Weekend Mirror 29-30 June 2019 by Weekend Mirror

29-30 June, 2019 / Vol. 10 No. 79 / Price: $100

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

Opposition, gov’t talks…

Three-month election deadline is non-negotiable – Jagdeo PAGE 9

Ramjattan admits that taxpayers’ monies are being used for campaigning PAGE 27

APNU+AFC Coalition gov’t continuing with ‘business as normal’ position despite CCJ ruling PAGE 25

‒ Letter advising of Budget 2020 preparations sent out three days after CCJ ruling

SEE INSIDE

Gov’t attempts to mislead CCJ judges send clear signals about the fight for democracy – Nandlall PAGE 19

Jordan has two weeks to comply with court order or face jail time PAGE 3

City Hall Thousands of acres given still withholds away after passage of the records from no-confidence motion to persons Audit Office PAGE 18

linked to gov’t hierarchy

PAGE 10

‒ audit delayed

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

A week later…

Patterson finally respects CCJ ruling T

he Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on 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. In the days after the CCJ ruling, the retired judge failed to act in a manner that respected the ruling of Guyana’s final court. On Tuesday (June 25, 2019), it was announced that Patterson finally left office as GECOM Chairman. This move took place after he met with President David Granger. Patterson was unilaterally appointed as GECOM Chairman by Granger in October 2017. The Ministry of the Presidency, in a statement on Tuesday (June 25, 2019) said, “The former GECOM Chair resigned on Monday June 24, 2019.” NO WORD Meanwhile, Opposi-

was flawed and in breach of the Constitution, the inexorable result unless that result is somehow stayed, is that there isn’t a GECOM Chairman. And that process has to be reengaged.”

tion-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Bibi Shaddick, in an interview with the Mirror Newspaper disclosed that up to Tuesday morning (June 25, 2019) the GECOM Commissioner were unaware that a resignation was submitted. “Patterson was at the GECOM office working up to yesterday…as of 10AM on Tuesday (June 25, 2019) there was no word about a resignation,” she said. However, Shaddick charged that she is not surprised at the move, given

the comments from both the Attorney General and Government-nominated GECOM Chairman, Vincent Alexander. “After the June 18 CCJ ruling, I read a report in the press that quoted Commissioner Alexander as saying that Patterson would have to step down…I also heard the comments from the Attorney General (Basil Williams) on Monday (June 24, 2019) after the CCJ session,” she said. Williams on Monday (June 24, 2019) confirmed that by virtue of the ruling,

Patterson was, in fact, no longer the GECOM Chairman. He had said, “I am sure that question would be addressed when the time comes, but you know the decision of the Court is that the appointment was void abinicio (void from the start) so in effect there is no Chairman.” Notably, also on Monday (June 24, 2019) President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Justice Adrian Saunders, said, “In relation to the GECOM case, by concluding that the procedure

No move to house-to-house registration can be made without new GECOM Chair – Shaddick

here can be no move by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) towards new national houseto-house registration without the appointment of a new GECOM Chair, according to Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Bibi Shaddick. “There must be a full Commission to make decisions and authorise spending, etc.,” she told the Mirror Newspaper. GECOM, under former GECOMC Chairman, James Patterson, who was unilaterally appointed by President David Granger in October 2017, had been pushing ahead with new national house-to-house registration. Shaddick, last week, charged that GECOM’s posture on the push for new national house-to-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, “House-

to-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.” 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.” Additionally, a Legal Opinion by GECOM’s Legal Officer, Excellence Dazzell, warned against the move to new national house-to-house registration.

POLITICAL HANDLERS Shaddick also proffered the view that Patterson always acted in compliance with the wishes of his ‘handlers’. “During the meetings (of the Commission) you could see that the Government Commissioners were giving Patterson cues on what to do…Patterson never made an independent decision… when decisions were to be made, he would defer it to a week or two weeks after….I have always held that Patterson had handlers,” she said. The Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner added that he delay in Patterson’s moves to leave the GECOM office was due to the fact that he was “waiting on instructions from his handlers” before he acted. “That a resignation been handed in, obviously the

instructions came down and he acted,” Shaddick said. STATUTORY MEETING On the issue of GECOM’s statutory meeting for this week – initially scheduled for Tuesday, June 25, 2019 – Shaddick disclosed that there was no meeting held. She said, “We were trying to find out what happened. I called the CEO (Chief Elections Officer) several times today, but there was no answer…I called Patterson’s confidential secretary at around 9AM and there was no word about the status of the statutory meeting. She called back around 10AM and said there was no meeting. “Nothing was said about a resignation. An email was subsequently sent out to the Commissioners and it said only that Patterson would not be coming into the office, so there wasn’t going to be a statutory meeting. There was nothing included about a resignation.” With Patterson gone, the post of GECOM Chair is now vacant.

Jordan has two weeks to comply with court order or face jail time T he hearings into the civil matter involving Trinidadian company, DIPCON Engineering Services and Finance Minister, Winston Jordan on Monday (June 24, 2019) came to a conclusion before Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry, as final rulings into the matter were made at the Demerara High Court. Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, in delivering her decision, ruled that the applicant (DIPCON) recover from the respondent (Minister Jordan) costs in excess of US$2.2 million together with interest at a rate of 4 per cent per annum. The High Court judge further ruled that the Finance Minister’s failure to comply with the court orders will result in him being liable to imprisonment until the judgment is paid in full. In May 2019, Trinidad construction company, Dipcon, called on the courts to have Minister Jordan face jail time over his failure to honour a 2015 judgment. Justice Rishi Persaud handed down the judgement in the company’s favour on October 21, 2015, but Jordan failed to take steps to effect payment – a payment of US$2,228,400.67. As a result, lawyers for Dipcom applied to the court for an administrative order to compel the

minister to pay up. Dipcon’s application to the court stated that by letter dated 28th December, 2015, the Registrar of the Supreme Court transmitted the order made by Justice Persaud to the minister who “thereupon became obligated …to direct, by warrant under his hand, that the amount awarded thereby to be paid.” It was stated that the minister has in breach of his statutory obligation, “deliberately and contumaciously refused and failed to comply with his obligation” under the State Liability and Proceedings Act and has subverted the said order of court, pay the said judgment or any part thereof to the applicant. The company noted too that the Court’s ruling was served on Jordan and he at all material times had knowledge of it, its terms and its effect. It was pointed out that while Jordan continued in default of the orders directed against him and is in criminal contempt of the said judgment of October 21, 2015, Dipcon has no other means to enforce payment other than to return to the Court. “The actions of the respondent have undermined the process of the Court,” the court documents pointed out. Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, in her ruling, gave Jordan up to July 8, 2019 to comply.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

EDITORIAL

Playing an old The entire democratic world broken record

he Caribbean Court of Justice has ruled, and the APNU+AFC Coalition Government -- to use the words of its Attorney General, Basil Williams -- “lost on all conceivable points.” This means that General and Regional Elections are eminent. The inevitability of the elections has served to further expose the desperation of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government. They have decided once again to play the old broken record of about the alleged deaths of over 400 young Afro-Guyanese. Members of the government and their sycophants continue to peddle this false hood despite it being discredited on numerous occasions. In an attempt to justify this claim, they have produced a list of names compiled by the PNC of these persons purportedly killed by agents of the then government. A close examination of the list reveals many inconsistencies and quickly discredit the list. The list is made up of persons who died of natural causes, such as heart attacks and high blood pressure. The list is made up of persons who were known criminals that terrorized a lot of citizens, who died whilst confronting our law enforcement officers. The list has people of other ethnicity and may even have people that are currently alive. Despite the list being discredited on numerous occasions the PNC and their sympathizers continue to use it. The Leader of the Opposition Dr. Bharat Jagdeo has on numerous occasions challenged the government to hold a Commission of Inquiry into the period of these alleged killings. The government has continued to run from this challenge. Since entering government over four years ago the government has held numerous Inquiries on a variety of subjects but has conveniently shied away from this particular one. One can only infer from this is that they are aware that any Inquiry into this period will not cast them in a positive light. It is widely known that members of the PNC gave critical support to the gangs operating out of Buxton and other enclaves across the country. It is an indictment of the PNC that their support to these gangs was done at a cost to the villagers of Buxton. Villagers had to abandon their homes in fear as the criminals ran roughshod over them. Men had to watch helplessly as their daughters and wives were abused by the criminals. Persons with relatives in the disciplinary services were deemed as traitors and were targeted by criminals. The PNC’s support to these gangs almost destroyed this proud village. This must never be forgotten or forgiven. We must remember that it is the PNC who has a history of being associated with criminals. It is the PNC who draped our national flag over the coffin of the notorious criminal “Blackie”. It was the then leader of the PNC, Desmond Hoyte, who proudly attended the funeral of the said criminal. Who can forget the infamous recorded conversation between the now Attorney General Basil Williams and the then Commissioner of Police Winston Felix, who is now a Minister within this government. That conversation clearly exposed the indecent nature of these gentlemen who are now senior functionaries of this government. It was the said PNC, who during their disastrous 28 years in government were closely associated with thugs from the House of Israel cult. Whilst the government is quick to cast aspersions on the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C), using baseless accusations, it is incumbent upon us to reveal which party historically is known to be associated with criminals and criminal actions. We must not allow their baseless accusations to gain any traction. The falsehoods must be called out and discredited at every turn. All Guyanese must continue to demonstrate that we stand for law and order and decency.

is watching Guyana Dear Editor,

ow that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled on the two impending matters, namely the legality of the No-confidence motion and that of the appointment of the GECOM Chairman, all eyes are now focused on the consequential orders which the CCJ will make on June 24. The holding of new elections is again validated by the CCJ, which held that such elections take place no later than three months following the successful passage of a no-confi-

dence motion, unless Parliament by a two-thirds majority voted to extend the date for such elections. The current APNU-AFC administration is now living on borrowed time. It can no longer continue to use the judicial process to justify its continued longevity, now that the highest Court has definitively pronounced on the matter. President Granger has indicated that he would be guided by GECOM on a date for elections which seems contradictory to his stated commitment to honour the Constitution

as now reaffirmed by the CCJ. His insistence on a new Voters’ List, which is unlikely to be compiled before the constitutionally stipulated timeframe, appears to be yet another strategy to circumvent the Constitution and thwart the democratic and constitutional rights of the Guyanese people. The entire democratic world is watching with keen interest on how events are unfolding in Guyana. Sincerely, Hydar Ally

The law is the law and all parties are bonded by it Dear Editor,

he Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled that the no-confidence vote passed on December 21, 2018, over six months ago, was valid, which means that the Government is now illegal. In another pressing matter, the court also ruled that the unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the elections commission was also illegal, two very important and definitive decisions. In simple concise language, this means that the Government of David Arthur Granger has fallen. There should be a return to the ballot box and a fresh mandate sought for the people of this

country, end of discussion. The sum total of all of this is not what the Government or Opposition in Guyana thinks, it is not based on the legal opinion or lack thereof, of Government or Opposition, it is solely based on the Constitution and the rule of law. Whether Granger or Jagdeo likes or dislikes this aspect of the law is of no consequence to our discussion, the law is the law and all parties are bonded by it. Now, the vexing issue of the appointment of a new GECOM Chairman has again hit centre stage and the reason for me saying this is before an appointment of a new Chairman can be made, there must be a revocation of the

old. Neither of the two things Granger is prepared to do, and here is where the problem arises. The President is not going to let Patterson go, reason being Patterson was placed there to do dirty work in the rigging of the next election, so his argument for his illegal appointee to remain in office is real to him. In the same vein, Granger would not choose someone from Jagdeo’s list either, but shuffle around from one list to another just like he did earlier this year. Regardless, the law is the law and all parties are bonded by it. Respectfully, Neil Adams

Coalition government’s comments about ‘war’ and more totally unacceptable Dear Editor,

he Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) has seen a number of media reports concerning remarks made by Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo and Finance Minister, Winston Jordan during a recent meeting held in the town of Bartica. The remarks which, among other things, included a call for “war” we could not fail to recognize have been deemed by some as inciting hostilities in our society. Indeed, we share the view, that the utterances by leaders of our nation have no place in our contemporary times and could, very well, serve to ratchet up tensions among our peoples. We also noticed that the remarks were made during a Govern-

ment outreach exercise to the mining town. That outreach, like others held in recent times, are funded wholly by the Guyanese taxpayers. From all appearances, it seems that State funds are being utilized to further political activities. This, we contend, should not be the case Regarding, the statements by the senior Government functionaries are totally unacceptable and cannot be countenanced, whatsoever be the circumstances. The connotation of a call to war, as it were, evokes, naturally, strong sentiments and causes, undoubtedly, heightened anxieties. Moreover the remarks, it seems, goes against the Government, and more so President David Granger’s call, for our people to live in cohesion. In considering the remarks by the

two (2) high-ranking gentlemen, the FITUG was reminded that a similar call was sounded, not too long ago, on a video recording which appeared on social media. That video, it may be recalled, saw an official of the senior Coalition partner also chanting similarly to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister. While the jury is out on whether the two (2) incidents are connected, the striking similarities are, for us, too close for comfort. At this time, as is the case all the time, we urge our leaders to consider their words and statements especially taking into account the lasting impression they can have on our people. Regards, Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG)

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Any decision after June 18 to sell-off sugar sector’s assets will be deemed improper Dear Editor,

he GAWU could not have ignored the many media reports that have appeared, over recent times, regarding what appears to be the wanton sell-out of assets linked to the sugar industry. From the media, we have learnt, dismayingly, for the first time about what appears to be a fire sale of the industry’s assets. It should be recalled, not too long ago, that the GAWU had drawn attention to quick and cheap sell out of several movable assets from the now shuttered estates. At that time, our Union pointed out given, the then and now, the apparent unconstitutional status of Government, the assets in question should be released to the GuySuCo with a view to accelerate and further rehabilitation works at the operable sugar estates. It appears, if the media reports are indeed accurate and we have little reason to doubt their authenticity, that the programme to dispose of the sugar industry’s assets has accelerated in recent weeks. What is even more worrying for us, is that the masses appear none the wiser regarding what seems to be the wholesale sellout of valuable items that still have value to the sugar industry and its operations. It did not miss us too that the situation is unfolding when President David Granger is saying he wants the sugar industry

to thrive. Certainly, moving in that direction requires the industry to be supported and not having items it requires being sold at what appears to be basement prices. It should not be forgotten too that Minister of Finance, Winston Jordan in responding to questions regarding the sale of the Skeldon factory, is quoted in the August 15, 2017 Guyana Times, as saying “[t]his (sale) has to be done in a very transparent process, because this Government prides itself on accountability and transparency”. We also recollect that former Minister of State, now Director-General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon, is reported in the July 24, 2018 Kaieteur News as saying with respect to the divestment of sugar assets that “…Government will not sacrifice accountability and transparency in the process”. We hasten to ask, what has happened to those commitments. Dishearteningly, we are reminded, yet again, that actions are indeed louder than words. As we consider the divestment policy regarding the sugar industry’s assets as well as utterances by the Finance Minister, we could not help but notice a Demerara Waves report of June 19 titled “Investors walking away from ‘scrap iron’ sugar estates - Finance Minister”. According to the report, Minister Jordan told a meeting he had in Bartica that the estates up for sale were scrap iron. The

goodly Minister told his audience “[t]hey have been there since the early 20th century or before…”. It appears to us, that the Minister is not really acquainted with what he was saying. While all the sugar factories save and except Skeldon, were built many years ago, their components, over time, were rehabilitated or changed altogether in keeping with advancements in technology. It is, for us, hard to believe that the Minister really believed that all the original equipment installed whenever the factories were constructed are the same equipment being used on to now. The Minister also charged that “[v]ery little maintenance has been done over the last fifteen to twenty years…”. This statement seems absurd, in our view. Considering that in the period (1999 to 2019), the Minister referred to, the sugar industry on several occasions saw its production rising over 300,000 tonnes per annum. Moreover, it was those same factories that saw the industry producing over 230,000 tonnes in 2015 which the Minister and his colleagues patted themselves on the back for a job, ostensibly, well done. Moreover, even the Sugar Commission of Inquiry (CoI), which comprised several persons with factory knowledge, did not choose the phrases the Minister chose to employ. In fact the Sugar CoI though recognizing that the factories had difficulties pointed that with certain investment they could generally be put right. The CoI’s conclusions are a far way from Minister Jordan who reportedly told his audience “the investors… would have to ‘rip up’ the existing equipment and construct new factories”. What’s even more disconcerting is that the Minister’s statement comes just days after the National Commercial and Industrial Investments Limited (NICIL) announced it was about to close a deal with a consortium of investors regarding Rose Hall Estate. A June 03 Demerara Waves report informed that Managing Director of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) said “…the investors plan to continue sugar production and manufacture inputs for

cosmetics and liquid sugar”. It would seem to the rational mind that the investors, whoever they may be, would have considered all the factors and thereafter submitted their proposal. That submission, in our view, would have logically taken account of the equipment and its potential in keeping with the plans of the interested party. It appears to us that the Minister did not really and fully consider what he was telling his audience or was it a case of petty politicking. Generally that the Minister did not really think through its remarks at the meeting as another aspect has landed him, it seems, in hot water. Obviously, the Minister has decided to blow hot air and vent at Bartica about his Government’s ill-considered decisions in the first place. Had the factories remained operable, rather than shutting down, then the decision to sell would have seen a better response in our view. Similar views, we recollected, were also expressed in a report which appeared in the October 01, 2018 Guyana Chronicle as well. There we saw, PwC Chief, Mr Baghaloo apparently telling prospective investors “I fully understand your concerns, re buying a factory that is not a going concern and most importantly, a factory that has been closed for a long period of time”. The divestment process, like the Government all-round sugar policy, is filled with obvious holes and, it seems, was not well thought out. Such a situation is not in the interest of the Guyanese people as it is their assets, purchased after the hard work and efforts of past and present generations of sugar workers that is being sold, from all appearances, for next to nothing. Nevertheless, in view of the recent decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), it is our firm belief, that any decision regarding the sale of sugar assets, and in fact any national asset, cannot be deemed proper. Yours faithfully, Seepaul Narine, GAWU General Secretary

