Ten days later, on 12 June 2017, the Government and Opposition issued a Joint Statement concerning the selection of a Chairman. According to the Joint Statement, the parties (which included the President and Opposition Leader) met to ‘consult on the way forward on the selection and appointment’ of the Chairman. The parties agreed that it would be in the best interest of the people of Guyana that a GECOM Chairman be appointed without ‘undue delay’. It was also agreed that a new list would be submitted by the Leader of the Opposition.

[6] It is interesting to note that the Joint Statement also recorded the parties’ agreement that, ‘[A] high-level team would be assembled representing the President and the Leader of the Opposition which will begin to work immediately on exploring modalities to bring a resolution to this matter in the event that the list is rejected.

Nothing further has been said in these proceedings about what those ‘modalities’ were and whether they were ever worked out. However, before the High Court, the Solicitor General contended, through her Affidavit made on the Attorney General’s behalf, that the Joint Statement lacked any validity since the Constitution made no provision for this particular course of action.

[7] A third list of names was submitted by the Leader of the Opposition to the President on 25 August 2017. The CVs for these nominees were also provided. On 19 October 2017, the President advised the Leader of the Opposition that this third list too was ‘unacceptable’. No explicit reason for that finding was provided. Nor did the Pres-

ident advise as to whether he found the entire list or only particular candidates unacceptable. The Opposition Leader was informed that, in view of the rejection of this third list, the President would have resort to the proviso to Article 161(2) and appoint a Chairman ‘without further delay’. Justice Patterson was then sworn in on that very evening.

[8] In his October 19 letter, the President justified his decision unilaterally to appoint a Chairman on several bases. He first alluded to the discretion and power granted to him by Article 161(2) and its proviso. He also made reference to the presidential immunity from court scrutiny under Article 182(1) which, he claimed, empowered him to ‘act in [his] own deliberate judgment when exercising such discretion’. And he indicated that, having considered these provisions, he had decided that it would not serve the public’s interest to further delay the appointment of a Chairman. The President also sought to rely on the July 2017 ruling of the High Court in Marcel Gaskin v The Attorney General.

[9] The Gaskin case was decided after the Leader of the Opposition had submitted to the President his second list of six names, but before the third list had been provided. Mr Gaskin had sought from the Court an interpretation of Article 161(2) of the Constitution of Guyana.

[10] Four discrete issues were addressed by the court in Gaskin. The court determined that: a. it was not the case that the list of persons for appointment as Chairman must include a judge, a former judge or a person qualified to be a judge. The various eligibility criteria stated in the Constitution carry equal weight; b. the President is required under the Constitution to state reasons for deeming as unacceptable any of the six names on the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition; c. the President is obliged to select a person from the six names on the list unless he has positively determined

that any or all of the persons on the list is/are unacceptable as not being fit and proper for appointment; and d. in the event the President considers that the list contains one or more ‘unacceptable’ persons, it lies within the discretion of the President either to select an acceptable person or to reject the entire list.

[11] The problem with the Gaskin decision is that it proceeded on a premise, surrounding the submission of the list by the Leader of the Opposition, that renders the Constitution unworkable in practice. The court did not work into the process any opportunity for the President to be able to signal, before the formal presentation of the list, that a particular listed nominee was, for good reason, not acceptable to the President.

As will be made clearer in this judgment, we consider it necessary to close this gap.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION [12] The dispute in this case requires the Court to interrogate Article 161(2).

What does Article 161(2) mean? What steps should be followed for it reasonably to be operationalised? What are the respective obligations of the constitutional actors referenced in the Article? How do they discharge those obligations? Is the discharge of those obligations reviewable?

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS [13] Before addressing these substantive issues, there were certain preliminary objections to Mr Mustapha’s claim that must first be addressed. The Attorney General submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and also, that Mr Mustapha had no proper standing to initiate these proceedings.

The Attorney General contended that the appointment of the Elections Commission Chairman was not justiciable as it was excluded from Article 163 which reserves to the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to review specific matters including elections. He further submitted (Turn to page 23)

23

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

CCJ rules that Granger’s appointment of... that Article 161(2) creates an executive power in the President in the nature of a convention and as such the Article was not reviewable by the courts. Finally, it was said that, even if the matter was justiciable, it is the Leader of the Opposition, and not Mr Mustapha, who was the proper party to sue; that Mr Mustapha’s reliance on being a citizen, a registered elector and a Member of the National Assembly, among other things, was insufficient to establish his interest as a party to this case.

[14] These preliminary objections were raised in one form or the other in the courts below and rightly overruled.

Unless specifically ousted or constrained, the court has an inherent and unfettered jurisdiction in matters relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.5 It is the court that authoritatively settles what the Constitution means and whether some action that is taken by a constitutional actor is within or outside that actor’s constitutional remit.

The Attorney General was right to note that the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM was not included in the list of matters contained in Article 163 over which the High Court has a peculiar jurisdiction. But it is precisely that omission that ensures that the court’s jurisdiction to inquire into the propriety of the appointment of the Chairman is unconstrained by the strictures that attend inquiry into those matters that are embraced by Article 163.

Where legitimate questions are raised by a citizen that the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM may not have been in accordance with the imperatives of the Constitution, the court is free to have resort to its inherent jurisdiction and should not turn away the person who poses such questions. Democracy and the rule of law are nourished by both the posing of such questions and the court’s answers to them.

[15] The responsibility to appoint the Chairman of the Elections Commission is not a convention. It is a responsibility given to the President by the Constitution which prescribes the manner of its exercise. Mr Mustapha, as a citizen; a registered voter; and a member of the National Assembly representing a nongovernmental party, had the necessary interest to bring this application. We agree entirely with the decisions of the courts below that these preliminary objections have

no merit.