The democratic processes must APNU+AFC Coalition be allowed to work clearly fighting for survival Dear Editor,

he much-anticipated rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on important Constitutional matters are now etched into the annals of the Court's records. The CCJ answered all questions relating to the Constitution in a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal manner, leaving nothing for anyone to quibble about. From their rulings, the CCJ has stated clearly the appointment of the GECOM Chair is one derived out of a consensual process and one that rejects arbitrariness. On the question of what constitutes a majority, the CCJ stuck to the traditional, centuries-old meaning and declared that 33 is the majority of 65. On the question of the validity of the No-Confidence Motion that was passed in Parliament on December 21st, 2018, the CCJ declared it was validly passed. The CCJ agreed all 65 votes on that day were eligible votes. The CCJ agreed with litigants who questioned the right of dual citizens to be Members of Parliament, declaring that dual citizens are not eligible, but that those objections should have been registered within 28 days of the commencement of the Parliament. The International Center for Democracy commends the CCJ for sticking to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of Guyana, rejecting the request from some of the litigants to re-write the Constitution, by inserting words that do not appear in the relevant articles that were questioned. In so doing, the CCJ took the approach of the Chief Justice and rejected the approach of the two Appeals Court Judges in Guyana. Having brought clarity and placed everyone on the same platform

for a way forward, the CCJ has now took the position that the consequential orders for the way forward must be decided on through mature dialogue between the President and the Leader of the Opposition, with consultations with other stakeholders. We commend the CCJ for giving the leaders in Guyana a chance to demonstrate political maturity and responsible behavior in working out the way forward. Like other stakeholders, the ICD urges the leaders in Guyana to seize the opportunity provided by the CCJ in this interim period to demonstrate responsible leadership. Now that the validity of the No-Confidence Motion has been accepted by all, since everyone insists they will honor the CCJ rulings, the Constitution must be supreme, as it would in any democracy worth its salt. The Constitution required a resignation of the Cabinet, a dissolution of parliament and an election within 90 days after the passage of the NCM. That date expired since March 21st, 2019. The reasonable approach now is for all parties to work for elections within 90 days from now. In effect, the CCJ is granting a new start. The democratic processes must be allowed to work and the CCJ has become an adjudicator and mediator to ensure democracy blossoms in Guyana. We are hopeful that the combination of legal authority exercised by the CCJ and mature political dialogue with a commitment to uphold the constitution will ensure Guyana faithfully stays on the democratic course. Regards, International Center for Democracy

after having failures exposed Dear Editor,

uyanese don’t have to be statisticians to spot that the recent polls conducted by the Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES), was suspicious and fake. CADRES should publicly state who really financed that poll since it is the worst form of propaganda by the APNU/AFC coalition Government as desperation is stepping into the failed APNU/AFC camp. Several questions are exposing the Government, because if President David Granger’s approval ratings are at 94 per cent, why is the Government so afraid to go to an election? How are President David Granger’s approval ratings so high but the APNU/AFC coalition Government was completely swept away in the last LGE? If Granger’s ratings are 94 per cent then Irfan Ali’s ratings would definitely be 500 per cent since this Government is not only unpopular in the PPP/C support base but also in the APNU support base. Imagine President David Granger refused to announce publicly that he was

coming to visit the Albion Estate in East Berbice, he actually sneaked into Berbice, afraid that the thousands of dismissed sugar workers would picket him for not attending to their cries since these severed sugar workers were left to the mercy of the Almighty God. Why did President David Granger, after four years, decide to visit workers at Albion Estate? The simple answer is that elections will be held shortly and he needs workers’ votes. The analogy about diabetes that was used by President Granger on the sugar industry should be used on the Government since corruption, incompetence, mismanagement, etc is prevalent in the Government. Unless Granger amputates some of the ‘limbs’ that he has, the diabetes of corruption, incompetence, mismanagement etc would cause the Government to rot to death. The APNU/AFC coalition Government is presently on a ‘life support machine’ fighting for survival. Regards, Zamal Hussain

CCJ rulings are important first steps in stopping the descent into undemocratic rule Dear Editor,

he Caribbean Court of Justice rulings on the two cases, one appealed by the APNU + AFC and another by the Opposition PPP/C, have brought to the open many troubling issues in relation to our politics and some of our institutions. Over the last four years many articles and commentaries have appeared warning of a creeping dictatorship and the need for everyone to stand up to halt the drift. The first and most obvious was the decision that the Opposition appealed after the APNU+AFC got a successful decision at our Court of Appeal which in 92:1 verdict ruled that the no-confidence motion needed 34 and not 33 of 65 votes. The CCJ rejected that ruling. It upheld the National Assembly vote, Guyana’s Chief Justice ruling and the appeal by the PPP/C which was that thirty-three votes were the required number of votes to pass the no-confidence motion. Almost all Guyanese, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, must have known this.

Even those who brought the case it appears did this only to delay the calling of election and to give the regime more time in power. The other issue on the appointment of the Chairman of the Election’s Commission is also vital. The CCJ ruled that the opposition was right and Mr. Patterson was not properly appointed to that post. He is, therefore, unconstitutional. He should resign or be removed immediately. To me, a person not trained in law, that also seem so obvious. The process by which the chairperson of GECOM should be appointed was first proposed by President Jimmy Carter for the 1992 elections. It was a mechanism to get a consensus on this very important post. The reason for this is also clear. For a functioning democracy all the forces in the society must have confidence in that most important body. It must not only be fair but must also appear fair. In fact, it was constitutionalized at the insistence of the PNC while in Opposition during the 2001 massive Constitutional Reform process. They wanted it entrenched in

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019 the Constitution to ensure that they (PNC) had a voice in such an appointment. The Commission grew in stature from 1992 when Rudy Collins headed it and did a very professional job. In 1997, elections which in my view was the best conducted election in Guyana, the PNC won a massive victory. Having lost the PNC rioted and called for a forensic audit. The PPP/C agreed to the audit which was conducted by a team from CARICOM. That audit restored the confidence in the Commission. After the 2001 elections, the Chairman Joe Singh, before demitting office had an international audit done on those elections which further boosted the prestige of the Commission. The elections of 2015 were one of their great successes in their move to control the Commission and facilitate rigging. It is important to note that after the 2011 elections the APNU had demanded that the Chairman Surujbally and the then Chief Elections Officer Gocool Boodhoo, be removed. They had demonstrations and even went in front of the homes of those two officials of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) in vigils harassing their families and threatening them. Eventually, the PNC/APNU dropped the demand to remove Surujbally but kept insisting that Boodhoo should go. When the vote came at GECOM, Surujbally voted with the PNC recommended Commissioners to remove Gocool Boodhoo as CEO. Now in power the APNU is continuing its quest for control. The only motive it is quite clear is to manipulate and rig elections. The way the Chairman, Mr. James Patterson, was appointed to the post of CEO was the first demonstration of the drive to take control and turn that body into an instrument

of the PNC/APNU. In the process lists of very prominent Guyanese, people of distinction were dubbed not fit and proper. The next stage was the getting rid of the man who served as Deputy Chief Executive Officer for a long while, Mr. Vishnu Persaud. This was so blatant that it was shocking. This man scored the highest points on GECOM own criteria, moreover, he has years of experience and was never even accused of any malpractice. He seems too professional, thus, he had to be removed the PNC/APNU are allergic to fairness and professionalism. Clearly, the Chairman and the three APNU+AFC recommended Commissioners have no interest in professionalism and free and fair elections. It appears that they have seen themselves as agents of the APNU determined to keep that Party in power even if they destroy democracy and Guyana in the process. The rulings of the CCJ are important first steps in stopping the descent into undemocratic rule. However, we must not believe that the PNC will halt their efforts to perpetuate themselves in power. They are already showing signs that they are ready to disregard the ruling of the CCJ. The President, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have made pronouncements that have telegraphed their intentions. They seem ready to show contempt for the CCJ and the rule of law. They must not be allowed to get away with this! It is now even more important that every fair minded and everyone consumed by the desire to live in a free and democratic society must now stand up and be counted for Peace, Justice and Bread! Regards, Donald Ramotar, Former President

Questions that need to be answered by GECOM or Mr. Marcus Dear Editor,

uyana is awaiting clear and definitive directions, so that there can be no ambiguity, as it relates to elections 2019. I am sure that I am not the only Guyanese that was utterly confused, perplexed and flummoxed at the utterings of senior counsel Stanley Marcus on the 24th day of June 2019, during the hearing of the consequential orders at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in relations to the challenges to the No-Confidence Motion and the case challenging the unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The Christmas gift that GECOM plans to offer the people of Guyana is a voters’ list. Editor, there is need for some explaining here. Maybe GECOM or Mr. Marcus can provide answers to the following questions. 1. Since the decision to retain Mr. Marcus as counsel for GECOM was not made at a duly constituted statutory meeting, who retained him and who gave him the directions that he so empathically and forcefully

stated to the Justices of the CCJ on Monday last? 2. GECOM has a legal counsel in its employ, Excellence Dazzell, whose legal opinion that is in the public domain. That opinion clearly states, with references to specific and relevant sections of the law, that there is absolutely no need for houseto-house registration, but rather a review and update of last valid Voters’ List. This position, by way of documentation, is also known to all GECOM Commissioners. This begs the question, is Mr. Marcus the lawyer for GECOM or the Government nominated Commissioners of GECOM? 3. Is it coincidental that GECOM’s position at the CCJ is almost identical to the Government’s position, as well as the positions of the few APNU/AFC supporters who were protesting GECOM last Friday, June 22nd, 2019, calling for house-to-house registration? 4. Official correspondence to the President from GECOM stated that elections was possible by November 2019. When did this

position change? When was the change made from November 2019 to December 25. If a list would be ready by then, when would GECOM be actually ready to conduct elections if affirmative action is not taken? 5. Further, I am sure all Guyanese are wondering how much did it cost taxpayers’ to retain Mr. Marcus? Editor, it is my humble view that once good faith prevails and all our honourable men and women rise to the challenge, elections can be held within 90 days. The President needs to, by proclamation, name a date for elections and dissolve the Parliament. Everything else would fall into play. What is required is a brief period of claims and objections to allow for additions and removals of those who ought to be on the list and those who ought not to be on the list. The current list, which validity expired on the 30th April 2019, should be deemed the preliminary list of electors and a process, which allows for intense vetting by all political parties and even civil society groups should commence immediately. This revised and updated list

will be the Official List of Electors. It is my considered opinion that all of the above can be executed within a 30 days period or maybe six weeks maximum. Nomination day is at least 32 days before Election Day, in accordance with the law. During this period, training of elections day staff and procurement of material necessary to conduct the elections can be done simultaneously. It was done before. Measures to strengthen scrutiny on elections day, to ensure only eligible voters participate, can be discussed and agreed upon. A rigorous and well rolled out public relations campaign on voters education from GECOM should follow. GECOM has the staff, the budget and the institutional capacity to facilitate the same. Credible, free and fair elections is contemplated in our Constitution to be delivered within 90 days. Sincerely, Bishop Juan A Edghill, PPP/C MP

Granger-government’s failures clear with a simple look at its policies Dear Editor,

rother David Granger seems to be the Millie Vanilli of Guyanese politics. As he continues to give lip service to the issues affecting the masses, he remains very indifferent to the plight of the poor and the working class. For him, it is all about the elite life with its pageantry and the photo opportunities but never about the real human development issues. Case in point, how many families have had to pass their Father’s Day without adequate living conditions because, under Mr

Granger, the housing strategy is almost dead on arrival for the people? But let us reflect on one issue under Mr Granger that has drastically affected the people economically, psychologically and socially – crime. As we read in the newspapers, there is a major crime racket in the Police Force in Berbice but the reaction from Team Granger is absolute silence. But this trend is not today’s attitude of mind, it seems to be in the DNA of Team Granger. Who promised in 2015 to support the establishment of a multi-agency task force

on crime and security to influence policy and action in the Guyana Police Force so that fewer people will be exposed to crime? David Granger! Who promised to root out the criminals in the Police Force? Who did not deliver on his promises to the people? David Granger! Who promised, as one of his Foundation Principles in the 2015 APNU/AFC Manifesto, to enhance the personal security of the people? He even called himself the security candidate in his speeches. Who did not deliver on his promises to the people? David

Granger! Who promised the nation to confront serious crime and improve public and personal security but did very little to change the crime trajectory as it got worse? David Granger! Who promised the nation in 2015 to develop innovative, modern policing strategies and tactics to combat crime but has failed on every front to deliver on these promises to the people? David Granger! Who promised the people that he will seek the help of the FBI, Canadian Mounted (Turn to page 7)

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Coalition gov’t must tell the nation about its policy for granting of scholarships Dear Editor, fter news broke of aggregate payments No good can come from the A of over $20 million to a sitting Minister’s child’s bank account, the Government, baseless claims of carpetbaggers through Mr Joe Harmon, disclosed these payments to be for “scholarships” and no details were made available. Minister Broomes’ with hidden agendas daughter is now a student of Howard UniverDear Editor,

ollowing the publication of my letter raising concerns about the circumstances surrounding Former President Ramotar’s signing of exploration leases for the Kaieteur and Canje blocks and the role of Jan Mangal, President Granger’s former Adviser on Petroleum, in negotiation of the Production Sharing Agreement for Liza with ExxonMobil, Jan Mangal took to social media to reply albeit with a promise of a reply via letter to editor. The quick response itself revealed some truly shocking information and fully vindicates my joining the call for a comprehensive independent review of what has transpired since 1999. In his reply, Jan Mangal states “I only learnt that the Stabroek Block contract was executed after the fact, and many months after the fact. It was Exxon who first told me in 2017 they had executed the contract in 2016. At the time when I found out, even the President of Guyana seemed surprised” I will not lead speculation but certainly this is a stunning admission of gross incompetence or a criminal level of negligence on the part of Jan Mangal, President Granger or both. It begs the question of by whose authority was the contract signed by Minister Trotman, for Mangal is seemingly suggesting rogue action in the decision to not give effect to the ‘relinquishment’ clause of the 1999 PSA, while the PPP offers that there was no discovery prior to the original agreement, Trotman has never offered any explanation as to why he did not make positive moves to secure our nation’s future. Mangal alleges malfeasance in this retention of 600 Oil blocks by ExxonMobil. It is (to date) the most lucrative deal in our nation’s history and possible losses in future revenue runs into the hundreds of billions of US dollars. Mangal’s claims that President Ramotar and Minister Robert Persaud had intimate knowledge of commercial oil discoveries in March 2015, when exploration rights to Kaieteur and Canje Blocks were signed with three companies, has already opened the door for investigation of ExxonMobil by regulatory bodies in the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who now have to ascertain if Mangal’s claims have merit and if so; Who told the Guyanese duo of the discovery? When such information was passed? And was there any use of this ‘insider’ knowledge used by anyone to trade on the New York stock Exchange for profit?. Then the SEC in conjunction with the US Department of Justice would also have to conduct another type of investigation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which prohibits the payment of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA can apply to prohibited conduct anywhere in the world and extends to publicly traded companies and their officers, directors, employees, stockholders, and agents. Agents can include third party agents, consultants, distributors, joint-venture partners, and others. Given the strident and public allegations made by Mangal, in public and international forums such as the prestigious Huston Oil & Gas conference, it is more than likely that an investigation is underway. Given the dangers of information leakage and seriousness of ‘insider trading’ charges,

Oil companies do not wait more than seven days to announce new finds; hence it is highly unlikely that Exxonmobil held news of the Liza discovery for over 10 weeks and most certainly would not share sensitive information with non-company individuals. There were no Guyanese on board the drillship to ‘leak’ information locally and given Mangal’s ‘experience’ in the industry, he must know this; it brings us back to the source of his motivation for these bold accusations. A close examination of Mangal’s claims show he has a penchant for presenting statements without evidence or basis in a manner of ‘fait accompli’ , he uses a ‘scattershot’ approach to drops names and accusations; some, naturally have merit, but his lack of evidence, weakens even claims that are meritorious. It is as if someone changed the justice system and appointed him (Mangal) sole arbiter on all matters of national importance in Guyana. For example, Mangal states “The problem is the FCPA laws only target instances where current government officials are directly involved, but it will be difficult to prove this with the Canje and Kaieteur blocks, although we can be certain they were. But we already have the evidence we need, and that is you do not award contracts to people who know squat. So we rescind the blocks. Simple.” This would be simple if you were dealing with the village idiot; anyone else needs the actual ’evidence’ and would know that this evidence would have to withstand fierce scrutiny at all levels of our justice system. Jan Mangal claims to be “pushing a pro-people agenda in Guyana” but his desired outcome is for the oil blocks to be taken back, split up into smaller blocks, and auctioned off properly “And all those who have had interests in these blocks must be banned from participating in any way in these blocks for the next 10 years’ including ExxonMobil, Hess, etc.” In Jan’s world, ExxonMobil is a benign entity that would roll over and play dead, Guyanese would welcome a decade (minimum) moratorium on oil production in the hope of a ‘better deal’ from other Oil companies. Does Jan Mangal hope that the exploration rights to the Oil blocks can be easily rescinded and ‘new’ operators can move into the basin? Again, only a simpleton would think that it would think ExxonMobil would give up its newest discoveries without a comprehensive legal battle, that would cost Guyana billions more than it could afford. Jan Mangal’s simplistic ravings have already had a deleterious effect on our nation, clouds of suspicion hang over all involved in the oil industry, and politicians on both sides of the fence have been smeared including President Granger and former President Ramotar. Our nation can do without this brand of accusatory monologue, in his press conference today; Former President Jagdeo stated clearly that the PPP had made a firm decision to share management and decision making of the oil industry with largest rivals the PNC. There exists a clear way forward for a better Guyana for all Guyanese, whatever the outcome of the next general elections. Conversely, no good can come from the baseless claims of carpetbaggers with hidden agendas. Sincerely, Robin Singh

sity where she is reading for an undergraduate degree in Biology and Chemistry and for all indications seems to be an educated young lady on the right path. I make no hesitation to say as Guyanese citizens, Ministers’ children are entitled to scholarships just like any other citizen but there must be a clear policy on how these scholarships are awarded. This particular awardee is no stranger to the media and controversy. If I am allowed to make a conclusion, this particular awardee is already a millionaire in US$ term. According to Minister Broomes in her May 2016 Joint Press Conference with Raphel Trotman, she has relinquished all her mining concessions since she became a Minister and her daughter, who shares the same name with her, is wholly the owner SD # 1967 on Mining Permit H43/ MP/000. Minister Broomes, when questioned by the media, also acknowledged that she had long-term mining interest with Australian-owned mining company, Pharsalus Gold Inc (Troy Resources Limited) but she turned it over to her daughter. Government, in the interest of clarity and transparency, should come forward and tell the nation if there was a change in policy for granting of scholarships. Recent revelations in the absence of a clear policy in the awarding of scholarships to students seem to be very contentious, least of which are Ministers’ children. What makes this more bizarre is the firing of an entire department at the Ministry of the Presidency because it is alleged that these persons leaked information to the Leader of the Opposition and the wider press. Having failed to gain the public sympathy and the plot backfiring, the Government then used journalist Gordon Moseley to cast doubt over the awarding of a scholarship to Jessica Anthony, daughter of Frank Anthony. We wait to see who will get fired for releasing information to Gordon Moseley; we wait to see whom David Hinds will label as moles of News Source. Editor, in 2012 President Ramotar laid out a clear policy in which he said that the two top performers at CSEC and the two top performers at CAPE would be beneficiaries of Government scholarships to pursue studies at universities of their choice.

Editor, the fact that $20 million was transferred to the personal bank account of the daughter of a Minister is strange. I myself being a student that studied medicine in Cuba under a GoG scholarship know this is very unusual. In fact, one would have to ask Mr Harmon on what basis was a scholarship awarded to the younger Broomes. Was she a top student? Was the Government offering scholarship to Howard University in Biology and Chemistry and after reviewing the application and interviewing Ms Broomes she came out as the top candidate? If either of the cases is true then kudos to her but to use Ms Anthony as a foil is unscholarly. For the media to treat Miss Anthony’s award as news or some corrupt activity is quite shocking. As recent as December 16 during the consideration of the estimates, Mr Harmon after being questioned by Gail Teixeira released a list of students that were being funded by the GoG and Ms Anthony’s name never raised eyebrows. In fact, on that occasion, what raised eyebrows was the fact that the then Education Minister, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine’s daughter was benefiting from a $2.58 million scholarship in the UK. What was also shocking was the fact that Minister Nicolette Henry and Minister Annette Ferguson were receiving $3.36 and $3.38 million each to pursue their studies in the United States and the UK respectively. In fact, the current Minister of Public Service, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, had also received $3.4 million for studies in the UK. Editor, the hustlers are not only hustling from the Government. It is now common knowledge in the medical community that just a mere three months after taking office a former Junior Minister of Health, Dr Karen Cummings, instead of securing a scholarship for our cadre of healthcare workers wrote PAHO/WHO requesting for them to pay for her PhD. Thank God Dr Adu-Krow rejected this offer. It would be very interesting also for Minister Harmon to answer what criteria was used to grant those and whether they are now contractually bonded to serve the GoG. It would also be foolish to call on SARA and SOCU to investigate these transgressions since one of their own, Godfrey Bess, son of PNC executive Gary Bess, was the recipient of a scholarship for $3.5 million under the same circumstances. He happened to study Forensic Auditing and is now the head of investigation of the Public Procurement Commission. Sincerely, Hema Maniram

Granger-government’s failures clear with a... (From page 6)

Police and Scotland Yard to help him build capacity but since achieving power treated these international crime fighters like aliens and pariahs in the war against the Guyanese crime wave? Who broke his promises to the people yet again? David Granger! Who promised that he would fashion a functional Youth Policy that will focus on reducing crime? However, if we observe the process since May 2015, who has distanced himself from youth-friendly policies and has totally failed to engage the youths in fashioning such policies that will help reduce crime? Who again broke his promises to the youths? David Granger! Who did not deliver on his promises to the people? David Granger!

Editor, from my observation, Mr Granger just shows up and gives these speeches to give the impression that he cares, but when you dissect his policy actions, it is all about serving a small elite political cabal that is too tied to a principle of holding on to power by any means necessary so that the few friends and families like Simona Broomes can continue to enjoy the good life from the sweat of the poor and the working class. It is from this angle that all Guyanese must expose, oppose and work hard to depose Mr Granger and his PNC gang, now paraded as APNU/AFC, from power at the ballot box. Regards, Sasenarine Singh

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Court Orders to be handed down on July 12 ‒ CCJ President A

t the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) hearing on Monday (June 24, 2019), the presiding judges heard from the lawyers representing the Parliamentary Opposition, the APNU+AFC Coalition Government and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The Court on June 18, 2019 had given the lawyers in the case five days – until June 24, 2019 – to arrive at a consensus position on what court orders should be given. The court orders are intended to give effect to the rulings handed down by the CCJ on June 18, 2019 – a ruling that the no-confidence motion was validly passed with a majority of 33 votes; and a ruling that James Patterson was unilaterally appointed by President David Granger as the GECOM Chairman in a process that was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution. REQUESTS FOR COURT ORDERS Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who represents Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo in the cases before the CCJ, informed the Court that the lawyers in the matters before the Court were unable to reach consensus. Mendes, in articulating the position of the Opposition Leader, explained that the CCJ is being asked to: 1. Set a time-frame for the appointment of a new GECOM Chairman – one week for the Opposition Leader to submit a list of the names of six persons nominated to be the new GECOM Chair to the President and three days for the President to select one of those names before the appointment of a new GECOM Chair; and 2. Give effect to Article 106 of the Constitution, which requires that General and Regional Elections are held within three months, and specify a date for Elections to be held in Guyana. Article 106 (6) of the constitution states that: “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.” Article 106 (7) adds: “Notwithstanding its de-

Positions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ): On June 18, 2019, the Court RULED that: 1. The no-confidence motion advanced by the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) was VALIDLY passed on December 21, 2018 with a majority of 33 votes. 2. The appointed of James Patterson as the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was done by President Granger through a process that was FLAWED and in BREACH of the Constitution. On June 24, 2019, the Court MANDATED that: 1. By July 1, 2019, all parties should make written submissions on the court orders they are requesting, based on the June 18, 2019 rulings. 2. July 12, 2019 is the date on which the Caribbean Court of Justice will deliver court orders, which will give effect to the rulings that that were made on June 18, 2019.

The Constitution makes clear that Government remains in office for the purpose of holding an election

feat, 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.” According to the explanatory memorandum on Page 15, of Bill 14 of 2000 – Constitution (Amendment) – part of the bill that introduced Article 106 (7) in the Constitution – Government remains in office for the purpose of holding an election. The explanatory memorandum said: “Clause 5 alters Article 106 to provide for the resignation of Cabinet and the President following the defeat of the Government in the National Assembly on a vote of confidence. Although defeated the Government shall remain in office FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING AN ELECTION.” Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, representing the Coalition Government, declined to say publicly what orders his side was requesting. Senior Counsel Stanley Marcus, who is representing GECOM, when asked about court orders, told the Court that GECOM is requesting

more time, so that new national house-to-house registration can be completed before General and Regional Elections are held. SHIFTING TIMELINES Marcus, on May 8, 2019, when he last addressed the Caribbean Court of Justice said new national House-toHouse registration will be completed in five months – from June to October – and a new List of Electors would be ready on November 1, 2019. However, on Monday (June 24, 2019), he shifted this timeline. According to him, a new List of Electors will be ready after December 25, 2019. According to March, he has been instructed that GECOM has more than 9,000 persons in the field engaged in the operations geared towards the holding of elections and has already spent some $724M. Marcus argued that to ensure the delivery of credible and fair elections, house-to-house registration is of utmost importance. He added that there are also several Acts that provide for house-to-house registration to be done. However, President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, stressed that all Acts of Parliament to are subsidiary to the Constitution, which must always prevail. Justice Saunders described the position articu-

lated by Marcus as “disappointing,” and pointed out that elections should have already been held since March 21. 2019. Justice Saunders said too that while he did not want to say that the GECOM was being “negligent,” GECOM should always to be in a state of readiness for circumstances such as the calling of early elections. Noting that the December 25 date is unique, Justice Winston Anderson jokingly asked whether it was the intent of GECOM to provide “a Merry Christmas to the electorate of Guyana.” Justice Anderson asked if there was an earlier date that could be suggested by GECOM, if all the preparatory efforts towards the holding of elections were intensified. However, Marcus insisted that December 25, 2019 is the earliest date. Meanwhile, Justice Jacob Wit questioned whether it wasn’t the role of the GECOM to always be in a state of readiness for the holding of General and Regional Elections. To this, Marcus failed to give a direct response. Notably, the 2015 General and Regional Elections were early elections and GECOM was able to conduct those elections in less than three months. In 2015, Parliament was dissolved on February 28, 2015. General and Regional Elections were then held 72 days later – on May 11, 2015. VALID VOTERS’ LIST The other issue of contention that came up before the CCJ on Monday (June 24, 2019) was the issue of a valid Voters’ List. While, GECOM’s Attorney was pushing for new national house-to-house

registration when he addressed the Court, it was GECOM’s own Legal Officer, Excellence Dazzel, on May 13, 2019, advised that new national house-tohouse registration was not in accordance with the law and GECOM should not be pursuing this course of action. In his brief address to the court, Attorney General Basil Williams said that it is within the sole ambit of the President to announce the date for elections and no one else, while adding that he could only do so after being advised by GECOM as to its readiness to hold credible elections. President Granger has indicated that he is leaning towards a date for Elections, after GECOM completes new national house-to-house registration. Justice Saunders stressed that while there may be need for a new list of electors, it has to be balanced with the constitutional need for General and Regional Elections to be held by a specified time of 90 days. Senior Counsel Mendes, in articulating the position of the Opposition Leader, explained that a Claims and Objections period can be conducted to address any concern as it relates to young people not being on the Voters’ List by allowing them to be registered and to remove the names of persons who may have died. Mendes contended that since the elections ought to have been held since March 21, 2019, the last Valid Voters’ List – valid up to April 30, 2019 – was the one that would have been used. According to him, the last valid Voters’ List – valid up to April 30, 2019 – can easily be refreshed for the purpose of holding General

and Regional Elections in compliance with the Constitution. He explained that the very list is now available “to be added to, and subtracted from” for persons who have since become qualified or who cease to be qualified. Mendes maintained his position and insisted that there would be no need for house-to-house registration. Notably, Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, on February 5, 2019, made clear that GECOM can forego conducting a new natoanl house-to-house registration and proceed with a claims and objections exercise that could see a valid list created in as little as two months. He had said, “This list expires on April 30th and the production of a new list will have to be guided by the Commission. We can move toward the conduct, as I said yesterday, of a claims and objections exercise of a duration to be specified by the Commission so that we can arrive at a list,” Lowenfield explained. “Claims allow for the youthful to be added and objections for the deceased to be removed based on the submission made by the GRO [Guyana Register Office]. Other deaths not reported to GRO, when we are in the field, people will come to us and say Jagmohan next door died and we want his name to be removed,” he further explained. After hearing oral submissions by the lawyers, the Caribbean Court of Justice President, Justice Saunders, mandated that written submissions be sent to the Court by July 1, 2019. He added that the Court will hand down court orders on July 12, 2019.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Positions of the Parliamentary Opposition after the June 24 session of the Caribbean Court of Justice Opposition, gov’t talks…

Three-month election deadline is non-negotiable – Jagdeo W

ith talks expected to take place between the Parliamentary Opposition and the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, has made it clear that there will be no agreement by the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) to an extension of the Coalition Government’s time in office – six months after the Government was defeated with the passage of a no-confidence motion on December 21, 2019. During a news conference on Monday (June 24, 2019), he said the call for General and Regional Elections within three months is non-negotia-

ble.

Jagdeo said, “As (CCJ President) Justice Saunders said, are you asking me to rewrite the constitution? He posed to the other side. And the constitution says once a no-confidence motion is validly passed, elections have to be held in three months. And so we are going to insist on that. Three months to hold elections. We’re already been living on borrowed time in the government, because of the delaying tactics. “…effectively, they have had a six months’ grace period so far. And we’re not going to tolerate any continued viola-

tion of the constitution. So we will insist on elections in three months. And when I meet with President Granger that is a non-negotiable. What is non-negotiable too is us going back to parliament to extend the life of this government. That’s non-negotiable.” The Opposition Leader said the three-month timeframe aside, the Parliamentary Opposition will engage the APNU+AFC Coalition Government in good faith. “We will be open minded during the talks…but there are certain red times that we will not cross and that includes respect for the Constitution.”

Position of PPP/C is clear…

Any election timeline given by GECOM in absence of a new Chair has no credibility

he fact that political pressure is being exerted on the staffers of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by the current Administration is clear, according to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo. During a news conference on Monday (June 24, 2019), he said, “We had the PRO (Public Relations Officer) from GECOM say they can be ready at any time. The CEO (Chief Elections Officer) of GECOM said the list is clean. These comments have been in the public domain. But why do we see now, suddenly, the staff wavering…political influence was clear….the GECOM staff are under pressure,” the Opposition Leader said. His comments about GECOM’s readiness for General and Regional Elections came after GECOM’s Attorney, Stanley Marcus, shifted the timeline from November 1, 2019 to December 25, 2019 – with the conduct of new national house-to-house registration, which the Parliamentary Opposition has repeatedly objected to because of the unnecessary nature of the proposed exercise. He said, “Imagine the legal officer, who was appointed by

this commission. She gave a legal opinion saying that continuous registration is the only way provided by law to update the voters list. And immediately (they) started damaging her reputation, because she chose to be professional. So anything you hear about timelines form this commission, until the chairman is removed and you have a credible commission, would be just political pressure from the other side.” GECOM’s Legal Advisor, Excellence Dazzell, on May 13, 2019, in an opinion said advised against new national house-tohouse registration. 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.” Since providing the Commission with a Legal Opinion warn-

ing 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. Jagdeo also made clear that any timeline for General and Regional Elections given by GECOM, in the absence of a new GECOM Chair, has no credibility. “December 25 has no credibility…first we were told it is November…it is as shifting timeline…in any event, if we go to House-to-House registration it will not even be December,” he said. He proffered the view that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government seems “fearful” of General and Regional Elections. “What is happen is clear. It is transparent… they are trying to delay elections to the thievery and corruption continues.” The Opposition Leader stressed too that at the end of the day Constitution compliance must be the order of the day.

Basil Williams called out for ‘ploy to mislead’ CCJ ‒ Opposition Leader says CCJ request for written submissions ‘not surprising’

cknowledging that there was an expectation by Guyanese that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) would have handed down consequential orders (court orders) on Monday (June 24, 2019), Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, underscored the fact that Guyanese are not without clarity moving forward. “What has been conveyed to me is that there was an expectation that the consequential orders would have been granted and there would have been greater clarity on the way forward, so some are disappointed,” he said, during an impromptu news conference on Monday (June 24, 2019) afternoon. He added, “…I think even President Granger expected consequential orders…he said to be in his letter that he would like to meet after June 24 when the consequential orders are made…so I am not surprised that the country is disappointed.” On June 24, 2019, the CCJ mandated that: by July 1, 2019, all parties should make written submissions on the court orders they are requesting, based on the June 18, 2019 rulings; and that July 12, 2019 is the date on which the Caribbean Court of Justice will deliver consequential orders, which will give effect to the rulings that that were made on June 18, 2019. Jagdeo noted that the CCJ’s request for written submissions is not surpris-

ing, given that efforts by Attorney General, Basil Williams, to mislead the court. He said, “Williams made it look like the lack of a meeting (between the Parliamentary Opposition and the Coalition Government) is because of my reluctance to meet…Granger said meeting should be held after June 24…the Attorney General was clearly trying to mislead the CCJ…we have seen this happen over and over again…it is another ploy to confuse and delay the courts. “…so I am not surprised that the court ask for more time. I don’t believe that they can trust the oral arguments made by the government side.” Nonetheless, Jagdeo stressed that Guyanese have clarity on key issues. He stated that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government is illegal, since the CCJ ruled that the no-confidence motion was validly

passed on December 21, 2019. “The only way they can change the illegal status is with fresh elections…from now till elections, the government would remain illegal and anything done outside of them acting to hold elections is illegal,” the Opposition Leader said. The second point of clarity, according to him, is that the appointment of James Patterson as the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was done via a process that was flawed and in breach of Guyana’s Constitution. “The second issue we have clarity on is that the Chairman was unconstitutionally appointed and as of now, he should not make any decision in relation to elections,”Jagdeo said. The July 12, 2019 session at the Caribbean Court of Justice, he added, will give Guyanese clarity on additional issues important issues.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 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 27, 2019), including explosive relative to the “mad rush” by the David Granger-led Coalition Government to give away state lands.

Thousands of acres given away after passage of the no-confidence motion to persons linked to gov’t hierarchy T

here is a mad rush by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government to give away massive tracts of state lands cross the country, in strategic locations, according to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo. And during his Thursday (June 27, 2019) news conference, he made clear that President David Granger, must answer. “For quite a while now we have allowed the President to claim lack of knowledge or remain silent about daily acts of corruption in his government…he remains silent. He refuses to acknowledge the clear reality of what is taking place,” he said. Jagdeo, during his news conference, made public damning evidence demonstrating the “corruption” emanating from Granger’s office. “I am hoping that he will be forced to respond to these issues,” he said.

ACTING IN GRANGER’S NAME Citing the law, the Opposition Leader questioned Granger’s role in the giveaway of state assets. The Lands and Surveys Commission Act of 1999, Section 4 (1) (g) states that: “The functions of the Commission are to receive and evaluate offers to purchase or let public lands and to issue, for and on behalf of the President, grants leases and permits to occupy such lands, in accordance with any law regulating the administration and disposition of public lands.” Jagdeo said, “President Granger has to answer about whether he knows what is being done in his name. He has to tell the public why his office is doing this. Is he is aware? Does he sanction this?”