What does Article 161(2) mean?

[16] In order to better understand the Article, it is helpful to look at its drafting history. Article 161 did not always exist in the form in which it does today. Prior to its current form, the Elections Commission Chairman was appointed by the President in his own deliberate judgment from among persons who fulfilled certain defined eligibility criteria. As originally enacted in the 1980 Constitution, Article 161(2) provided that: Subject to the provisions of the paragraph (6), the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be appointed by the President from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who are qualified to be appointed as any such judge [emphasis added].

Act 15 of 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) amended Article 161. It modified the President’s function in the appointment process and carved out a role for the Leader of the Opposition. The finality of the President’s discretion to choose the appointee was, however, preserved.

[17] Mr Mustapha, in his written submissions before the High Court, noted that in 1990, the then President, Hugh Desmond Hoyte, invited the Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government (based at the Carter Center of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia and headed by the former United States President Jimmy Carter) and the Secretariat of the Commonwealth to observe elections that were then approaching. A proposal was made by the Carter Center for the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission.

This proposal, known as the ‘Carter Formula’, provided for the submission by the opposition parties of a list of the names of six persons from among whom then President Hoyte would select a Chairman. The Carter Formula was eventually incorporated into the 1995 Act which amended Article 161. The 1995 Act provided that: …the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited juris-

diction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit and proper person, to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Minority Leader after consultation with the political parties represented in the National Assembly, other than the party to which the President belongs: Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided for, the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

[18] This formula was enshrined in the 1995 Act, but the operation of that Act came to an end by virtue of a clause limiting its operation up to a specified date. This meant that the original provision for unilateral appointment by the President, as contained in the 1980 Constitution, was revived after that date. But the matter did not rest there.

[19] A Constitutional Reform Commission (‘the Commission’) was established in January 1999. The Commission engaged in extensive consultations and public education initiatives.7 The largest number of recommendations made to the Commission, by both individuals and political parties, concerned the Presidency, Prime Ministership and the electoral system.8 Most people were concerned with curtailing Presidential power.

After reviewing the numerous recommendations received, the Commission proposed a raft of changes to be made to the Constitution.

[20] One such recommendation was that, ‘The Chairman of the [Electoral] Commission should be fulltime and should be selected by a consensual process as provided for in the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1995 (No. 15/1995) (emphasis added).’9 The Commission articulated its rationale for this recommendation in this way: In light of the historical mistrust which has surrounded the conduct and management of elections, the Commission recognised that the legitimacy of a government

and the effectiveness of our system of governance depend upon the acceptance by winners and losers of the work of the Elections Commission.

[21] This recommendation was adopted by the National Assembly and accordingly incorporated into the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2000.

The amendment reflected the provision in the 1995 Act with only a few minor changes in language. First, the reference to ‘Minority Leader’ was changed to ‘Leader of the Opposition’. Second, the use of the phrase ‘other than the party to which the President belongs’, to refer to non-governmental parties with whom the Leader of the Opposition must engage, was discontinued. Instead, the provision would refer to ‘the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly’.

[22] During the debates on the Bill, The Minister of Agriculture and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Reepu Daman Persaud, in his address to the Assembly on the objective of the Bill, stated: The Elections Commission is a pivotal component in the electoral process. …This inclusive approach speaks well for our country and should be a pattern throughout the electoral process.

The electoral machinery must be free, must be fair, must be impartial, and we must do everything possible to ensure that that happens.

[23] It is against this background that Article 161(2) should be understood and construed. We agree with the courts below that a purposive approach to the interpretation of the Article is appropriate. We agree too that the evolution of Article 161(2) has been characterised by a significant and deliberate shift from exclusivity and unilateralism, on the part of the President, to inclusion and consensualism. This element of inclusion secures the participation of the Leader of the Opposition in the process by which the Elections Commission Chairman is selected and appointed.

[24] The first part of paragraph (2) of Article 161 addresses in very specific terms the issue of eligibility. To be eligible for appointment to the post of Chairman of the Elections Commission, the candidate must: (i) be a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in

(From page 22)

appeals from any such court; or (ii) have held such office; or (iii) be qualified to be appointed to hold such office; or (iv) be any other fit and proper person. The phrase, ‘any other fit and proper person’ takes its colour from the preceding categories. The person may not be qualified to be appointed as a judge but could have otherwise demonstrated integrity and impartiality and have the stature, decision-making experience and academic qualifications that are analogous to those possessed by someone who falls within the preceding three categories. The names of 6 persons who satisfy any of these criteria must be submitted to the President by the Leader of the Opposition.

Subject to Article 161(2), the President must then appoint one of the six nominees as Chairman.

[25] Article 161(2) states that the listed persons must be ‘not unacceptable’ to the President and that, in arriving at a list of six persons, the Leader of the Opposition is obliged to meaningfully consult with any non-governmental political parties that may be represented in the National Assembly. Article 232 of the Constitution indicates that ‘consultation’ or ‘meaningful consultation’ requires the person seeking the consultation to: (i) identify the persons or entities to be consulted and specify to them in writing the subject of the consultation and an intended date for the decision on the subject of the consultation; (ii) ensure that each person or entity to be consulted is afforded a reasonable opportunity to express a considered opinion on the subject of the consultation; and; (iii) cause to be prepared and archived a written record of the consultation and circulate the decision to each of the persons or entities consulted.