HAPPENINGS UNDER GRANGER’S OFFICE He explained that agencies/ officers falling under Granger’s office – the Project Management Office, Department of Environment, the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) and persons linked directly to the Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon – have benefited from the issuance of lands. Jagdeo added that majority of the transactions having been given out after the passage of the no-confidence motion. He said, “I want to show how people in his office – working at the Ministry of the Presidency – have been linked to the wanton, almost obscene, acts of land grabbing – to the detriment of the whole of Guyana.” Among the list of persons directly linked to the Ministry of the Presidency receiving lands, referred to by the Opposition Leader are: 1. Marlon Bristol, Head of the Project Management Office within the Ministry of the Presidency: • 1 acre in Mocha, Region 4 -February 2019 • 12 acres in Linden, Region

PATTERN Jagdeo noted that Guyanese people are now aware of a clear pattern – persons connected to the hierarchy of the current Government are the beneficiaries in the land grab. “Ordinary people are not benefiting,” he said, adding that the land received by Eric Phillips can facilitate 10,000 house lots. “This is a large scale rape of the country’s resources,” he said. Further, the Opposition Leader underscored the fact that the lands given away are lands where infrastructural developments were either planned or envisioned – deep water habour facilities, shorebased facilities and more. “We are putting them on notice, anything done after the no-confidence motion will be treated as illegal….any oil company that treats with them (those who benefited from land acquisition) because of the stolen assets will not enjoy good relations with the PPP because this is illegally done,” Jagdeo declared. He added, “…everything will be reviewed. If the process is not followed, if corruption is traced, it (the lands) will be recovered.”

10, - June 2019 • 80 acres in Bohemia, Region 6, – February 2019 2. Ndibi Schwiers, Department of Environment within the Ministry of the Presidency (Wife of Charles Ceres): • 1297.12 acres in Canje Creek, Region 6, – February 2018 • 112 acres in Bohemia, Region 6, - File number 621112/4 Jagdeo noted that in the Schwiers case the handover of another 5000 acres, as well as a plot at Liliendaal is also being looked at and will be addressed once more information is available in the future. 3. Great Wall Inc. (liked to Shawn Hopkinson, whose property is being rented by Director General, Joseph Harmon): • 20 acres at Schoonard Foreshore, Region 3 – File Number 332242/3 4. Great Wall Inc. (a company where Saratu Phillips – involved in the parking meter fiasco – is a Director): • 20 acres at Good Fortuin, Region 3 – File number 3322421/3

• 50 acres at Best Foreshore, Region 3 – File Number 332231/38 5. Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer, Deputy Head of SARA – within the Ministry of the Presidency: • 10 acres on the Linden/ Soesdyke Highway, Region 4, in 2019 – File number 411412/522b • 1 acre Mocha, Region 4, in 2019 6. Eric Phillips, SARA Special Assistant – within the Ministry of the Presidency: • 1000 acres in the Essequibo River - April 2019 – File Number 321132/1604 • 100 acres in the Demerara River in 2009 – File Number 331231/7 ERIC PHILLIPS DENIAL Jagdeo noted that while SARA is supposed to be responsible for the recovery of state assets, its officials are involved in siphoning off assets. He noted too that Phillips denied that he receive massive tracts of land from the APNU+AFC Coalition Government. Phillips had said: “I have never applied for 3000 acres

of land and have never received 3000 acres of land. Of course, Jagdeo has given away to several of his friends, 60,000 acres of land at 12.5 cents US for 199 years and I can show those documents. I had not intended to reply to Jagdeo’s continuous abuse of the media and the truth but I decided to for two simple reasons. First, his supporters always believe his lies and libel even though he is a known liar. Second, and more importantly, the media has a responsibility to verify facts, to ask Jagdeo for proof when he makes these statements. Instead, the media has become a willing conspirator against the truth in the weekly press conference held by Jagdeo. Isn’t there some professional code of ethics?” The Opposition Leader stressed that the details he referred to represent clear evidence that exposed the lies peddled by Phillips. OTHER OFFICIALS Jagdeo added that other officials are also part of the giveaway of lands, including Christopher Jones, Director

of Sports, who received land at Aubrey Barker Road, South Ruimveldt, Region 4. He disclosed too that an ex-PNCR Parliamentarian received several plots of land in the Pomeroon, Region 2 2900 acres, 1200 acres and 6400 acres. “Within a few months one family received more land in the Pomeroon that the PPP (People’s Progressive Party/ Civic) government gave to citizens in the Pomeroon in 23 years,” the Opposition Leader said. He stated that more details on this issue will be addressed at a later date. WORRYING DEVELOPMENT The Opposition Leader noted that another official benefiting from the land grab is Chief Elections Officer (CEO) at the Guyana Elections Commission, Keith Lowenfield. Lowenfield received: • 1297 acres in February 2019 • 216 acres at Millie’s Hideout, Region 10 in June 2019 • 2 acres at Mocha, Region 4, June 2019

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

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

Concerns expressed about Persons protesting the Opposition to call for gov’t plans for sugar lands to open a CoI misguided T he happenings at the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) represent a “horror story”, according to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo. During his Thursday (June 27, 2019) news conference, he disclosed that information reaching the Parliamentary Opposition is that NICL has started a survey of lands used for sugar cultivation. “NICIL has started a survey and before we know it, all the sugar lands may be given out,” he said. The Opposition Leader maintained his criticisms of the David Granger-led APNU+AFC Coalition Government in dealing with major concerns that have been expressed by the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) about how the Special Purposes Unit (SPU) under

NICIL is handling matters relating to the sugar sector. SPU was set up to oversee the divestment of assets belonging to the Guyana Sugar Corporation. GuySuCo managers 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, weeks ago. 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. 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. To date the Granger-government has not responsible. The Opposition Leader noted that the Guyanese deserve greater transparency, not secrecy that could see the ‘give away’ of Guyana’s assets.

Public servants urged to preserve records W

ith the increase is the numbers of whistleblowers coming forward with information, as well as evidence, to expose corruption under the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, there has been a move by the Administration to tighten the reins. After the disclosure of information that over $20M was transferred to two of Minister Simona Broomes’ children, several persons were fired from the Ministry of the Presidency. After the public backlash, the Ministry said the persons’

dismissal was rescinded, but they remain on administrative leave, while an inquiry is done by PNCR member, Lance Carberry. On Thursday (June 27, 2019) Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, assured public servants who are targeted by the Coalition Government of support. “Those who have been fired, you come to us and we will file lawsuits not against the government, but against the individuals,” he said. He added, “..I heard that the government is hunting - consistent with

what David Hinds said about probing PPP moles in the Government…I urged all public servant to not be intimidated… don’t be intimated by the people who are on a witch hunt.” Jagdeo also appealed to public servants to maintain records. “If you are asked to do anything illegal, keep records…if you are unfairly fired, you will get your jobs back,” he said. Meanwhile, on several of the latest corruption scandals, the Coalition Government remains silent.

n Monday (June 24, 2019) and Wednesday (June 26, 2019) a small group of persons protested outside the Opposition Leader’s Church Street office. In interviews with the media, one of the leaders of the group, who identified herself as Sister Penda, stated that the group staged the peaceful protest to the Government to open an investigation into the alleged extra-judicial killings that occurred while the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) held office. She said, “We’re asking the president and the government to open an investigation into the extrajudicial killings that occurred under the Jagdeo PPP/C administration. This is our second protest out here and we’re not here for any confrontation,” Commenting on the protest action, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, said, “I want to say to Sister Penda, you have been misdirected….you are asking for the same thing we have been calling for the same thing for four years…you should have joined us when we

called for a full Commission of Inquiry.” He added that the David Granger-led Government would not approve such an inquiry because of the damning findings that will very likely be exposed. FULL COI For years not, Jagdeo has said that there remains a need for a comprehensive Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the crime wave of the 2000’s. He had also repeated the willingness of the Parliamentary Opposition to work with the APNU+AFC Coalition Government to craft the Terms of Reference (ToRs) for a comprehensive CoI and to select credible commissioners. He charged that in this way, no political party can claim that the other is trying to secure “political mileage” from the findings of the CoI. “Let’s find out the truth,” he said, referring to the devastating incidents at Agricola, Lusignan and Bartica. Jagdeo had decried Granger’s decision to “cherry pick” incidents for inves-

tigation, as was done with the Lindo Creek CoI. Jagdeo said the comprehensive Commission of Inquiry into the crime wave should start with the escape of prisoners in 2002 and also seeks to inquire about the political players in incidents subsequent to the jailbreak, as well as seek to ascertain how army weapons ended up in the hands of criminals. “They can also look at the role of drug dealers and whether the drug dealers had links to the government,” he had said, referring to the criticism repeated by members of the PNC-led Coalition Government, regarding Roger Khan. Jagdeo added, “…it (a comprehensive CoI) is not going to happen because some of the players are now huge in the current Government.” The Opposition Leader added that if there was a “real” CoI – a comprehensive review of the crime wave – several persons in the Coalition government, including Government Ministers, would be “really” uncomfortable.

The 5 persons outside the Opposition Leader’s office on Monday

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 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.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Focus on Guyana’s First People Silence from APNU+AFC….

US report cites gov’t failures in Indigenous Communities No mention of any substantial work to improve the lives of Amerindians in Guyana was made in a recent Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Guyana released by the United States of America’s (USA) State Department – underscoring a major failure of the APNU+AFC Coalition government. Page 11 of the report states that: “The standard of living in indigenous communities was lower than that of most citizens, and they had limited access to education and health care.” In contrast, the 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Guyana, on page 14, said: “All indigenous communities had primary schools, and as of 2012, there were 13 secondary schools in remote regions. All indigenous communities had school dormitories that housed students at government’s expense. Government programmes trained health workers, who staffed health facilities in most communities.” The APNU+AFC Coalition Government remains silent on the matter.

THE APNUAFC GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED THE AMERINDIAN PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES: ► NO INCLUSIVITY ► NO FREE PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT ► DISRESPECT SHOWN TO THE TOSHAOS AND VILLAGE COUNCILS ► DISRESPECT SHOWN TO THE NTC ► NO JOBS ► INCREASED POVERTY ► NEGLECTED COMMUNITIES ► NO LAND TITLES ISSUED ► UNDERMING LAND RIGHTS ► NO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN SPENDING $$$ FOR AMERINDIAN COMMUNITIES ► NO INTEGRATION OF THE VILLAGE ECONOMIES ► NO MODERNIZATION OF THEIR ECONOMIES ► ABANDONED PROGRAMMES THAT HELPED TO ADVANCE AMERINDIANS AND COMMUNITIES ► WORSENING OF THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESS TO HEALTH AND EDUCATION SERVCIES ► NEGELCT OF INFRASTRCUTURE IN COMMUNITIES AND BETWEEN COMMUNITIES WITHIN REGIONS

WITH THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION PASSED AND VALID THE CORRUPT APNU+AFC CABAL MUST GO!!!

Where we came from, where we are and where we can go F

rom the time the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) was elected to office in October 1992 it was committed to restoring democracy and justice, reconstructing collapsed economy, infrastructure, social services and quality of life of all Guyanese. Sixty-one percent of the population was below the poverty line with Amerindian peoples being the most neglect and “poorest of the poor”. President Dr. Jagan and the PPP/C recognized the depths of neglect, poverty and underdevelopment visited upon the Amerindian communities during the 28 years of PNC dictatorial administration. On attaining office, Dr. Jagan and his Government knew that special focus with resources and programmes had to be developed to address the appalling conditions under which the vast majority of Amerindians existed. To give due respect and recognition to Guyana’s “first people” President Jagan created at the level of the Office of the President a special “Amerindian Unit” headed by a Minister, who was an Amerindian and the first Amerindian to become a Minister, mandated to focus exclusively on the more pressing issues affecting Amerindian communities while efforts to setup more permanent interventions and structures were taking shape. He took a personal interest in its supervision. This “Unit” was the predecessor of the fully-fledged Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, also headed by an Amerindian. In 1995, the late President Cheddi Jagan designated September as “Amerindian Heritage Month” and singled out September 10th as “Amerindian Heritage Day”. The latter date was chosen for special recognition in honour of the achievement of Mr. Steven Joseph Campbell, an Amerindian born in the village of Moruca, who on 10th September, 1957 entered the Legislative Council of British Guiana. He was the first Amerindian to do so. It is the only country to have officially appointed such national significance and recognition to its indigenous peoples. Recognising the historic injustices perpetrated against the Amerindian peoples, the 1999-2001 revised Guyana Constitution --- by Articles 149 and 149(G) and the Amerindian Act 2006 --- provide for and guarantee Amerindian land rights, self-determination, governance and culture within Guyana subject to state sovereignty. In fact, communal lands are only

titled to Indigenous Communities no other groups of persons. There are two main contributions the PPP/C in office encouraged, supported and facilitated: • A new Amerindian Act 2006, after two years of consultation cross all the Amerindian communities and communal land rights with 14% of Guyana’s land mass being issued in absolute communal land titles to 103 Amerindian communities. From the early days of the PPP/C government, the issue of Amerindian rights and land rights in particular were clearly recognized and upheld by government’s policies and programmes. • Policies and programmes of successive PPP/C Governments that were aimed at alleviating Amerindian poverty, facilitating their integration into mainstream national life and economy, and improving the quality of life by more equitable goods and services and opportunities that other Guyanese enjoyed. Regrettably and sadly, the APNUAFC government reversed most of these initiatives or gave half- hearted attention to a few. The APNUAFC government track record of its treatment of Amerindians and Amerindian communities is reminiscent of the old PNC Burnham regime” • The first victims of this vindictive and short-sighted policy were the 1,972 Amerindian CSOs and closed the programme and by that action removed $700 M from the Amerindian village economies, thus increasing poverty; • smashed the Youth Entrepreneurship and Apprenticeship Programme (YEAP) and replaced it with the HEYS programme which cannot account for $800M;. • built no new schools or health centres or hospitals except those that were already in progress when they took over; • abandoned the Hinterland Household Electrification Programme and the One Lap top programme; • abandoned the arrangements for the Elderly to access their pensions; • stopped assistance to the Amerindian villages for transportations costs to bring out the sick or injured to hospitals; • stopped assistance to the villages for transportation costs to bring children to and from schools or to those attending secondary schools;

• dismantled the school feeding programme in the interior villages; • for the year school year 2018-2019 interior children have not received their school uniform allowances; • fired Amerindians or transferred Amerindians thought to “not politically correct” from the Regional Administrations; • unfairly favoured villages that voted for them against those that did not; • disregarded the National Toshaos Council and publicly declared they wanted full cooperation with the government and all its policies, hence no criticism; • badly needed resources such as drugs and medical supplies and education materials are in short supply worsening the conditions in the villages; • Ministers are missing in action, regular visits to the Amerindian communities to engage and address the communities concerns are no longer a norm, large portions of Guyana have not seen any Minister since 2015 elections campaign; • land titling at a complete halt; • continuing to give out mining and forestry concessions in titled land and in communities that have applied for their communal titles before 2015 to their party activists and supporters with no consultation with the communities in accordance with the Amerindian Act. All of these reversals have occurred in the face of enormous extravagance, squandermania and corruption by the APNUAFC the government. The Coalition Government is bent on dismantling impactful interventions, programmes and policies introduced by the PPP/C. Ministers Sydney Alicock , Valerie Garrido-Lowe, Dawn Hastings and Dr. George Norton, in particular--all Coalition Members of Parliament (MP), all Amerindians ---have remained silent on major issued affected hintlernad communities. The anti-poor policies, practices and traditions of the urban upper middle-class elite now calling the shots in the APNU+AFC Coalition leadership circles are also affecting Guyanese of other ethnic backgrounds. The impoverishment is across the board. It is nationwide. All are involved, all are consumed. (Turn to page 14)

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

‘Half-measures’ and neglect seen in hinterland regions ‒ Jagdeo says this exposes the failures of Granger gov’t

erious concerns about the plight of Amerindians and other hinterland residents were expressed by General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Bharrat Jagdeo. And speaking to the Mirror Newspaper, he noted that the current APNU+AFC Administration “continues to create hardships” for hinterland residents. His comments come on the heel of the 2017 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Guyana released by the United States of America’s (USA) State Department, which underscores the failure of the APNU+AFC Coalition government. Page 11 of the report states that: “The standard of living in indigenous communities was lower than that of most citizens, and they had limited access to education and health care.” The PPP General Secretary noted that the continued problems with drug shortages continue and seriously hinder the delivery of health care in hinterland regions. The system of procurement was changed in 2015, resulting in serious problems with shortages of drugs and medical supplies. Communities Minister, Ronald Bulkan, was called on by the Parliamentary Opposition to provide the reconciliation of monies sent by the Regions to the Ministry of Health and the drugs delivered to the Regions. Bulkan, when pressed, admitted that reconciliations take about three months and the reconciliations for 2017 should be completed by the end of

the first quarter of 2018. Notably, the Parliamentary Opposition indicated that no information has been provided on reconciliations from since 2016. To date, it is unclear is Bulkan has fully complied in this regard. Increased costs was another point that Jagdeo touched on, lamenting the situation with: increased air tax, which increases the cost of travel to and from hinterland regions; the imposition of taxes and fees, that affect not only consumer goods, but also productive sectors, with miners, among others, having to pay more to ply their trade; and the reduction of measures that support the welfare of Amerindians, including the slashing of old-age pensions, public assistance and removal of the cash-grant subsidies for children in public schools. The PPP General Secretary also underscored the neglect in many of the hinterland communities, referring to the delays in proving promised ICT services and solar panels, among other stalled initiatives that were started under the former PPP/C government. On the issue of solar panels, President David Granger, despite admitting that students in the hinterland who are studying need “proper” light (electricity), leads a government that has done nothing to address this issue. The President’s comments came after his Government came under fire for taking some 6,000 solar panels that were purchased for several Amerindian communities.

The panels will be used at the Ministry of the Presidency and State House. The disclosure that the solar panels will not go the Amerindian communities was made since 2016 when the PPP/C, in the National Assembly, questioned the spending of $48.6M on furniture and equipment for the Ministry of the Presidency and State House. Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, in response, disclosed that part of the $48.6M was spent of 6,000 solar panel systems for the Ministry of the Presidency and State House. Jagdeo also called the APNU+AFC Coalition Government out for failing to right a heinous wrong – the firing of 1,872 Indigenous youths who received training through the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs, in a number of skilled areas and were placed in jobs. He cited the lack of any new initiatives to provide employment for young Amerindians. Notably, Minister of Indigenous People’s Affairs, Sydney Allicock, earlier this year had talked up the training of over 3,000 young Amerindians, but he has said nothing about ensuring that there are job creation opportunities. “These half measures will not improve the lives of our Amerindian people,” he said. Meanwhile, Jagdeo stated that while Granger has stated that his Government wants to see hinterland development advanced on par with that of coastland communities, he has failed abysmally in delivering and has not even expounded on how this will be done.

Silence from APNU+AFC gov’t Where we came on what is being done to address from... hinterland unemployment (From page 13)

he APNU+AFC Coalition Government has admitted that to massive unemployment levels of unemployment among indigenous youths. Recently, Minister of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs Sydney Allicock, has said that close to 40,000 are unemployed in the hinterland. “We still have close to 40,000 indigenous youths who are unemployed,” he said. There has been no major job creation initiative since the APNU+AFC Coalition Government took office.

50% of children in hinterland do not have access to secondary education – UNICEF

uring the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) World Literacy Day, United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) Representative, Sylvie Fouet, gave an analysis of the education sector in Guyana, which highlighted the fact that only half of the children in the hinterland communities attend secondary school after they would’ve graduated from the primary education programme. “Literacy is a child’s right that is very important to a right to quality education but overall, literacy also empowers and develops a young person to become an adult. In Guyana, it’s very critical to overcome the fact that there are a couple of challenges that are part of school. Data states that 75 per cent of teenagers will access secondary school in Guyana and maybe outside the coastal area, actually its 50 per cent,” said Fouet. Despite multiple calls by the Parliamentary Opposition for work to be done to address several concerns of Amerindians in Guyana, no substantial work has been done.

The promise made by the Coalition during the 2015 General and Regional elections campaign was that it would “create jobs, jobs and more jobs in the shortest time possible.” Over three years later, the Finance Minister, Winston Jordan, is yet to unveil a national plan to create jobs. Instead, like President David Granger, he is now talking up the focus on persons creating jobs for themselves. “All good paying jobs, as far as I am concerned, can come from self-generation and that is why we have to focus a lot on small and medium businesses, creating entrepreneurs rather than traders out of people,” Jordan has said. President Granger has admitted that under his Government, the economy has not been able to produce “sufficient” new jobs. “On one hand I believe that the young people themselves have to stay in schools so they are better qualified. On the other hand, I think investors must allow what you call microenterprise to flourish, particularly in agro-processing,” he said, adding that it is his intention to engage the private sector to create funds for microenterprise, which can serve as a lending facility to young people. Notably, the plan for microenterprise funding was not included in the APNU+AFC manifesto. In a message from Granger, the manifesto stated that the APNU+AFC Coalition will provide: “Employment opportunities in science, technology, engineering, mining, agro-processing and the arts to provide jobs and promote economic growth.” The manifesto also promised that public expenditure measures would be determined by related factors, which include: Stimulating productivity, investment, savings and growth of the economy; and the provision of jobs, among other moves. “The APNU+AFC objective is an integrated employment strategy,” the manifesto added. Notably, however, President Granger, in a May 2016 broadcast of ‘The Public Interest’ noted that the Government does not have jobs to give out. “We need to change from the mindset that government owes people employment and create in the minds of young people the desire to go out there and work and do well…people even while they are in school will be encouraged to go into business rather than to look forward to jobs in the private sector,” he said. In the meantime, job creation concerns continue to grow with no action from the APNU+AFC Coalition Government.

The growing government neglect of interior areas is visible. The state of neglect seems to be having no impact on the government to take corrective action to stop the rapid decline of these important but small and fragile communities. The current state of neglect has reached unprecedented proportions, roads, culverts, bridges and trails are in deplorable state and villages face restricted travel and movement and escalating cost of living. The main artery connecting the coast to Administrative Regions Nos 7, 8, and 9 is in deplorable condition than ever seen in the last 2 decades. The social sector – education and health infrastructure- is declining at a rapid pace, compounded with limited school supplies and facilities and shortage of essential drugs and medical supplies everywhere and at all levels of the health system. In contrast to this dire situation, the government’s response has been uncaring and divorced from the needs of the people. A few Presidential grants of $20M here and there will not rectify the deterioration that is taking place. Monies are available, for example, the Amerindian Development Fund has available funds but the government seems to prefer to continue to “cherry–picking”

which villages will receive their project funds. The government has failed to give clear and unequivocal commitments that Amerindian land rights will be protected, that the principle of ‘free prior and informed consent’ will be followed in every case in their interaction with the Amerindian communities; that agreed-on projects for the development of Amerindian communities will be accelerated and delivered in a timely manner. On the part of the PPP/C, we commit to continue to support Amerindian participation and development and to continue to work with our Amerindian people, their elected leaders and all who would genuinely work with us, to protect the democratic gains that we have made and to further improve the quality of the lives of our Amerindian people, and, all Guyanese. As the “government in waiting” the PPP/C commits to ensure that we shall restore the rights of Amerindian peoples and their land rights and restore the attention and programmes and policies to enhance and modernize the development of the Amerindian communities that we had in place and to introduce new programmes to speed up the development of the Amerindian communities and hinterland regions.

18 WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

WEEKEND MIRROR 11-12 AUGUST, 2018 15

Granger’s 10 Focus on Guyana’s First People major promises

APNU+AFC gov’t promises to settle land titling – issues affecting Amerindian people and communities concerns ‘once and for all’ Three years later: List of APNU+AFC ignores - NOTHING DONE promises made to Amerindians Amerindians’ rights, and broken ‒ ALL byBROKEN gov’t increasing Three years later: List of promises made to Amerindians and broken by gov’t sincreasing On August 18, 2015, President David Granger outlined a 10-point “strategic and holistic plan” for Hinterland development. He claimed that the plan would have seen Amerindian communities becoming thriving economic units, extreme poverty being eradicated, youth unemployment being addressed and increased prosperity realised.

onths after Minister of Indigenous Peo- ers, Eric Phillips, in a series of letters written ples Affairs, Sydney Allicock, admitted to the media in March and April 2016. He that he failed to make progress with the repeated his arguments in 2017 that the AmerAmerindian Land Titling (ALT) programme, indians already had too much land and posited which gave the indigenous people legal rights that Afro-Guyanese, who were exploited and to their communities, little has been done to brought as slaves before some of the now excorrect this. “I have not been able to title any isting Amerindian groups, had none. village,” Allicock had said in May 2018. This was followed by a statement by a Although 13 communities applied for Ministerial Advisor, Mr. Vincent Alexander, of the Communiboundaries what will be- of given up toElections the end of last absolute inister grants for first time in this peri- of and a member the Guyana ComRonald Bulkan come of month, decide od, seventies, (7) have received approval andthe six municipality mission, on April 4, 2017,tothat, “therewhether can be have demarcated.isOut pending no discussion landstothat is notof saidbeen the government at anof the Mahdia, it encompasses twoon Amerindian they would like be part 23advanced communities, 14 have been issued with an integrated discussion on land as we are all stage in its quest Amerindian villages; Camp- the township. Both commucertificates of title. But not one single com- Guyanese and why must there be a separate to have in Region Micobie,”ofhe nities rejected munity has Mahdia so far received a titlebelltown under thisand treatment Amerindian lands” the governEight, Potaro-Siparuni be- said. moves. new Government. Then came thement’s statement by the Minister A total of US$10.7M was earnedOffering by the a within Ministry ofMahdia Social Protection, come Guyana’s tenth town. feeblethe excuse was amongKeith a list formerAnd People’s Progressive Party/ in the National Assembly alsoidentified in 2017 the APNU+AFC for theCivic actions Scott, of his Governof communities (PPP/C) government and left for the purpose that “Amerindians had too much land” and in Land ment, Bulkanthey has were said that by President David Granger of Coalition completingGovernment the Amerindian Titling “avaricious” and threatened that violation of the Amerindian government could not proin 2015 to be (ALT) programme. they would not benefit from thecommissioned oil revenues As has of May 2015,two 103AmerAmerindian they had too much land. The other three Act included ceedvillages and createasthe township to towns. were awarded Absolute (and Forever) com- the Amerindian At no time hasare the Bartica, APNU+AFC Coalition indian villages – Campbelland exclude Lethem, and munal grants of which 83 were demarcated by government dissociate itself from these public town and Micobie – in the villages as the law makes Mabaruma. The establish2014. Fifteen (15) applications for extensions pronouncements. boundaries township. inclusion ment of latter three also were pending of andthe 6 were awaitingprovision title by thefor theThe appointment bythe President David time General and admitted Regional to Elections Granger of a Commission of Inquiry Bulkan has of all. were However, it is unclear saw criticisms about a into lack held May 2015. ostensibly to address Amerindian theinbreach of the law. “We what law he isLands, referring to. of consultation with lands those This success was the culmination of a and lands of the Freed Africans and any other have arrived at the external The two villages were affected. very long struggle by Amerindian communi- lands, on March 10, 2017 has stirred concerns

includes titled villages in new township

ties to have their rights and their land rights – majority of which remain unaddressed. recognized. Following the Amerindian Lands This COI followed fast and unexpectedly Commission Report of 1969, an amendment on the heels of the previous disturbing statewas enacted in 1976 to the 1951 Amerindian ments by government officials and treatment Act which provided for the granting of lands of these communities in annual budgets and to Amerindian communities. programmes throughout this government’s In the same year sixty-four (64) Amerin- term. dian communities received legal recognition The National Toshaos Council, the sole to the lands they used and occupied. In 1991, legitimate representatives of all the elected these very state lands for an additional ten (10) leaders of the Amerindian villages in Guycommunities were granted under the State ana, with five Amerindian non-governmental Lands Act through the issuance of Absolute organizations, protested the imposition of the Grants. This brought the total percentage of Commission of Inquiry into Amerindian land lands owned by Amerindians to almost 6% of titling in April 2017 and called for its revocaGuyana’s territory. tion.Of The NTC in that “thethe majority of espite criticisms, the to 30 per cent. the government 15 sayingpromised Notably, after Government taking office, themembers, Coalitionthree 2017 to put on hold the COI’speople” examination of indigenous may not Coalition representaGovernment, sent home the entire relating to be Amerindian Christians.lands, pending is maintaining its push re- unit tivesdealing are fromissues the National with the Amerindian Land Titling programme. discussions with the NTC. This has been Meanwhile, the and Coaliduce the Management AmerindianUnit rep-wasToshaos and two The Project ben estab-Council stalemated with no follow up meetings no tion Government has come resentation on the Indigeare from local Amerindian lished in June 2014 to support the implemen- amendment of the gazetted terms of reference in for blows scrutiny over theofpast nousofPeople’s Commission organisations. tation the project. In 2010, MoAA together to exclude the COI’s continued all years for cutting the budgets (IPC). The has otherAmerindian 10 members with UNDP and the Office of the President communal lands titling. initiated a LandGeorge titling Project sought TheMinisParliamentary Opposition’s to of the Indigenousrequest Peoples Minister Norton thatwill cometofrom the: process for of titling the Speaker for anCommission, Adjournment Motion a despiteonarchairsapplications the Committee Ap- andtrydemarcaof Indigenous Peoples’ tion. Under the Guyana REDD Investment Definite Matter ofguments Urgent Public Importance by the People’s pointments, which made the + Affairs; Ministry of Public Fund (GRIF), the former People’s Progressive to discuss the Commission and to call for its Progressive Party/ Civic controversial move,Government via its Health; Ministry of Social Party/ Civic (PPP/C) in 2013 revocation on April 13, 2017 was considered (PPP/C) Parliamentarians report which is current beProtection; Private Sector signed a US$10.7M document for the imple- “not urgent”. fore the of National Assembly. mentation the Amerindian Land Commission; Titling and Environmen- – Alister Charlie, Yvonne Approval of the report tal ProtectionCLEAR Agency;GOALS Bar Pearson, Gail Teixeira and Demarcation project. February 2019, Director at the ALT project, under the former PPP/C Nigel Dharamlall – for them –In and the reduction of Am- General Association of The Guyana; Ministry of representation the Presidency, Joseph Harmon, major not to to achieve do so. three The PPP/C erindian of Guyana Gold government, and Diamondsought disclosed an efforta to settle the burning goals: completion of land titles issues and had argued the IPCthat – in requires twoMiners Association; Forest Parliamentarians issue of Amerindian land titling once and for demarcation process for all Amerindian vilthe Indigenous vote David of support in the Na- thatrequests, all,thirds President Granger will Products be meetingAssociation; lages that submitted increasedPeoples use of Commission has atomandate National Assembly. Oppositional Agricultural Research shortly with officials of the Guyana Lands and existing and alternative mechanisms resolve and Extension to and investigate treat with tion Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, Survey Commission (GLSC) and Minister of land Institute titling disputes thirdly aand communicathe rights of Amerindians. (NAREI); the strategy Inter-Rehas already saidAffairs, that the Indigenous People’s Sidney Allicock,andtion including a handbook describing so PPP/C that together theysupport can brainstorm the matter the process of titling,The demarcation social seventh and report of Organisation. will not this ligious andposition. come up with a win-win solution. To economic impact the of secured land tenure. Committee of AppointThe latter, the Inter-Redate there has been on this. While was Indigenous people in many Counments, in relation to the ligious Organisation, According tono theprogress report, report tries have right of use of the Land only, in appointment of members a proposal that came from the Coalition Government LAND RIGHTS QUESTIONED Guyana where the Indigenous People account of 9.7% the Indigenous People’s PNCR that General plans to reduce AmerinNotably, one of the early indications for Secretary, approximately of the population, Commission, was tabled Amna Ally, who defended dian representation on the Amerindian land rights were being questioned Amerindians own land including the forestsin the House March 2018. her Advisrecommendation by their 15-member came from one ofCommission the new Presidential resources within Titled in Lands.

Gov’t not budging: Amerindian representation on Indigenous People’s Commission to be reduced D

Three years later, that plan stands as evidence of more failures of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government and increases the list of promises made by the Coalition and broken. However, despite the failures to address the promises made in his 10-point plan, Granger and his Government ministers have gone silent on the issue.

n August 18, 2015, President David Granger outlined a 10-point “strategic and holistic plan” for Hinterland development. He claimed that the plan would have seen Amerindian communities becoming thriving economic units, extreme poverty being eradicated, youth unemployment being addressed and increased prosperity realised. MAKE THE STAND OUT A failures BIT WHEN YOU CoaliDO Three years later, TABLE that plan stands as evidence of more of the APNU+AFC tion Government and increases the list of promises made by the Coalition and broken. THE LAYOUT PLEASE However, despite the failures to address the promises made in his 10-point plan, Granger and his Government ministers have gone silent on the issue.

PROMISE MADE 1. Hinterland Education Support Programme

REALITY

No major initiative has been embarked on to date. The 2017 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Guyana released by the United States of America’s (USA) State Department, on page 11 states that: “They (Amerindians) have limited access to education and health care.”

2. Hinterland Employment and Youth Service Minister of Indigenous People’s Affairs,

Sydney Allicock, has gone on record to say that 40,000 persons are unemployed to date in the Hinterland communities.

3. The Hinterland Poverty Reduction Programme

No mention of any substantial work to improve the lives of Amerindians in Guyana was made in the 2017 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Guyana released by the United States of America’s (USA) State Department. Page 11 of the 2017 report states that: “The standard of living in indigenous communities was lower than that of most citizens.”

4. Hinterland Infrastructure Extension

No major initiative has been embarked on to date. No major Initiative has been embarked on to date. The 6,000 solar panel systems earmarked for distribution to Amerindian communities by the former PPP/C government were taken away from the communities by the APNU+AFC Coalition government.

6. Hinterland Happy Household Programme

No major initiative has been embarked on to date.

7. Hinterland and Indigenous People Lands

No new villages have received titles to lands in the last three years.

Programme 5. Hinterland Energy Development Programme

Commission

The Commission of Inquiry into Lands, which combined Amerindian and African land rights issues raised concerns that Amerindians would be dispossessed of their lands.

8. Hinterland Public Service Provision

No major initiative has been embarked on to date.

9. Hinterland Language Cultural and Sport

The Language Preservation Project started under the former PPP/C administration in 2013 is the only major effort being currently made in this are.

Scheme Service

The Project aimed to preserve the Arawak and other Amerindian languages.