[26] The requirement for ‘meaningful consultation’ between the Leader of the Opposition and the non-governmental political parties that may be represented in the National Assembly is clear and needs little elaboration. What is not so clear is the process that should be followed to accommodate the spirit of consensus that must prevail between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. The Constitution envisages that this process will culminate in a list of six names being presented to the President, none of whom is

unacceptable to the President. This ultimately gives the President the opportunity to select any one of those six persons as Chairman. The question is how do these two constitutional actors interact with each other so as to arrive at that culmination? We are of the view that the most sensible approach is that before a list is submitted, the Leader of the Opposition and the President must communicate with each other in good faith on, and perhaps even meet to discuss, eligible candidates for the position of Chairman.

The aim of these discussions must be to agree the names of six persons who fit the stated eligibility requirements and who are not unacceptable to the President. In this regard, the Constitution anticipates that the Leader of the Opposition and the President will conduct themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner, eschew partisanship and seek the best interests of the Republic and the Guyanese people.

[27] In our view, employment of the double negative, ‘not unacceptable’, signals that an onus is placed on the President not to find a nominee unacceptable merely because the nominee is not a choice the President would have himself made.

The President should only find a nominee unacceptable for some good reason on objective grounds. If a President were permitted, capriciously or whimsically, without proffering a good reason, to reject eligible nominees, this would frustrate the proper working of the Constitution, defeat the intention behind the amendment to Article 161(2) and pave the way for unilateral presidential appointment.

[28] Once the President and the Leader of the Opposition have hammered out a list of names not unacceptable to the President, the list, comprising the six persons, must then formally be submitted to the President by the Leader of the Opposition and the President must then select the Chairman from among those names. This approach gives the President a role in the identification of the six names, but it obviates the possibility that, after the formal presentation of the list, the President could suggest that one or more of the names, or indeed the entire list, is ‘unacceptable’.

Unilateral appointment by the President in keeping with the proviso to Article 161(2) can hardly be an option if (Turn to page 24)

24

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

CCJ rules that Granger’s appointment of... the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates a willingness to engage in good faith the process outlined above.

[29] As we stated earlier, the President’s power to appoint the Elections Commission Chairman in keeping with Article 161(2) is a constitutionally prescribed responsibility that is subject to judicial scrutiny. In reviewing what transpired here between 22 November 2016 and 19 November 2017, it is evident to us that the President was not entitled to lay down, as a precondition to considering a nominee, eligibility requirements that were additional to or at variance with those prescribed by the Constitution. So, for example, it was unfortunate that the President considered or was advised that an acceptable candidate should either have or be deemed to have wide electoral knowledge and experience.

As Counsel for Mr Mustapha pointed out, it is not unusual for a distinguished judge to have gone through her entire judicial career without trying a single elections case.

[30] Nothing in this judgment is intended, in the slightest degree, to cast aspersions on the competence and suitability of Justice Patterson for the position of The President should only find a nominee unacceptable for some good reason on objective grounds. If a President were permitted, capriciously or whimsically, without proffering a good reason, to reject eligible nominees, this would frustrate the proper working of the Constitution, defeat the intention behind the amendment to Article 161(2) and pave the way for unilateral presidential appointment.

[28] Once the President and the Leader of the Opposition have hammered out a list of names not unacceptable to the President, the list, comprising the six persons, must then formally be submitted to the President by the Leader of the Opposition and the President must then select the Chairman from among those names. This approach gives the President a role in the identification of the six names, but it obviates the possibility that, after the formal presentation of the list, the President could suggest that one or more of the names, or indeed the entire list, is ‘unacceptable’.

Unilateral appointment by the President in keeping with the proviso to Article 161(2) can hardly be an option if the Leader of the Opposition

demonstrates a willingness to engage in good faith the process outlined above.

[29] As we stated earlier, the President’s power to appoint the Elections Commission Chairman in keeping with Article 161(2) is a constitutionally prescribed responsibility that is subject to judicial scrutiny. In reviewing what transpired here between 22 November 2016 and 19 November 2017, it is evident to us that the President was not entitled to lay down, as a precondition to considering a nominee, eligibility requirements that were additional to or at variance with those prescribed by the Constitution. So, for example, it was unfortunate that the President considered or was advised that an acceptable candidate should either have or be deemed to have wide electoral knowledge and experience.

As Counsel for Mr Mustapha pointed out, it is not unusual for a distinguished judge to have gone through her entire judicial career without trying a single elections case.

[30] Nothing in this judgment is intended, in the slightest degree, to cast aspersions on the competence and suitability of Justice Patterson for the position of JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ANDERSON, JCCJ: [31] This appeal originated in the appointment by His Excellency Mr David Granger, President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, of Mr Justice James Patterson to be the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.

Article 161(2) of the Constitution of Guyana obliges the President to make the appointment, “from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition”. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo, had, on three separate occasions, submitted separate lists each with the names of six persons. Mr Justice Patterson was not among the list of 18 persons thus submitted.

His Excellency found each of the lists to be unacceptable but without giving any specific reason for their unacceptability. The President then resorted to the proviso in Article 161(2) which empowered him to make a unilateral appointment, “if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for”, and pursuant to that provision appointed Mr Justice Patterson. The Appellant in

these proceedings contends that this appointment was flawed and in breach of the Constitution.

[32] For substantially the reasons advanced by the learned President, I agree that the process followed in the appointment of Justice Patterson was fatally flawed and did not comport with the constitutional requirements. The history of its drafting and the wording of the provision in Article 161(2) clearly anticipate meaningful consultation, dialogue and compromise between the President and the Leader of the Opposition in the making of the appointment. How else could the Leader of the Opposition submit to the President, “a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President”? The President obviously retains the overriding power to make the determination as to who will be appointed because, assuming their eligibility, it is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that the six persons on the list submitted to the President meets with the President’s approval. The exercise must, of course, be conducted in good faith, supported by competent advice on both sides, and with the requisite level of commitment to the Republic inherent in the competence to make such an important national appointment.

[33] Article 161(2), therefore, requires that the list of eligible nominees for the office of Chairman of the Elections Commission be finalized through a process of consultation, dialogue and compromise between the President and the Leader of the Opposition and that this process is to be completed before the list is formally submitted by the Leader of the Opposition to the President.

I am reluctant to go beyond agreeing that this process is constitutionally required on a proper interpretation of the constitutional provision.

Specifically, I am unwilling, certainly at this stage, to impute a requirement in Article 161(2) to give reasons, and of particularizing the timing, nature and scope of the reasons to be given, for decisions or positions taken pursuant to the required process of consultation.

[34] Respectfully, the requirement to give reasons found in the courts below, appeared to have meandered to an inconclusive and indecipherable end. This could well have been so because the nature of the consultative exer-

cise contemplated by Article 161(2) does not readily lend itself to traditional notions of judicial scrutiny and judicial review. Deciding on the probity of the reasons given by the President as to why a person on the submitted list does not qualify as being ‘not unacceptable’ to him or her is not a task that the courts ought unnecessarily to invite or to be eager to undertake.

[35] The Constitution anticipated that the appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission would be a cooperative endeavour between the two most important and powerful political leaders of the Republic of Guyana. In this sense, Article 161(2), whilst clearly not a convention in the classical sense of the term, being a provision in a written Constitution not even adorned by an ouster clause, is patently in the nature of a convention or of a high political question.

In these circumstances, the Court should be slow to impose constructs which exert Lilliputian constraints on the policy discourse undertaken by the Republic’s political giants unless and until such constructs and constraints cannot be constitutionally avoided.

JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MME JUSTICE RAJNAUTH-LEE, JCCJ: Historical evolution of Article 161(2) [36] In the appeal of The Attorney General of Guyana v Cedric Richardson, Sir Dennis Byron, then President of the Court, accepted the Report of the Constitutional Reform Commission presented to the National Assembly of Guyana on 17 July 1999 as an authoritative source of the facts stated in it. The Report records the political turmoil and racial violence which have been features of Guyana’s political landscape.

[37] In 1986, the Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government (“the Council”), was formed following a Consultation at The Carter Center of Emory University on “Reinforcing Democracy in the Americas”. From September 1990, the Council began working with the people and political leadership of Guyana to construct a democratic foundation for the country. One of the objectives of the Council project in Guyana was to ensure that the general elections of October 1992 were free and fair. The Council was headed

(From page 23)

by former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, and included several distinguished leaders, in particular, Mr George Price, then Prime Minister of Belize. In its Report entitled “Observing Guyana’s Electoral Process 19901992” (commonly referred to as “the Carter Report” or “the Carter-Price Report”) several recommendations were made to improve the electoral system of Guyana. These recommendations included changes to the method of appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission and changes to the composition of the Commission.

[38] In March-April 1991, a Council delegation led by Prime Minister George Price, met with the relevant parties and was able to “forge a compromise solution which resulted in the expansion and reconstitution of the Commission”. The Report noted: Under the agreement both the PNC and the opposition would name two additional members of the Commission and a new chairman would be selected by President Hoyte from a list proposed by the opposition. President Hoyte indicated that he would respond favourably to this formula if he received a letter from the opposition coalition (PCD) which (1) indicated their acceptance of the proposal, (2) pledged not to raise any further objections regarding laws affecting electoral procedures, and (3) promised to support a constitutional amendment necessary to effect the change. On April 12, the PCD sent the desired letter… Following the agreed upon formula, Rudy Collins, formerly the Guyanese ambassador to Venezuela and then CARICOM assistant secretary general was chosen as the new Elections Commission chairman.

[39] The Council’s formula for the appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission for Guyana – commonly referred to as “the Carter formula” or “the Carter-Price formula” – was introduced by way of legislation into the Constitution of Guyana in a piecemeal fashion, beginning in 1991 with the Constitutional (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1991 (“the 1991 amendment”).

Although, in keeping with the provisions of the 1991 amendment, the Chairman of the Elections Commission would still be appointed unilaterally by the President, the 1991 amendment expanded the categories of persons

qualified to be elected as Chairman to include “any other fit and proper person”.

The 1991 amendment also increased the number of the members of the Commission - three members appointed by the President in his own deliberate judgment and three members appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Minority Leader. The 1991 amendment, however, had a three-month sunset clause.

[40] In 1995, the Constitutional (Amendment) Act 199520 (“the 1995 amendment”) was enacted and the formula for the appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Minority Leader, was introduced, albeit with a similar sunset clause. By the 1995 amendment, the Minority Leader was mandated to consult with the political parties represented in the National Assembly, other than the party to which the President belonged. In the year 2000, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2000 (“the 2000 amendment”) was enacted and the amendments to Article 161 were finally incorporated into the Constitution without a sunset clause.

[41] In 1997, general elections were held. Following those elections, there was political unrest and violence leading to the intervention of the Caribbean Community (“CARICOM”) and resulting in the signing of the Herdmanston Accord (“the Accord”) by the leaders of the two major political parties. The Accord provided for the establishment of the Constitution Reform Commission referred to earlier.

It was agreed that among the matters to be addressed by the Constitutional Reform Commission would be measures and arrangements for the improvement of race relations in Guyana, including the contribution which equal opportunities legislation and concepts drawn from the CARICOM Charter of Civil Society would contribute to the cause of justice, equity and progress in Guyana.