10. Hinterland Tourism service

No major initiative has been embarked on to date.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

OP-ED: The APNU+AFC economic destabilization and political discrimination of Amerindians must stop By Pauline Sukhai, former Minister of Amerindian Affairs

he APNU+AFC Coalition Government political and economic discriminatory acts perpetrated on the Guyanese people has impacted Amerindians in a significant way; the termination of 1972 young Amerindian Community Service Officers(CSO’s) because they were deemed to be a political brigade can only be described as a spiteful act of political discrimination. The loss of income of young Amerindians CSO’s totaled G$700M per year and resulted in devastating consequences and hardship to the direct beneficiaries an estimated 12,000 family members and dependents. The abandonment of the YEAP/CSO project by the coalition government shattered the prospects for economic and job opportunities for youths, greatly diminishing the volume of village commerce and the collapse of promising profit margins, as the spending power of the CSO’s dwindled. The village brain-drain heightened as the unemployed youths sought alternative economic opportunities across the Brazilian borders, while others left the villages for the mining and forest areas seeking job opportunities, leaving behind families whose livelihood suffered as a result of the act of termination of the sole bread-winner in the majority of cases. The harsh reality of the termination of employment of the Amerindian youths without consultation and or consideration of their well-being, violated their economic right to employment, and to benefit from government sponsored training programmes aimed at responding to the lack of opportunities faced by Amerindian youths, while investing in human

resource development (developing capabilities and building capacities) at the village level. The loss economic means and disempowerment of Amerindian youths and create fertile grounds for silencing them into submission by a regime through discriminatory actions and the violation of rights. The APNU + AFC Coalition government in a feeble attempt to regain lost ground in hinterland communities, touted HEYS as the viable alternative to the CSO, promising to provide employment and entrepreneur support for young Amerindians. The Ministry of Indigenous Peoples Affairs the executing and implementing institution failed miserably to efficiently procure the required resources complementary to the HEYS project for facilitators to provide the requisite training, monitors lacked mobility to adequately provide oversight and according to the Auditor General report of 2018 the Ministry was unable to account for an estimated $864 million under the project. The Amerindian village economy took a double dive as - ADF/CDP funding (US$6M) funding cycle transitioned under the APNU+AFC coalition government and expired at the end of October 2018, this programme provided funding for 178 villages and communities with specific objectives to stimulate economic productivity, employment and income generation. The APNU/AFC coalition government has made no provision to continue the funding for CDP’s village projects in the 2019 budget. The non- renewal of the funding cycle means an estimated loss of funding to the village economy is ($107,500,000) annually, thereby halting funding support for expansion of the economic ventures undertaken by the village councils which ranged from agriculture, ec-

otourism, commerce, mining, aqua-culture among others. Further, the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples Affairs inability to efficiently distribution of school uniform within the last two to three years (2017, 2018 &2019) resulted in loss of earning by women and young girls in Amerindian villages, as the school uniform material distribution programme ensured financial benefits totaling $25M accruing to women and young girls for sewing of the uniforms each academic year, thus for earnings lost for the three years is estimated at $75M. The discontinuation of $10,000 grant to an estimated 33,000 hinterland school children totaling $330M annually also affected positively assisted families with particular emphasis on support for the students. The APNU+AFC Coalition government no doubt crafted a definitive course of action to sabotage the prospects for a robust Amerindian village economies, by abolishing government funded programme such as “Because We Care”, YEAP/ CSO’s, ADF/CDP’s, and the deliberate unwillingness to deliver school uniform materials over few years have directly impacted employment opportunities and have cumulatively undermined the livelihood options available for Amerindians youth, women and young girls. Finally, the introduction of VAT on hinterland travel and air freight and ever present tax collectors have added to higher cost of living for Amerindians. The assumption is crystal clear, Amerindians continued to be targeted by the APNU+AFC Coalition government. They bore the brunt of economic and political discrimination because of assumed loyalty to the PPP/C.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

‘Significant progress made under successive PPP/C administrations to improve welfare of Amerindians’ LEGISLATION

The Amerindian Act 2006 is an embodiment of policies that cover the protection of the general welfare and rights of Indigenous Peoples. It affirms the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples in specific stipulations that include governance, land rights and preservation, and Amerindian heritage. Passed a year before the UN-DRIP declaration, Guyana’s 2006 Amerindian Act includes key provisions relating to Amerindian people that are not dissimilar, in most instances, from those outlined in the declaration, and has thus been the legal stronghold for Amerindian development. TOURISM SUPPORT

In 2012, the Ministry financed eco-tourism projects for 19 Villages, each receiving utmost $1.5M. In 2013, twenty villages will be receiving grants at $1.5M each to the eco-tourism industry in their respective regions. The initial implementation of the first 27 Community Development Plans (CDPs) funded through the GRIF, 11 % account for projects that are related to ecotourism. HEALTH

The Amerindian Hostel data on inpatients reflect access to medical services at Georgetown Public Hospital thereby reducing further aggravation of health situations of Hinterland patients and providing better access to quality health services; safe and adequate accommodation for patients and welfare cases help ensure the psychological health and general well-being of those that are affected by sickness and other social issues. The fact that all villages have a health hut/health centre makes access to primary health care easier in villages and thus improving health conditions of villagers. Amerindian Residence accommodated a total of 7017 patients with their accompanying relatives up to 2014. The Residence provides a shelter for those patients who have been referred to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) for medical attention. Over the years, the purpose of this facility had evolved such that the most significant proportion of persons being accommodated is patients and those accompanying them. The Residence has also expanded its services to encompass persons in difficult situations including Domestic Violence, Trafficking in Persons, labour issues, discharged prisoners or any other similar situation. The Maternity waiting room at the Amerindian Hostel was constructed at a cost of $1.2M. The aim of the new facility is in keeping with Government’s commitment to ensure the safety of mothers and their babies and to ensure that every mother and child have access to adequate health care and provided with the best care and treatment. SOLAR PANEL AND ENERGY ACCESS

A total of 11, 000 solar panels were installed across all the regions. A mini-hydro power plant is about to be constructed in Cheung Mouth River to supply renewable energy to Region 8 villages. An additional 6000 solar panels are being procured for distribution to additional communities including some riverine communities CORE HOMES/HOME SUBSIDIES

A sum of $107.2M was spent on home improvement and 127 Core home were completed in the hinterlands

GOVERNANCE

Every year since the passing of the Amerindian Act, MoAA hosted the Annual National Toshaos Council Meeting (with an average budget of $50 M) to build capacity on: • Best practices in governance that includes transparency and accountability (audits); • Improved leadership for Toshaos and Village Councils in accordance to the Amerindian Act 2006; • Improved Community Management geared towards a holistic approach in Community Development; • Promoting dialog with government officials for the advancement of Amerindian welfare and total development of Amerindian villages; • Providing an opportunity for All Amerindian elected leaders to be able to have dialogue and exchanges on development priorities which challenges them; and • To provide a platform for the Amerindian Leaders have direct access to Government Ministers to dialogue on development challenges in various sectors and finding solutions ADF-GRIF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

A total of 187 Amerindian Villages and Communities were considered for economic projects under the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) - Guyana REDD+Investment Fund (GRIF). Some US$6.3M from GRIF is allotted for said projects under the Amerindian Development Fund (ADF). Twenty- Seven (27) projects from across all regions have been chosen for the initial implementation of the project which has commenced early part of 2013 with a budget of US$1.8M. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all the projects are in agriculture with the aim of securing Amerindian livelihoods. ADF Project Management Unit were up and running to facilitate full implementation of 160 CDPs. CULTURE

The preservation and promotion of Amerindian heritage is germane to Amerindian’s identity. The cultural activities have been the media for Amerindian culture to be accepted and understood by other groups in Guyana, at the same time, an avenue for all Amerindians to celebrate their heritage and embrace their indigenous roots and identity. By continuing to protect Amerindian culture, Amerindians are able to understand the significance of their dances, languages, practices, local knowledge, cuisine, crafts, songs, and literature to the total development of their villages. The government is cognizant of the fact that culture is one of the pillars of sustainable development, and without it, and then development is not fully achieved. Some $25M was spent on average annually in for Amerindian Heritage Celebrations to promote traditions, values, literature , dances of Amerindians. Another $6M was spent annually for other cultural activities The Initiatives include: Arawak Revival Language Project launched in Capoey; Support to Cultural Expo (North Pakaraimas) - $5M; and Support to cultural groups of Aisalton ($1.4M) and Santa Rosa ($7M) OTHER INVESTMENTS

• Mining including gold, diamond, various metals, bauxite • Forestry • Agriculture • Information Communication and Technology- 99 hubs were completed by 2014 to accommodate the computers 20 in number to commence the computer literacy training of youths, women and residents including children.

LAND OWNERSHIP

Prior to 1992, 74 communities were titled. Since, then 24 more villages were granted titles, thereby bringing the total of titled villages to 98, seventy-seven of which had been demarcated. Six (6) titles were to be approved prior to May 2015 and seven (7) extension were investigated and in preparation for approval While Indigenous people in many Countries have right of use of the Land only, in Guyana where the Indigenous People account for approximately 9.7% of the population, Amerindians own land, including the forests resources within their Titled Lands. YOUTH DEVELOPMENT/SUPPORT

The MoAA has launched the Youth Apprenticeship Programme (YEAP) aimed to train young Amerindians while employing them at the same time and become powerful partners in development. Some $200M was spent on YEAP in 2013. Focus was placed on developing 2,000 Community Support Officers (CSOs) participate productively in Education, Health, and Social Welfare, Community Development, Culture, ICT, Infrastructure and small business. The CSOs received training in various areas, including: • Management of Photovoltaic System • Management of Basic ICT hardware • Governance & Amerindian Act • Youth Voices for Climate Change (Sponsored by the US Embassy/Caribbean Development Bank educate youths on the importance of Climate Change and its impact in the Caribbean) • Business & Sustainable Development • Various aspect of the Community Development Project training The Youth Apprenticeship Programme was aimed at training young Amerindians while employing them at the same time is a medium to empower the young as partners in national development. These youths will be our partners in the implementation of CDPs and other socio-economic activities that are taking place in the villages now. The inclusion of the young in gearing their villages towards progress by letting them participate productively in technical, mechanical, computer, and agricultural activities will definitely enhance the capacity of the villages’ human resources. AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT

Tractors, farm implements, fertilizers, acoushi ant bait, irrigation systems, and other infrastructures provided for villages every year An average of $50M per year was given in agricultural support for various villages through the years COMMUNICATION

Computer Accessibility through 100 computer hubs commenced in 2013. Some $287.7M was allotted for solar systems for ICT hubs; and 57,000 person-beneficiaries. As at 2014: 72 of these hubs are completed;9 hubs near completion and the HUBs were constructed into Regions of 1, 7, 8 and 9. All villages now have radio sets for fast communication, each one costs $500,000 Telecommunication facilities built in Mabaruma, Port Kaituma, Red Hill, Morucca, Aishalton, Annai, Lethem, Ominaik, and Mahdia, thus improving communication in the hinterlands!

18 AMERINDIAN LAND TITLING PROJECT (ALT)

In 2010, MoAA together with UNDP and the Office of the President initiated a Land titling Project that sought to process applications for titling and demarcation. When it started, some 13 new communities were considered for titling, 32 applications for extension of land were made; and 33 Villages were demarcated. Some US$10.75 was been allotted for the project under the LCDS-GRIF. A Project Management Unit was established in June 2014 to facilitate the implementation of the project. Under the APNU+AFC Government, the Unit was disbanded. Government of Guyana has also allotted $77.9M in its 2013 national budget for this purpose. This means that 89% of eligible villages have thus far been titled, and only 11% remains to be titled by 2015. TRANSPORTATION

The PPP/C government consistently allocated funds for Land and Water Transport to improve transportation services in villages, and thus improving Access to hospitals and health centers and posts. Boats, outboard engines, ATVs, Mini-buses, Pick-ups, Motorcycles have been provided to almost all the villages through the years; and more. PRESIDENTIAL GRANTS

From the year 2007 to 2013, the Government of Guyana invested $1,172,000,000 to 189 Amerindian communities for Economic, Agriculture, Tourism, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Social Projects. In 2012 and 2013 alone $M359, 800,000 was allotted for this program to 189 Amerindian Communities. In 2014, 200M is allotted for this project, and 28 villages have thus far received their grant. EDUCATION

Access to Primary Education was advanced and 100 % of villages have primary schools Better access to secondary education was pushed and through 14 secondary schools in the hinterland were set up. Under the Hinterland Scholarship Programme sixty two (62) students were awarded Hinterland Scholarships in 2014. In 2013, 430 total students are in the roll which is an 18% increase from the total of 362 students in 2012. An average of 50 Hinterland students per year for the past decade is added to the list of grantees. Some $94.5M spent for Liliendaal, East Coast Demerara, with state of the art facilities, was home to an average of 90 students per year . All secondary schools have dormitories. The cost per student per year in the Dormitory is $994,780; (inclusive of transportation and allowances). The Cost per student living with Guardians in the Interior is $214,000 per year. For those living in Dormitories in the region including President’s College is $99,000 per year. School Uniform Distribution commenced in 2007 to increase school attendance in hinterland areas by ensuring students have the necessary uniforms. The programme benefitted 30,000 hinterland students from Regions 1, 7, 8, and 9.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

City Hall still withholds records from Audit Office

‒ audit delayed

he Audit Office of Guyana is still awaiting documents from the City Hall to complete an audit into its financial affairs, and this process remains delayed while the Mayor is unaware as to why or when these records will be provided. Auditor General, Deodat Sharma, disclosed that the audit is still delayed because officials of the Council are yet to submit relevant documents. “It is delayed. Once we get the records, we can continue. They have to supply the documents that were needed so it is ongoing,” he stated. Meanwhile, Mayor of Georgetown, Ubraj Narine, could not supply the specifics on when Council plans to meet these requirements. “I am unaware of

that. The Town Clerk would know,” the Mayor positioned. The decision to conduct an audit stemmed from the alarming findings of the Commission of Inquiry, which exposed financial irregularities and mismanagement at the Council. Commissioner, retired Justice Cecil Kennard, had called for the Audit Office of Guyana to conduct a forensic audit into the entity’s management even as officers are being disciplined. During the CoI hearings, financial records from the Audit Office were presented by the Audit Manager, Dhanraj Persaud, which showed unaccountability for millions of dollars. Persaud showed that Central Government, through the Communities Ministry, had supplied funds for city restoration projects at a sum of $300 million in 2015 and in 2016,

another $200 million was injected into the initiative which totalled an overall balance of $500 million. However, when checks were made into the pieces of evidence presented for the expenditure of these projects, $70.489 million was unaccounted for. “For 2016, Council did not produce evidence to account for amount totalling $70.489 million,” he said. It has been made public that the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) has a history of failing to source records. In the course of six years which date back to the period from 2006 to 2011, there have been no financial records for the disbursement of monies at City Hall. In 2012, records were also damaged but from 2013 to 2015, some amount of files was presented for auditing, for which they were able to inspect and extract information.

City Hall in Focus Shocking multi-million dollar contract for Bourda Market cleaning

nformation was released to Councillors of the Georgetown Mayor and City Council (M&CC) at a recent meeting which showed that the City Council had signed a contract with a company to clean Bourda Market and the surroundings for a whopping $1,795,000 per week exclusive of VAT. The Council was also paying that company an additional $315,000 per week to collect and dispose of all waste from Bourda Market even though the City Council had contracted garbage removal companies to remove residential and commercial garbage from across the municipality. What is mind-boggling here is that the City Council has three departments with a very high number of sanitation workers who could have been assigned to clean Bourda Market. It is certainly a mystery why an outside company was given a sweetheart contract to clean the market especially when no highly specialized skills or complex equipment were needed to get the job done. It is a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money to be paying $109,720,000 annually to clean Bourda market. Think of all the repair and other works that could have been accomplished with that massive amount of money. The Solid Waste Department was without any vehicles as of the last Council meeting since all of their vehicles were in the workshop. One can reasonably conclude that the contract signed to clean Bourda market is a crooked one which needs to be investigated

immediately. We call on the Local Government Commission, the Guyana Police Force, SARA, the Auditor General and other relevant agencies to investigate this matter urgently. This is a wanton waste and misuse of taxpayers’ money and is further proof that the entire operations of the City Council must be subjected to a comprehensive forensic audit and criminal investigations. Even though the City Council is currently looking into this matter, we also strongly support a comprehensive forensic audit of the Georgetown City Council with special emphasis on the numerous contracts which were signed without following the tendering procedures or getting the approval of the full Council. COMPACTOR DOWN The City Council had 2 garbage compactors which were located at Stabroek and Bourda Markets. However, Councillors were informed that these compactors have been down for

approximately three years and so the Council had been renting compactors from Cevons and Purans, the main garbage contractors. We were told that the cost to rent each compactor is approximately $45,000 per week but I am not sure if they quoted us the correct amount. In any event, the Council’s Workshop Manager was grilled at the last Statutory meeting as to the availability of parts and the cost to repair the compactor and to the surprise of everyone, he stated that the parts were available locally at a cost of $500,000. So the City Council was paying $2.2M annually to rent one compactor when they could have repaired it for $500,000 and saved the Council $5.9M over the three-year period. This is just another case of the wanton waste of taxpayers’ money and the gross mismanagement of the City Council. The Georgetown City Council has been in a perpetual state of financial difficulties over many years and it is easy to understand why it is so from just the two foregoing incidents. We are calling for a complete overhaul of the City Council inclusive of the relevant laws and also a comprehensive forensic audit of the Council. The residents and stakeholders of Georgetown cannot continue to accept the corruption and gross mismanagement of the Council and the lack of effective and efficient services.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Special focus will be placed on closing inequality gaps – PPP/C presidential candidate T

he positive track record of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) is clear in the minds of all Guyanese, as is the failures of the current APNU+AFC Coalition Government, according to PPP/C presidential candidate, Irfaan Ali. During a televised interview on Sunday (June 23, 2019), he pointed out that the progress and prosperity of a nation and its peoples depends on the governance philosophy of the government of the day. He said, “Over the last few months I've been visiting various communities and interacting with persons, some of whom are directly affected as a result of various policies of the government…policies that have taken away income from them, taken away their ability to earn and taken away their ability to provide for their families…it is a sad reality of our country today. “…if you look it is all about the philosophy, when the People's Progressive Party/ Civic was in government, our approach to growth and development was a pro-poor approach…as we focused on building the economy and creating wealth for our people, we also spent a lot of

time to ensure that there were social safety nets that there were programmes and policies that helped the smaller person in the society…our focus was to ensure that all areas of society benefited from the economic progress and development of our country.” Ali disclosed that work on the PPP/C manifesto continues and is guided by a clear philosophy that will create opportunities for all Guyanese. He said, “The philosophy that we have now is one where the economy is not performing…taxation and wasteful spending are increased…we have seen targeted programmes to help the vulnerable and poor being dismantled…we have seen money from key pro-

grammes being reduced and the money transferred to extravagant spending…over the last four years what we have really seen is approximately $13.7 billion dollars directly taken away from different segments of our society –whether it be children, the elderly, women and Guyanese families…thousands of Guyanese have been affected by the misguided policies of this government. “….if you do not address in a philosophical way issues of cost of living and bring some sort of balance in where the economy is going, then you cannot have inequality gaps being closed.” VULNERABLE GROUPS Focusing on women, children and the elderly, Ali stated that the PPP/C plans, once it resumes office, included targeted programmes to increase standard of living, reduce costs and widen social programmes that will ensure a safety net is in place for vulnerable groups, including the elderly. “The elderly, children and women has really felt the brunt of the misguided policies of this government,” he said Regarding the elderly, the PPP/C presidential can-

didate noted that re-instating programme to help are quintessential. “Society advances as our economy advances, so too must social safety net policies in relation to the protection of children and the elderly…we must ensure that their prospects their future are also adequately addressed, as the economy grow, as well expands,” he said. On children, Ali said, “We have $8.5 billion that was taken away from our children school children with the removal of the cash grant. We are going to immediately look at reinvesting in our children. This $8.5 billion will be a start….we are looking at taking this up over a period of five years to $50,000 per child so this is going to help mothers. It is going to help single parents. It is going to help women. It is going to help families.” GREATER EQUALITY In relation to the development of women, he said the advancement of women depends on ensuring that they benefit from the economic development. Ali said, “Some of the things we have to are to ensure that women play a key role in the

economy, whether it is entrepreneurial training or another programme….we're going to focus a lot on entrepreneurial training for women and one of the things that we must do to in entrepreneurial training is access to capital and that this is something that has affected women a lot. “…for example when we had a uniform allowance for school children, we had in the Amerindian areas – because indigenous women also face different circumstances – a system where the women would sew the uniform so that they benefitted from the cash that came in…. we had to put in capital to invest in the sewing machines. “…as we did in the past, we will have to define some strategic initiatives to support women. “…we also have to look at how we can push businesses women are interested in, while we push ICT (Information Communication and Technology)…we have to have more women involved in the ICT sector…this will also improve their ability to earn and to contribute to the greater disposable income in their families….we can encourage women beyond small businesses, beyond

small enterprises, because women are becoming very qualified and they are outstripping men in terms of academic and education.” The PPP presidential candidate stressed that there will be greater focus on ensuing equal opportunity that will bring more benefits to women. MORE INITIATIVES FOR ADVANCEMENT Policies to support children, woman and the elderly are only some of the initiatives that will receive greater attention in the PPP/C manifesto, which will be launched ahead of the expected General and Regional Elections. Ali said, “Guyanese will see more initiatives, many of which we'll announce in the manifesto. Guyanese will see a greater level of investment into the social safety nets to protect our people and ensure that all of them, all our people, all Guyanese, benefit.” According to him, moving Guyana forward is a journey that all Guyanese will take together. “We are going to do this together. We are going to ensure that all Guyanese benefit and all Guyana will become a better place,” Ali declared.

Gov’t attempts to mislead CCJ judges send clear signals about the fight for democracy – Nandlall T

he judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), on Monday (June 24, 2019) were subjected to a barrage of misleading statements intended to create a wrong impression of the reality in Guyana and the relation to the reality of the electoral system, all done with the objective of delaying the holding of elections, according to former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall. Nandlall, who is also part of the team representing the Parliamentary Opposition at the CCJ, said, “This is the behaviour of despots. This is the behaviour of political dictators. This is the behaviour of people who are not prepared to embrace democracy and the rule of law.” After hearing from the

lawyers in the cases before the CCJ, President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, mandated that written submissions be sent to the Court by July 1, 2019. He added that the Court will hand down court orders on July 12, 2019. Nandlall said, “We witnessed the misleading of the Court by the Attorney General, Basil Williams, who said that the President wrote to the Leader of the Opposition inviting him to a meeting and that the Leader of the Opposition did not respond, creating the impression that the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of some delay, when the letter said very clearly that the meeting was suppose to take place after the 24th June 2019, that is after the consequential or-

ders would have been made and therefore that meeting was suppose to discuss the consequential orders. “Another point that was made that it totally misleading is the conveying of the impression to the Court by the Attorney General, by Stanley Marcus and by Eamon Courtney that house to house registration is a sine qua non for elections in Guyana. That is an absolute lie and it is contrary to the statutory and legal reality of our electoral system. House-to-house registration is a system that has been replaced by a continuous registration system implemented since 2005. “So, we went to the 2011 elections, we went to the 2015 elections, we went to the 2016 Local Government

elections, 2018 Local Government elections without any house-to-house registration. But, by a database existing that was cyclically updated in a continuous manner, in accordance with the law, as provided for by a series of statutory provisions. Significantly also, that system has an inherent mechanism for claims and objections to allow for claims to be made and for deletion to be made as well, based upon objections. “Another significant misleading statement, which has been made to the Court, is that the system is not ready. GECOM system is very much ready. The PPP has on the Commission three Commissioners, who meet on a regular basis and they also have an appreciation of

the readiness of the system. What is being told to the Court that they are not ready is a complete and utter lie, because, on the 27th December 2018, GECOM made a public statement, days after the No-Confidence Motion was passed, that they are going to be ready in three months. What we are hearing now is a dilatory delay tactic playing out. “…fortunately, the Court said very clearly that all sides must make submissions by Monday coming (1st July 2019) and that they will make their definitive, conclusive and final ruling, including consequential orders, by the 12th July 2019. So, this masquerade and the charade will finally come to an end and it is sincerely hoped that the Court in mak-

ing those orders will give effect to the framers of the Constitution, give effect to Articles 106 (6) and (7) and all the statutory provisions in relation to elections and how elections are going to be held in Guyana.” According to him, this “episode and saga” has demonstrated to the world the battle that Guyana has to go through against the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, simply to secure democracy and to protect the ballot of the people. “That is the struggle and that is always the struggle when the PNC is in a Government. That is the history of Guyana and that is the political reality of Guyana. Hopefully, the CCJ in its rulings on the 12th will crush that,” Nandlall said.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 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 the validity of the no-confidence motion.)

CCJ declares that the no-confidence motion is VALID (PART 1) J

udgment of the Honourable Justice Saunders, and the Honourable Justices Wit and Rajnauth-Lee and concurring judgments of The Honourable Justice Wit and Justice Anderson, delivered by the Honourable Mr Justice Saunders, President of the CCJ. [1] Guyana last held General Elections on 11 May 2015. The list of candidates headed by Mr David Granger secured 33 of the 65 seats in the National Assembly. In keeping with the provisions of the Constitution, Mr Granger was appointed President of the Republic and he duly formed his Cabinet. The list of candidates headed by Mr Bharrat Jagdeo secured the remaining 32 seats and so Mr Jagdeo became the Leader of the Opposition. [2] Some three and a half years into the life of the administration, Mr Jagdeo moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. All 65 members of the National Assembly were present at the vote on 21 December 2018. They all voted. Unexpectedly, and to the deep displeasure of members on the Government side, Mr Charrandas Persaud, a member whose name was extracted from the Granger list, joined all the Opposition members in voting for the motion. The result was that thirty-three members voted in favour of the motion while thirty-two voted against. The Speaker of the Assembly announced that the motion had been passed and the Clerk issued Resolution 101 to affirm this. [3] Article 106(6) of the Constitution states that 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.” Article 106(7) goes on to state, among other things, that notwithstanding its defeat, the government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months. That threemonth period may, however, be extended by a resolution of the Assembly that is supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members. [4] The Government did not resign following the December 21st vote and no

resolution has been passed to prolong its continuance in office. It turned out that Mr Persaud had been for some years a Canadian citizen and the Constitution disqualifies non-Guyanese and dual citizens from being elected to membership of Parliament. The natural course outlined in Articles 106(6) and 106(7) did not occur. Litigation ensued. [5] Three cases were filed in the High Court concerning whether the motion of no confidence had validly been passed. The first action was commenced on 4 January 2019 by Mr Compton Reid, a private citizen. The respondents were Mr Persaud, Mr Jagdeo, Dr Barton Scotland (the Speaker of the National Assembly), and Mr Joseph Harmon (a Representative of one of the political parties whose members were on Mr Granger’s list). Mr Reid claimed, among other things, a declaration that Mr Persaud’s vote on the no confidence motion was invalid because of Mr Persaud’s dual citizenship at the time of the 2015 elections. [6] On 7 January 2019, the Attorney General filed proceedings in which Dr Scotland, Mr Jagdeo and Mr Harmon were respondents. The Attorney General contended that the no confidence motion had not validly been passed because the formula for achieving an ‘absolute majority’ in the Assembly was at least one half of the Members plus one. Utilising this formula, it was said that 34 votes would be required to pass the motion. [7] On 8 January, a third action was commenced by Mr Christopher Ram. Mr Ram is a citizen, a Chartered Accountant and Attorney at Law. This suit was brought against the Attorney General, Mr Jagdeo and Mr Harmon. Mr Ram sought declarations that the motion had been properly passed by the 33 votes cast in the Assembly and that national and regional elections were required to be held no later than 21 March 2019 in keeping with the provisions of Article 106(7) of the Constitution. [8] The validity of Mr Persaud’s vote, the nature of the majority that is necessary validly to pass a motion of no

confidence, the constitutional consequences upon the passage of such a motion, and a range of other questions were posed in the cases filed. Some of these questions implicate constitutional issues of enormous significance going to the heart of the philosophical underpinnings of Guyana’s “hybrid” Constitution. For example, issues of the relationship between the parliament and the executive, the validity of the votes of members of the National Assembly who choose to defy the party whip and vote according to their conscience and relatedly, the extent of the obligation of members of the National Assembly to support the List from which their names were extracted and the jurisdiction of the court to rule on claims that a person is disqualified from being a member of the National Assembly. It is to the tremendous credit of Guyana’s justice system that the consolidated cases were heard expeditiously, and a full and well-reasoned judgment was delivered on 31 January 2019 by Chief Justice Roxanne George. [9] The Chief Justice found that the no confidence vote was properly passed with 33 votes. She held that a ‘majority of all elected members’, in keeping with Article 106(6), was ‘simply one above the maximum number of potential opposers.’ She further held that while Mr Persaud was disqualified from being elected in the 2015 elections, any challenge to his appointment to the National Assembly had to be made pursuant to the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act. As that Act required that such challenge be made within 28 days of the 2015 election, the attempt now to challenge Mr Persaud’s appointment was barred as the court lacked jurisdiction. The Chief Justice held further that even if Mr Persaud was disqualified, this circumstance would not affect his vote on the motion of no confidence. This was because Article 165(2) of the Constitution preserved the validity of his participation in the proceedings of the Assembly. [10] The Court of Appeal agreed with the Chief Justice that Mr Reid’s claim was barred by the Nation-

al Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act and that Mr Persaud’s vote was valid based on Article 165(2). A majority, however, agreed with the Attorney General’s ‘half plus one’ formula and found that the no confidence motion required 34 votes in order to be validly passed. Justice Rishi Persaud upheld the Chief Justice’s decision in its entirety. [11] All the parties had some measure of dissatisfaction with the decision of the Court of appeal’s majority. Messrs Ram, Jagdeo and Persaud (“the Appellants”) appealed the majority decision that 33 votes could not carry the motion. The Attorney General, Mr Reid and Mr Harmon (conveniently lumped together as “the Respondents”) lodged a cross appeal disputing the unanimous finding as to the lack of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the challenge to Mr Persaud’s election to the National Assembly. [12] The written and oral submissions of counsel in the consolidated cases raise the following questions: (a) Does Article 106(6) apply to ‘No Confidence Motions’? (b) What is the majority necessary for the passage of a no confidence motion? (c) Does the Court have jurisdiction to inquire into the issue of Mr Persaud’s disqualification from being a member of the National Assembly? (d) Was Mr Persaud precluded from voting in the manner he did in light of the anti-defection provisions (Art 156(3)) of the Constitution? (e) Does Article 165(2) of the Constitution preserve the validity of Mr Persaud’s vote? (f) What consequences attend the answers to the above questions? DOES ARTICLE 106(6) APPLY TO A NO CONFIDENCE MOTION? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MOTION OF CONFIDENCE AND A MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE? [13] As indicated at [3] above, Article 106(6) speaks to the resignation of the Government if it is defeated “on a vote of confidence” by the vote of a majority of all the

elected members of the National Assembly. The Respondents submit that there is a fundamental difference between a motion of confidence and a motion of no confidence; that the political result of a Government’s defeat on these respective motions drastically differ; and that the consequences set out in Article 106(6), which prescribe that the government must resign if it is defeated on a motion of confidence, are inapplicable to those circumstances when the government is defeated on a motion of no confidence. [14] In support of these submissions Mr Courtenay SC relied on a Briefing Paper by Richard Kelly titled Confidence Motions; a passage from Basu’s Commentary on the Indian Constitution and the text and history of Article 106(6) itself and its relationship to Article 156 of the Constitution. The reference to Kelly’s Confidence Motions is interesting because Kelly is discussing a core principle of parliamentary democracy as developed in the United Kingdom and as is observed in that and in many other parliamentary democracies. Throughout the course of the proceedings there was much discussion about the uniqueness of Guyana’s Constitution. That what Kelly has to say may be relevant to Guyana appears to be an acknowledgment that certain aspects of Guyana’s hybrid Constitution are traceable back to its UK parliamentary roots and that in unravelling those aspects one may benefit from an understanding of the history and conventions of Westminster parliamentarianism. [15] Kelly’s briefing paper begins by noting that: “[i]t is a core convention of the UK constitution that the Government must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The traditional position was that a Government that lost a confidence vote would resign in favour of an alternative administration, or the Prime Minister would request a dissolution from the Queen, triggering a general election...” [16] The position in the United Kingdom today is different because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011

but, what Kelly describes as “a core convention of the UK Constitution” is set out as an explicitly stated constitutional imperative in Guyana’s Constitution. In Guyana, the Cabinet is accountable to the National Assembly. The Cabinet is collectively responsible to the Parliament. This is specifically stated in Article 106(2). The manner in which effect is given to this core constitutional imperative is by requiring the government at all times to enjoy the confidence of a majority in the National Assembly. If that confidence is demonstrably lacking, the government collapses. One of the unique features of Guyana’s Constitution is that it is possible for a List whose members comprise only a minority of members in the National Assembly nonetheless to win the Presidency and hence constitute the Executive authority. The Constitution envisages, however, that such a government’s precarious hold on power is conditional upon no express motion of no confidence against it being validly passed by the majority of the members of the National Assembly. [17] Article 106(2) and 106(6) give effect to this fundamental principle of responsible or accountable government. The fact that Article 106(6) speaks of “a motion of confidence” and not a motion of no confidence is unimportant. It does not affect the operation of the principle. These are mere linguistic differences denoting different sides of the same coin. Motions of confidence are used strategically, whether initiated by the government or the opposition, to serve their own political ends. In the one case, the aim of the government supporter moving the motion may be to demonstrate Parliament’s confidence in the government at a period when the government or the state as a whole is experiencing challenging times. Alternatively, the aim of an opposition supporter may be to embarrass or bring down the government when it is thought that confidence by the Assembly in the government is shaky. Any member of the Assembly is authorised and entitled to move any such (Turn to page 21)

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

CCJ declares that the no-confidence... motion before the Assembly. Article 106(6) recognises this by not making a distinction between a confidence motion that is usually brought by a member on the government side, and a confidence motion (or more accurately defined as a no confidence motion) invariably brought by a member of the opposition. Each of these motions is subsumed under the broad heading “confidence motions.” [18] Kelly’s Briefing Paper itself notes that motions of confidence and motions of no confidence are both subsumed under the general heading Forms of Confidence Motions. The writer states: “Broadly speaking, there are three main types of motion which act as test of the House of Commons’ confidence in the Government: ‘confidence motions’ initiated by the Government; ‘no confidence motions’ initiated by the opposition; and other motions which, because of the particular circumstances, can be regarded as motions of censure or confidence.” [19] The principle that the government must enjoy the confidence of a majority in the National Assembly or Parliament was also embodied in the 1966 Independence Constitution. Article 37(1) of that Constitution, for example, stated: “37. (1) If the National Assembly passes a resolution, supported by the votes of a majority of all elected members of the Assembly declaring that it has no confidence in the Government and the Prime Minister does not within seven days of the passing of such a resolution either resign or advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament, the Governor General shall revoke the appointment of the Prime Minister.” [20] The passage from Basu cited by counsel, far from assisting the Respondents, actually confirms the similarity in consequences of both a successful vote on no confidence and a failure on a vote of confidence. Basu states: “Some Constitutions provide for the Government itself seeking a vote of confidence from the popular House of Parliament. It is evident, that if the Government fails to obtain such vote, it would be tantamount to the passing of a vote of no-confidence, and the Government must then resign.” [21] Contrary to what was submitted by counsel, Article 106(6) does not at all hinge on the provisions of the anti-defection regime set out at Article 156. The former,

which reflects the principle of responsible government, preceded by a long way the introduction of the anti- defection regime. The latter, which will be discussed later, is separate and distinct from the concept of responsible government. The anti-defection provisions merely seek to prevent a member of the National Assembly from “crossing the floor” or, having been elected on a particular List, to disassociate himself or herself from that List and continue in parliament as an independent member. Article 156 arms the Representative of the List with the power easily to replace a member on the List whose support for the List is uncertain or who has exhibited some behaviour that is unacceptable to the Representative. The anti-defection regime stands on its own. [22] In all the circumstances, as all the judges in Guyana have also concluded, we disagree that Article 106(6) is inapplicable to the motion of no confidence that was passed in December 2018. We also do not agree that the Leader of the Opposition is disentitled from moving a motion of no confidence in the government. WHAT IS THE MAJORITY NECESSARY FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION? [23] One does not have to study law to appreciate that the word “majority” means the greater of two parts. Caribbean Constitutions contain provisions for (a) what one might call a “super” majority, that is a two-thirds or three-fifths or three-fourths majority as the case may be; (b) a “simple” majority; and (c) an “absolute” majority. In this case we are not dealing with a super majority. The issue in question here concerns the other two expressions. It is not difficult to distinguish between a “simple” majority and an “absolute” majority in parliament. The former refers to the majority obtained when the votes of those present and voting are tallied. An absolute majority, on the other hand, refers to a majority of the total number of votes or seats in the Assembly irrespective of the number of members who actually vote. If every member of the Assembly votes Yes or No on a motion, the distinction between “simple” and “absolute” disappears for all practical purposes. [24] When Article 106(6) speaks to “a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly”, the Constitution makes it clear

that a simple majority of those voting will not suffice. The expression in the Article therefore refers to an absolute majority. So, if for example, only 62 members of the Assembly had voted on the December 2018 motion, with 32 voting in favour of the motion and 30 against, the motion would not have carried although those in favour would have received two more votes than those against. The reason for this is that since the Assembly comprises 65 members it is a majority of 65 (and not a majority of 62) that would have been required. [25] The case of Kilman v Speaker of Parliament of Vanuatu10 was cited by the Respondents. Far from supporting their contentions on this point, Kilman illustrates what has just been stated. The words of the Court of Appeal in that case (to the effect that “the phrase ‘an absolute majority of the Members of Parliament’, can only mean at least half the Members of Parliament plus one”) must be seen in the context of the peculiar facts of that case. Kilman was a case where the Vanuatu parliament consisted of 52 members. Only 51 voted on a particular motion that required an absolute majority. The result of the vote was 26:25. It was in this context that the court said as is stated above. Twenty-six votes could not carry the motion because what was needed was a majority of 52 and since 52 was an even number, in that specific context that majority could only be obtained via the formula of “half the Members of Parliament plus one” [26] Similarly to no avail is the Anguillan case of Hughes v Rogers.11In that case the question concerned the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum. The Assembly comprised 11 members. The quorum requirement was two-thirds. Mathematically, two thirds of 11 yields 7.3. The question was whether to constitute the quorum one should round up to 8 or round down to 7 members. The court held that since the concept of a quorum meant the least number possible for the valid transaction of business, one could not round down to 7 as that number would fall below the mandated quorum of 7.3. One should round up to 8 which would satisfy the quorum condition. Hughes v Rogers, therefore, has no relevance to the question at hand. [27] The Guyana Assembly comprises an odd number of persons (i.e. 65). When all the members of the Assembly are present and vote