The Report of the Constitutional Reform Commission recommended that the Chairman of the Elections Commission should be selected by a consensual process in keeping with the Constitution as reflected in the 1995 amendment.As far as the selection of the Chairman (Turn to page 25)

25

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

CCJ rules that Granger’s appointment of... was concerned, therefore, it was intended that the process would be consensual.

[43] Article 62 of the Constitution contains an important provision for the holding of free and fair elections in Guyana. Article 62 provides that elections shall be independently supervised by the Elections Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 162.

The importance of the independence of the Elections Commission therefore cannot be overstated.

[44] Several issues have been raised before us which have been comprehensively dealt with in the judgment of the Honourable President of the Court, Mr Justice Saunders. One of the questions which has been posed is whether the President is obliged to give reasons for his actions under Article 161(2).

[45] Article 161(2) provides: Subject to the provisions or paragraph (4), the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit and proper person, to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented

in the National Assembly: Provided that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for, the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

[46] The principle of participation is an important guiding principle in the Constitution of Guyana. The Fourth Recital to the Preamble to the Constitution recognises the desire and intention of the people of Guyana to forge a system of governance which promotes “broad-based participation in national decisionmaking” in order to develop “a harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law”. In addition, Article 13 sets out the principal objective of the political system of Guyana – ‘to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens’.

[47] The historical evolution of Article 161(2) demonstrates that it was amended to fashion a consensual process that allowed both the Government and the Opposition parties to participate in the selection of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. As mentioned earlier, in keeping with the provisions of Article 161(2) the Leader of the Opposition is obliged to have

“meaningful consultation with the non-government political parties represented in the National Assembly”. The inclusive approach captured

by Article 161(2) therefore envisions the appointment by the President of a Chairman who commands the trust and confidence of the winners and the losers of an election.

There is a clear paradigm shift from absolute and unilateral power vested in the President to a consensual process enshrined in the Constitution and recommended by both the Carter-Price Report and the Constitutional Reform Commission. Rishi Persaud JA in the Guyana Court of Appeal articulated it thus: “There was a clear shift from unilateralism to one of consensualism”. This is the spirit and intendment of Article 161(2) and it is the yardstick against which the course of conduct leading up to Justice Patterson’s appointment to the chairmanship of the Elections Commission should be measured.

Duty to give reasons [48] It was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General that the President was under no duty to give reasons for rejecting the lists submitted to him by the Leader of the Opposition.

On the other hand, it was submitted for the appellant, that Article 161(2) was plainly intended to throw up a candidate who enjoyed support across the political spectrum.

It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that Article 161(2) did not envisage a situation where the President simply declared a list to be unacceptable, without more,

Guyanese urged to use social media platform to make anonymous submissions about corruption

W

ith the four-year mark of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government being in office having passed and with more and more Guyanese forwarding information about increasing levels of corruption in office, a platform has been created to allow for easier communication of such information.

Opposition Leader, Bharat Jagdeo, has urged Guyanese to make use of the social media platforms and participate in the effort to continue to expose the misdeeds of the APNU+AFC Coalition. He assured that the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) will continue its investigations in the push for greater accountability and transparency.

Guyanese can make submissions of information anonymously via Facebook on ‘Corruption Watch 592’ and via WhatsApp on telephone number (592)-653-6637.

and proceeded to apply the proviso and to appoint his preferred candidate, even though the persons on the list were eminently suitable.

[49] It is recognized that there is no general duty for a public authority to give reasons, unless that duty is imposed by some procedure, rule or statutory provision.

It is accepted however that whether such a duty exists depends on the circumstances of the case. In the case of Re Hanoman (Carl) the then Chief Justice of Guyana, Justice Desiree Bernard, considered whether the Minister of Health was obliged to give reasons for rejecting two of the nominees of the Guyana Medical Association. Bernard CJ observed: In the absence of specific legislation obliging a public functionary to give reasons for a decision, many cases indicate that the modern trend is towards openness, fairness and transparency regardless of the right that is infringed: personal, vested, public or rights acquired under schemes or plans. The overall objective is fairness based on the long-established principles of natural justice.

[50] Bernard CJ further noted: Public officials who are charged with the responsibility of making decisions particularly those which involve the exercise of a discretion whether by acting on advice or consulting must do so with fairness and give reasons for the exercise of the discretion in a particular way so that it can be ascertained whether the discretion was exercised reasonably and,

(From page 24)

according to Lord Greene MR in Wednesbury [1948], 'within the four corners of the principles' he enumerated.

The exercise of a discretion is rooted and grounded in the need and duty to act fairly. This does not mean that the courts must decide whether the decision of the decision-maker is fair; this is solely the function of the person exercising the discretion. What the courts are concerned with is the decision-making process and the manner in which the discretion was exercised, and whether it was exercised fairly.

[51] In light of this modern trend towards openness, fairness and transparency, the historical background of electoral reform in Guyana and the amendments to Article 161(2) of the Constitution, it is therefore necessary to assess whether the President was under a duty to give reasons for rejecting the lists submitted to him by the Leader of the Opposition. This leads to the question: Can there be true consensualism and participation in the decision-making process as envisioned by the Constitution of Guyana without an obligation imposed on the President to give reasons for rejecting the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition?

In my view, Article 161(2) contemplates a consensual process whereby opposition political parties in Guyana will participate in a meaningful way in the selection of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. The

duty on the President to give reasons for rejecting the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition is therefore a critical aspect of this process. The giving of reasons by the President will ensure transparency and accountability to the people, avoid unilateralism and arbitrariness, and engender public trust and confidence in the Elections Commission.

[52] Another important consideration in determining this crucial issue is that the giving of reasons by the President for the rejection of the list will lead to acceptance of his decision to reject the list and to resort to the proviso. In my judgment, without the duty imposed on the President to give reasons for rejecting the list, the objectives of Article 161(2) would not be realized. In the absence of the reasons of the President, the question why a list was rejected by the President would remain a mystery not only to the Leader of the Opposition who submitted the list, but generally to the people of Guyana. Without the duty to give reasons for rejecting the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition, therefore, the President could arbitrarily disregard the list submitted to him and simply apply the proviso.

[53] I am therefore in full agreement with the judgment of Saunders PCCJ that the process that was followed in the appointment of Justice Patterson as Chairman of the Elections Commissions of Guyana was flawed and in breach of Article 161(2) of the Constitution.

Guyanese interested in volunteering asked to contact Party

T

he People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) is now available on WhatsApp number 592-611-PPPC (7772) and it encouraging Guyanese, who are interested in political activism and volunteering, to contact the Party.

WhatsApp allows persons to message from Guyana other countries at no cost.

Operators are manning the line on a 24-hour basis and interested Guyanese are asked to communicate this to the Party.

26

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Mayor’s office broken Taxi driver found dead next into, documents missing to submerged car M

ore than two weeks ago, the office of the Mayor of Georgetown, Ubraj Narine, was broken into and several files containing important documents are now missing.

The break-in was confirmed by a senior Police rank who disclosed that an investigation was launched.

The Mayor as reported in a section of the media confirmed that documents relating to the Local Government Commission were sto-

len as well as other documents. He stated that the perpetrators gained entry to his office via a window from his washroom. Narine stated that as a result of the break-in, he instructed that the windows be barred, since there were no cameras.

The Mayor added that he has all confidence in the Police to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Investigations are ongoing.

Security officer found dead in guard hut

A

security officer attached to Cummings Electrical Company Limited was on Sunday (June 16, 2019) morning found dead in a guard hut on the business premises with a wound to the back of his head.

Dead is 60-year-old Keegan Boston of Lot 520 East Ruimveldt Housing Scheme,

Georgetown.

Based on reports received, the man was last seen alive at about 23:00h on Saturday (June 15, 2019) evening, but was discovered dead in the hut at about 6:15h on Sunday morning.

Investigations are ongoing.

Teen found dead on Charity Public Road

A

15-year-old lad was last Wednesday (June 12, 2019) found dead on the Charity Public Road, Essequibo Coast.

He has been identi-

fied as Rayanzo Glasgow of Charity New Housing Scheme. His body was discovered by a car driver, who was on his way home when he spotted the body

lying in a pool of blood near the Charity Primary School.

Investigations are ongoing and no arrest have been made to date.

Over 2,000 persons currently incarcerated

T

he country’s current prison population stands at 2069, according to Director of Prisons, Gladwin Samuels, in recent public comments.

Samuels revealed that of that number, 724 are male convicted inmates between the ages 18 and 35.

Notably, this number is more than the current prison infrastructure can comfortably accommodate.

In fact, the country’s main prison located at Camp Street was built accommodate some 500 prisoners but up to the 2016 prison fire, it was housing over 900 inmates. The Camp Street Prison is being renovated and is expected to accommodate an additional 180 prisoners.

Also, the expansion of

the Mazaruni Prison in Region Seven is expected to help with the overcrowding issue. When completed, the jailhouse should be able to accommodate an additional 400 prisoners.

Following the July 2017 fire which destroyed the Camp Street Prison, Government revealed plans to expand the Mazaruni Prison – a project which was expected to cost some $2B.

T

he lifeless body of a Corentyne taxi driver was on Monday (June 17, 2019) pulled out of the Lesbeholden Canal, Black Bush Polder, Berbice.

The body of 39-yearold Lynsey Grant of Lot 52 Adventure Public Road, Corentyne was found next to his submerged car. The man had reportedly been missing since Sunday afternoon.

According to his wife, Natasa Rambarose, her husband was last seen at Mib-

icuri, Black Bush Polder about 18:00 hours on Sunday (June 16, 2019) and was expected home less than an hour later, but did not show up.

The discovery of the body was made by a farmer who raised an alarm and drivers operating the Black Bush Polder route were able to identify their colleague’s body and informed Rambarose.

It is not clear how the car ended up in the canal,

which is adjacent to the main access road.

Grant had been operating his taxi along the Berbice-Georgetown route, but had given that up to go into the construction field and to operate in the Black Bush Polder as a taxi driver.

However, over the past two months, Grant, who also plants cash crops, at his Adventure home, was not getting construction work and returned to driving a taxi full-time.

Fuel smuggling remains a problem

R

egions One, Two and Seven are the top areas where fuel smuggling has been reported and the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA) seized over 1057 gallons of illegal fuel worth over $1 million between January 1 and May 31, 2019.

According to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Energy Agency, Dr Mahender Sharma, the seizures were made during four separate operations

conducted by enforcement staff. “In Region One, fuel is permitted to enter the country at a lower tax rate but must be utilised solely within that region. This fuel, however, sometimes filters through to Region Two”, Sharma said.

As of May 31, 2019, inspectors of the GEA would have conducted 5536 site visits and collected a total of 11,492 samples of diesel, gasoline and kerosene

throughout the country. Dr Sharma stated that the GEA continues to collaborate closely with its sister agencies, including the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), to identify and “appropriately deal with” persons who are found in possession of illegal fuel.

In the meantime, worries about continued fuel smuggling by operators linked to the Coalition Government remain unaddressed.

27

WEEKEND MIRROR 22-23 JUNE, 2019

Diplomatic corps Rule of law triumphed – former Attorney General call for respect T of the CCJ ruling T

here must be respect for the ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), according to the representatives of Guyana’s key diplomatic missions.

A joint statement was issued on Tuesday (June 18, 2019), after the ruling was handed down, by the United States of America Ambassador to Guyana, Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch; United Kingdom High Commissioner to Guyana, H.E. Greg Quinn; High Commissioner of Canada to Guyana, H.E. Lilian Chatterjee; and the Head of Delegation of the European Union to Guyana, Ambassador Jernej Videtic.

“The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled and it is important that all sides respect that ruling. We also encourage all to come

to an agreement on the way forward,” the brief statement said.

The CCJ, on the challenge to the validity of the no-confidence motion, ruled that: the no-confidence motion was validly passed; the majority needed for the passage of the vote on the no-confidence motion was 33 votes, not 34 as the Coalition Government claimed; the vote of former Parliamentarian, Charandass Persaud, was valid and Mr. Persaud was not “required to vote against the motion of no confidence along with other members” of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government; there was nothing to prevent the tabling of a no-confidence motion by any member of the National Assembly, including the

Opposition Leader; and despite the Speaker of the Assembly declaring that the motion had been validly passed, the Government neither resigned nor announced impending elections.

On the challenge to the unilateral appointment of the GECOM Chairman, James Patterson, the CCJ was also very clear. In their press release, the CCJ said: “The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today ruled that the process through which Reverend Justice (Retired) James Patterson was appointed Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by His Excellency, Brigadier David Granger, President of Guyana was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution.”

he Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has indicated that it intends to give effect to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, via its rulings on Tuesday (June 18, 2019), according to former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall.

In the judgment delivered by the CCJ, the Court declared that the motion of no confidence, passed in the National Assembly on December 21, 2019, is valid. The Court also ruled that the process through which Reverend Justice (Retired) James Patterson was appointed Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by President Brigadier David Granger, President of Guyana was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution.

Nandlall, one of the attorneys representing the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) in the cases before the CCJ, said, “Today is a historic day in our country. Today, the rule of law triumphed, the people of Guyana triumphed, democracy triumphed and our

Constitution was victorious.

You would have heard me speak over the past three years on this matter and over the past three years, I have been arguing over and over and over again that the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was unlawfully appointed and that the No-Confidence Motion was validly passed.

“And today we have reached the pinnacle, where the highest Court in the land has pronounced and fortified those positions. It is very important.

In my view, as I said from the beginning, this No-Confidence cases or challenges should never have been filed. It was a colossal waste of taxpayers’ monies, a colossal waste of time and energy. But, we had to endure it because those who wanted to challenge democracy filed the cases and today they have been smashed.

“I am particularly pleased that the Court has indicated that it intends to give effect to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In that regard, it has

Massive land grab taking place

PSC spotlights Granger’s – Whistleblower at GL&SC assurance that he will ‘abide T by the ruling of the Court’ T

he Private Sector Commission (PSC), in a statement on Tuesday (June 18, 2019) stated that it looks forward to an early consensual agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition on a new Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

The CCJ ruled that President David Granger’s unilateral appointment of a GECOM Chairman was flawed and in breach of the Constitution on Tuesday morning (June 18, 2019).

Following the ruling of the CCJ on the challenge to the unilateral appointment of James Patterson as the GECOM Chairman, the Court ordered that parties return on Monday (June 24, 2019) to address the issue of court orders, which would give effect to the ruling.

The PSC said, “The Commission is heartened by the recommendation of the CCJ (Caribbean Court of Justice) to the parties involved to meet and agree on a course of action that will be in the best interest of the nation.”

Patterson was unilaterally appointed as Chairman

on GECOM on October 19, 2017.

His appointment came after a meeting on the selection of a GECOM Chairperson, between Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, and President Granger, which only lasted five minutes. At that meeting the third list of nominees submitted by Jagdeo was rejected

by Granger.

However, at a previous meeting on June 12, 2017 – the meeting before Granger made a unilateral appointment – there was an agreement on what would be the way forward, if the third list was rejected. The June 12, 2017 joint statement said: “It was also agreed that a high-level team would be assembled representing the President and the Leader of the Opposition which will begin to work immediately on exploring modalities to bring a resolution to this matter in the event that the list is rejected.”

Given that there was a joint agreement, the Parliamentary Opposition has argued that Granger acted in bad faith when he unilaterally appointed a GECOM Chair-

man.

Article 161(2) provides for the appointment of a Chairman based on a consensual process in which a list of six persons, “not unacceptable to the President,” is submitted by the Opposition Leader. A proviso included in the law allows for the appointment to be made unilaterally, where the Opposition Leader fails to submit a list “as provided for” – but Jagdeo submitted three lists, which were all rejected

by President Granger.

On the second major ruling from the CCJ – a declaration that the passage of the no-confidence motion is valid – the Commission said, “The Private Sector Commission urges all Guyanese to respect the ruling and the statement

by His Excellency President David Granger that his government will abide by the ruling of the Court.”

In addition to Granger, assurances that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government would abide by the ruling of the court were given by Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon, and Attorney-General, Basil Williams.

invited the parties to try again to arrive at consensual positions in terms of the way forward. If not the Court, I believe, has signaled clearly that it will make coercive orders in keeping with the time prescription outlined in the Constitution.

“The two important tasks, obviously, are the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM and the fixing of a date for elections. Both are time bounded and I believe that the Court will make orders that will impose time stipulations when the Chairman is to be appointed and also will propose a date when the elections are to be held because that is what the Constitution mandated, upon the successful passage of the No-Confidence Motion. That three months period has already expired, the Court is, therefore, duty bound to do the next best thing, which is to order elections as early as is reasonably possible.”

Nandlall stressed that the ruling of the CCJ is binding on the APNU+AFC Coalition Government.

here is a massive ‘land grab’ ongoing, according to a senior officer from the Guyana Lands and Survey Commission (GL&SC).

The officer, who blew the whistle on the dealings of the Commission, explained that large tracts of prime State land are being ‘given away’ to persons handpicked by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, with the help of the GL&SC Commissioner, Trevor Benn.

“They are giving away land. Prime land. In the rush to give away, even land that already given out to persons with

transport being shared out….its land not only in Georgetown, but around Liliendaal, East Coast and at Berbice,” the officer, who requested anonymity for fear of being targeted, said.

Notably, earlier this year, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), in a statement, said: “We have received information, thus far, of their illegal and corrupt transactions for lands at D’urban Park, Moca, Wyburg Caracas, Vreed-en-Hoop, Liliendaal, sugar lands on the East Coast of Demerara and at Number 19 Village on the Corentyne Coast (which was the site that was identified by

the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) pre-May 2015 for the construction of the Deep Water Harbour).”

Further, the Party urged “…all public servants at these agencies to remain vigilant and maintain meticulous records, more so, if they are forced to act under political pressure.”

The Parliamentary Opposition has called on GL&SC Head to come clean on the number of leases issued since December 21, 2018 – the date of the passage of the no-confidence motion which resulted in the fall of the Coalition Government.

Teixeira writes ERC on gov’t ministers' actions that represent ‘threat to public order and safety’ ‒ Police Commissioner called on to ‘defend, preserve and protect the rule of law’

D

eclarations made by several APNU+AFC Coalition Government officials, following Tuesday’s (June 18, 2019) ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on the validity of the no-confidence motion and the illegality of the appointment of James Patterson as the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, are cause for profound concern.

This is according to People’s Progressive Party

(PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira, in a June 19, 2019 letter to the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), Dr. John Smith.

In her letter she said, “Reports in the media emanating from the President and Ministers are cause for concern. These statements in response to the rulings of the highest court of Guyana, the Caribbean Court of Justice, have been unsettling and disturbing. These statements and declarations

“These statements (by APNU+AFC Coalition government ministers) are inciting and a threat to public order and safety and are in contempt of the Caribbean Court of Justice rulings of June 18, 2019.” – PPP Executive, Gail Teixeira should no doubt also be cause for profound concern by Ethnic Relations Commission and the entire citizenry.”

Teixeira made reference to publications, as well as video recordings being circulated on social media,

including: 1. A Demerara Waves – June 19, 2019 – article headlined ‘Gov’t in defiance mode; “no registration, no election - Jordan, Nagamootoo’. Minister Jordan is quoted as saying: “Notwithstanding the ruling today

and not withstanding all the consequential orders, we will be here until the elections are called and we will be at the tape when the next term begins.” Jordan stated too that there would be no elections until there was house to house registration and called on supporters on the streets to picket “no registration, no elections.” In the same report “the Prime Minister warned that if that if youths are disenfranchised there would be “trouble” if the youth are not registered.”

1. A Guyana Daily News – June 19, 2019 – article headlined ‘Jordan tells Barticians ‘war break’, calls on residents to be ready to take to the streets’. Minister Jordan was quoted as saying that its “war break” as the CCJ handed down its decision on the Guyana no confidence motion, saying “no registration, no elections”.

2. A video of a the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s public meeting in Bartica – June 18, 2019 – where Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo stated that he “had put back on his olive green shirt as he was back in battle gear, back in the battle and will not be surrendered by him.”

According to Teixeira, these statements are inciting and a threat to public order and safety and are in contempt of the Caribbean Court of Justice rulings of June 18, 2019. “I therefore call on the ERC to carry out its constitutional mandate vigorously to promote peace and harmony and to stand publicly in defence of the rule of law and the constitution. I urge you to register with the President and his Ministers that the CCJ ruling must be complied with in spirit and intent,” she said.

LETTER TO POLICE COMMISSIONER Similar sentiments were expressed in a letter to the Police Commissioner, Leslie James.

In a letter dated June 19, 2019, Teixeira reminded

that in a report, published on March 21, 2019 by the Department of Public Information that he, as Police Commissioner, called for Guyanese to remain calm and keep the peace.

The report stated that: “The Commissioner underscored the fact that anyone who breaches the law will be held accountable and punished. The leadership and the members of the Guyana Police Force have noted on social media of seeming intention to disrupt the current calm in our society. ‘May I warn that anyone found in breach of the law will be dealt with in a condign manner. The Force’s membership throughout the ten (10) Administrative Regions are on high alert and endeavours to prevent and respond to any eventuality,’ Commissioner warned.”

Teixeira, in her letter to James said, “I hope, sir, that as Commissioner, you continue to hold that same view following the June 18, 2019 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the highest court of our land, which ruled that the unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission was flawed and in breach of the constitution; that the No Confidence Motion was valid, that 33 votes was the majority of all 65 elected members of the National Assembly and that Charandass Persaud’s vote was valid and that Persaud was free to vote outside his party’s list. There is therefore no further room for doubt and ambiguity as to what is required by the President and government at this time.”

According to her, James’ comments on March 21, 2019 are more relevel now.

“We have now the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the highest court, and we are all therefore expected to abide by the CCJ rulings that the No Confidence Motion is valid and elections must be held within the shortest time,” she said.

The PPP Executive added, “I, therefore, call on you as Commissioner and the custodian of public safety and order to carry out your mandate vigorously and to publicly defend, preserve and protect the rule of law and the Guyana Constitution in our nation.”

PUBLISHED BY NEW GUYANA Co. Ltd., 8 Industrial Site, Ruimveldt, Georgetown, Guyana. Tel: 226-2473, 226-5875 Fax: 226-2472