(as was the case here), all that is necessary is to follow the wording of the Constitution and determine whether the motion has garnered “a majority of all the elected members.” Such a majority is clearly at least 33 votes. On the 21 December 2018 we would venture to suggest that every member of the Assembly knew this. The Clerk certainly knew it. And so too did the Speaker who announced that the motion had passed. Since the Assembly comprises an odd number, there is no need to imply into the Constitution any formula for defining a majority as being “half plus one”. Indeed, as an American judge noted, the ‘50% plus one rule’ leads to illogical results when it is applied to odd numbers. So, for example, it is trite that when a Court of Appeal sits as a panel of three, a majority decision is 2:1. The Chief Justice was therefore right when she adjudged that a majority from among 65 members is a minimum of 33. DOES THE COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE INTO THE ISSUE OF MR PERSAUD’S DISQUALIFICATION FROM BEING A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY? [28] Section 155(1)(a) of the Constitution states: “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who – (a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state...” [29] The question here is whether Mr Persaud was “qualified for election.” On nomination day for the general elections at which he was elected as a member of the Assembly, Mr Persaud was a citizen of Canada. He had sworn an oath of allegiance to Canada in order to become a citizen of that country. On nomination day he was therefore, by his own act, under an acknowledgment of allegiance to a foreign state. He was accordingly not qualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly. [30] Purely as a matter of interest, Mr Persaud’s position was not singular. There were other elected members who, like him, were citizens of other countries when they had their names placed on their party’s List on nomination day in 2015. Following the imbroglio surrounding the December 21st vote and the filing of the court cases, most or all of these persons have since resigned or been removed from the National

Assembly. Mr Persaud fell into that category. He was removed from the National Assembly on 3 January 2019. [31] The Respondents contend that, as Mr Persaud was not qualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly, he was therefore not qualified to vote as a member of that body. His vote, it is said, does not count and the court in these proceedings must, in effect, cancel his December 21st vote, have the Speaker do a recount of the valid votes (including, it would seem, the votes of all the other members who have since resigned for this same reason) and order that the motion only garnered 32 votes. [32] Historically, disputes over the qualification of members to legislative Assemblies were not triable by the courts. These matters were determined in the Assemblies. The case of Devan Nair v Yong Kuan Teik13 noted the shift in the historical approach to the determination of questions relating to contested elections. This was a shift from such matters falling under the purview of “the assembly for which the contested election” was held to being matters which should be “entrusted to the courts.”14 De la Bastide CJ in Peters and Chaitan v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, 15 also took pains to trace that development in Trinidad and Tobago. The only available option in that country for challenging the qualification of someone who was elected was by invoking the jurisdiction conferred upon the courts by the 1962 Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. [33] Article 163 of the Constitution of Guyana similarly references a specific scheme for addressing questions regarding the qualification of any person to be elected as a member of the National Assembly. The side note to Article 163 informs us that the Article deals with the “Determination of questions as to membership and elections.” Article 163(1) vests in the High Court “exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question regarding the qualification of any person to be elected as a member of the National Assembly.”16 The courts must exercise that jurisdiction within a particular framework established by the Constitution itself. Article 163(4) lays down the framework. [34] Unsurprisingly, since we are dealing here with matters concerning the internal affairs of a branch of government, i.e. the parliament, the

(From page 20)

Constitution authorises that branch to elaborate detailed provisions for the exercise by the court of the court’s Article 163 jurisdiction. In the first place, parliament is authorised to make provision with respect to “the circumstances and manner in which and the conditions upon which proceedings for the determination of any question... arising under Article 163]... may be instituted in the High Court.” Parliament may also provide “the consequences of the determination of any such question...”18 Parliament, not the courts, lays down the practice and procedure in relation to the jurisdiction and powers conferred upon the High Court by the Constitution.19 In plain terms, what all of this means is that, while the Constitution gives the courts the exclusive jurisdiction to determine questions of the qualification of members of the National Assembly, the courts exercise that jurisdiction strictly in keeping with provisions laid down by Parliament. [35] Parliament has enacted such provisions. They are contained in the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.20 Section 3 of that Act reinforces what is foreshadowed in Article 163. Section 3 makes it clear to the court that any questions concerning the qualification of a member to sit in the National Assembly “shall ... be determined by it, in accordance with this Act (emphasis added).” Other provisions of the Act spell out the precise procedure for instituting any action that references such questions. Every such reference, for example, shall be by a Petition. The petition must be presented within 28 days after the results of the election out of which the matter in question on the petition arose are published in the gazette.22 At the time of presenting the petition, or within 3 days afterwards, the petitioner must provide security for costs in an amount of $1,000.23 The petitioner must, within a prescribed period not exceeding 5 days after the presentation of the petition, serve notice of the presentation of the petition on the respondent. [36] Mr Mendes S.C. cited a variety of cases25 showing that the election petition procedure is intended to be an exclusive one and that the court has no jurisdiction to consider the question of the validity of an election by any other means. This, in fact, is also clearly stated in Rule 3(1) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) (Turn to page 22)

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

CCJ declares that the no-confidence... Rules expressed to be made pursuant to Article 163. The Rule provides that: Except by way of an election petition for redress in conformity with the Act, there shall be no reference to the Court of any question regarding the qualifications of any person to be elected as a member of the National Assembly, or whether the result of an election may have or has been affected by any unlawful act or omission, or whether the seats in the Assembly have been lawfully allocated, or whether any election the results whereof are declared by the Elections Commission in pursuance of section 99 of the Representation of People Act has been lawfully conducted (emphasis added). [37] In response to the exclusivity submission of Mr Mendes , the Respondents submitted that since Mr Persaud was elected in breach of a provision of the Constitution, the Court had an inherent power to adjudicate upon the matter, outside of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.26 This inherent jurisdiction, they submitted, arises from the fact that Mr Persaud, knowing he was disqualified, not only consented to having his name placed on a List for the 2015 elections but also signed a Statutory Declaration stating that he was aware of the provisions of Articles 53 and 155 of the Constitution which set out the qualifying and disqualifying criteria in relation to election to the National Assembly. [38] In our view, assumption by the courts of an “inherent power” to interrogate qualifying and disqualifying criteria in relation to election to the National Assembly will constitute overreach on the part of the judiciary. It will evince a trespass by the courts on the affairs of parliament by disregarding the method and manner by which the Constitution specifically requires the courts to determine such questions. As the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules indicate (in the words italicised and bolded at [36] above), the Court has no jurisdiction to determine matters which must be raised by way of an election petition filed otherwise than as prescribed by Parliament. The court cannot take it upon itself, in violation of those Rules, to enlarge its jurisdiction to disqualify a member of the Assembly because the member was aware on nomination day that he was disqualified but nevertheless consented to have his name placed on the List. If parliament desires

the court to have such an enlarged jurisdiction, then parliament must so specifically provide. In light of these circumstances the Court, by a majority, refused a request by the Attorney General to allow him to adduce fresh evidence to the effect that Persaud was aware that, as a dual citizen, he was not qualified to be placed on his party’s list. That evidence, even if admitted and established, would be of no significance to the outcome of these proceedings. Neither Persaud’s awareness or another member’s lack of such awareness could alter the fact of the court’s lack of jurisdiction. [39] The view that the court’s jurisdiction is a restricted one is not novel. It has been long recognised and made clear in cases such as the Guyanese High Court decision of Gladys Petrie v The Attorney General and others27 that the Court’s jurisdiction in this regard is not at large and not “inherent.” The jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution. The Constitution specifies that this jurisdiction is as ordained by Parliament. What is prescribed by parliament in this regard must strictly be followed by the courts. This means that, for example, the time limitations set out in legislation governing the presentation and progression of an election petition are construed as condition precedents to the validity of the petition. Rawlins CJ explained this in Ezechial Joseph v Alvin Reynolds29 noting that: “In keeping with the strict approach, our courts have generally insisted that the provisions in elections legislation must be strictly complied with ... Our election courts have consistently stated that they have little or no discretion to waive non-compliance with the applicable statutory requirements. Accordingly, the consistent result is that failure to comply is fatal to the petition rendering it a nullity, unless the court finds that the failure goes to form. The jurisprudence in our courts states that time and other electoral proceedings statutory requirements are conditions precedent to instituting a proper electoral challenge, which are mandatory and peremptory. The election court has no power to extend time or allow amendments filed out of time unless election legislation so provides.” [40] There are two important policy reasons for the Constitution denying the court an inherent jurisdiction in this realm and allowing that jurisdiction to be specif-

ically conditioned by rules laid down by parliament. Firstly, as previously indicated, this is a jurisdiction that concerns membership of parliament itself. As an element of the separation of powers, the Constitution recognises that it is Parliament, and not the court under any inherent jurisdiction of the court, that should be at liberty to define the contours of a jurisdiction that peculiarly concerns membership of Parliament. Secondly, as Bollers CJ stressed in Petrie, it is in the public’s interest that the validity of an election and hence membership of parliament should be quickly determined according to strict rules and procedures that are pre-determined by parliament. [41] Under the existing rules prescribed by parliament, therefore, it matters not that the election date has long passed and the information about the member’s disqualification did not surface until after the time limits set out by parliament.32 Nor can a claimant approach the court by a method other than the prescribed election petition.33 The National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act provides a complete code for challenging the validity of an election on the ground that a person is not qualified to be elected. The Act provides a 28-day period from the election within which the Respondents could challenge Mr Persaud’s election. This time having expired, the court lacked jurisdiction to disqualify Mr Persaud. [42] In support of the notion that the court was entitled to assume jurisdiction, the Respondents cited the Indian case of Venkatachalam v Swamickan.34 This was a case where, at elections to the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Mr Venkatachalam was declared elected. Venkatachalam was not, however, a lawful elector on the relevant electoral rolls and as such could not validly have been elected. In order to be elected, he had, “in blatant and fraudulent manner,” impersonated someone else lawfully on the rolls. One year after the date of the election, the losing candidate, Mr Swamickan, discovered the criminal fraud and applied to have Mr Venkatachalam disqualified. Venkatachalam claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction given the passage of time. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that it did have jurisdiction to disqualify him notwithstanding the lapse of time. [43] The factual background to this Indian case is not on all fours with Mr Persaud’s case. The voters

in Tamil Nadu had been hoodwinked about the identity of the person whom they thought they were electing. Venkatachalam lacked the most basic qualification for election as, under the relevant law, a person to be elected from an Assembly constituency had to be an elector ofthat constituency. More importantly, the assumption of jurisdiction by the court in India was hinged on the fact that Article 191 of the Indian Constitution disqualified not only a person for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly. It went further. It also gave the courts a continuing jurisdiction to disqualify persons for being members while so disqualified. Jurisdiction to disqualify a person, merely for being chosen as a member of the Assembly while disqualified, would have been limited by the appropriate time bars if that person’s election was what was being challenged. Since in India, however, the jurisdiction of the courts was expressly extended to incorporate the validity of the member’s tenure while in the House, Venkatachalam’s case was not susceptible to the bars that would ordinarily attend the calling into question of the election of a disqualified person. By contrast, Guyana’s Article 155 grants to the courts a jurisdiction, limited by strict procedures and timelines, to interrogate only qualification for election. The jurisdiction of the Guyana courts does not extend as far as the Indian Article 191. It is limited to any question “regarding the qualifications of any person to be elected as a member of the National Assembly.” [44] The Respondents also argued an alternative limb to the disqualification point. Article 156(1)(d) of the Constitution states that a member must vacate his or her seat in the National Assembly“ if circumstances arise that, if he or she were not a member of the Assembly, would cause him or her to be disqualified for election as a member thereof by virtue of Article 156.” They therefore submitted that Mr Persaud must vacate his seat because of his dual citizenship. Article 156(1)(d) speaks to some supervening event that causes a person to become disqualified while he or she was a member of the Assembly. So, if when the person is a member, s/he acknowledges allegiance to a foreign power or is certified to be insane, to cite two examples, the person is then obliged to vacate the seat. [45] We do not see the relevance of this Article to

the present proceedings. The circumstances occasioning Mr Persaud’s disqualification arose before he became a member. But even if Mr Persaud was caught by the Article his vote on 21st December would not thereby be affected. It is a fact that Mr Persaud was recalled and removed from the National Assembly on 3 January 2019, the very day before Mr Reid commenced his claim. Having been recalled and replaced, there is no need now to declare his seat vacant. To argue that his seat was vacant from 2015 because he was disqualified on nomination day and as such, his vote on the 21st December no confidence motion was invalid is a vain attempt to circumvent and render nugatory the provisions of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act. [46] In all the circumstances the courts of Guyana were right to find that they had no jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Persaud’s election was invalid by reason of disqualification. WAS MR PERSAUD PRECLUDED FROM VOTING IN THE MANNER HE DID IN LIGHT OF THE ANTI-DEFECTION PROVISIONS (ART 156(3)) OF THE CONSTITUTION? [47] Article 156(3) of the Constitution provides that “A member of the Assembly elected on a List shall cease to be a member of the Assembly, if – (a) he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or the Representative of the List from which his or her name was extracted that he or she will not support the List from which his or her name was extracted; (b) he or she declares in writing to the speaker or the Representative of the List from which his or her name was extracted, his or her support of another list; (c) the Representative of the List from which his or her name was extracted indicates in writing to the Speaker that after meaningful consultation with the Party or the Parties that make up the List that the Party or Parties have lost confidence in that member and the Representative of the List issues a written notice of recall to that member and forwards a copy of that notice to the Speaker.” [48] The Respondents stated that Article 156(3) is an anti-defection provision with two objectives. Firstly, it serves to prevent an elected representative from remaining as a member of parliament after s/he has indicated that s/he no longer wishes to support the List from which his or her name

(From page 21)

was extracted. Secondly, it is said that Article 156 permits the Representative of the List to recall and replace a member who has lost the confidence of the party or parties that comprise that List. The Respondents drew our attention to South Africa which uses a proportional representation system and which also has anti-defection provisions. In Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, ex p Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly it was said that “anti-defection provisions ... oblige members of a party, who are elected by virtue of the inclusion of their names on the party’s list, to remain loyal to that party... [T]his meets the expectation of voters who gave their support to that party.” [49] The Respondents further submitted that Article 156(3) imposes a duty on a member elected on a party’s List to declare his/her intention that s/he no longer supports the List before voting contrary to the dictates of his/ her party. This requirement, it was said, enables the party’s Representative to exercise the power to recall that member and ensures the party’s fidelity to the electorate. It was therefore argued that a member who deliberately omits to notify the Speaker or the Party Representative of his loss of confidence in the List and who votes against the party thereby ensuring the party’s defeat on a motion of confidence “undermines the constitutional system of the proportional representation system and deliberately evades the purpose behind Article 156(3).” Where a member votes against his party, it was submitted, the effect of Article 156(3) is to disqualify his or her vote. A member must vote along with his or her party unless the party’s whip grants “permission” for a conscience vote. [50] We do not interpret the Constitution in this manner. The Constitution makes no distinction between a member’s participation and vote on a motion of confidence and on any other motion. Carried to its logical extension, these submissions would mean, among other things, that there is no need for political parties in parliament to employ a parliamentary whip at all, and that proposing a vote on parliamentary motions is meaningless because in each case the result is a foregone conclusion. [PART 2 OF THIS JUDGEMENT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN NEXT WEEK’S EDITION]

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

A few top officers presiding over the ‘breakdown of systems’ in security forces ‒ Jagdeo

tressing is “great confidence” in Guyana’s security forces, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, expressed concern that there is a breakdown of systems by a few high-ranking officials in the security forces. “Our policemen work hard. Many of them have issues and they have big concerns about what is going on in the GPF. There are individuals there who take direction, these are the people who have to be probed, a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into these individuals, they are the ones who are breaking down all the systems in there,” he said, during a recent news conference. COVER-UP On that note, he charged that there has been a “cover-up” in the complaint made to the Guyana Police Force (GPF) by the Parliamentary Opposition, as it relates to a “straight-forward” case of corruption by Public Infrastructure Minister, David Patterson. On June 14, 2019, the Guyana Police Force released a statement indicating that 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 (SOCU) into the “Procurement 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.” SOCU’s involvement in the matter came after a call from the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) for an investigation. The PPP/C, on August 16, 2018, forwarded to SOCU a report from the Public Procurement Commission. The PPC report was based on its investigation of 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. In its report, the PPC stated 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 There was a tender that was put out and although 12 companies made proposals the bidding process was annulled. 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. This was after Patterson took an “unsolicited” bid from LivenseCSO to Cabinet for its approval. Over $160M was approved to be paid to the company was spent. However, the PPC found that only $148M was actually paid. Additionally, the PPC found that the monies to pay LivenseCSO was taken from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (As-

phalt Plant Accounts) without the knowledge of the Board. The report said, “He (General Manager of the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, Rawle 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.” PATTERSON ISSUE NOT OVER Jagdeo stressed that moves to hold Patterson to account will continue. “We will not let the matter drop,” he said. Since then, on June 12, 2019, several other gross breaches and open violations were cited by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira, who called on the Public Procurement Commission to further 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. 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. The Opposition Leader said, “Anytime this Government breaks the law they just duck the issue or not pay attention [to] it. And then an attempt to magnify or expand anything that the Opposition remotely does not even as half as egregious as what they are doing to magnify those and to launch big probes etc into those. So that is what I am worried about, the trend that is creeping in and it is confined to a few leaders of the Police Force that we know of.” THE PRESIDENT’S BOYS Additionally, the Opposition Leader has called for an investigation into reports of corruption in the Guyana Police Force. “Enough has been said about the police corruption…if anything requires probe, it is this, he said. For the past few week, local media houses have published reports from whistleblowers in the Guyana Police Force, who have spoken out about what has been

APNU+AFC gov’t officials engaged in troubling... tional Assembly in December 21, 2018. It was the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) GECOM Commissioner, Vincent Alexander, who earlier this year, admitted that if houseto-house registration started in June 2019, it would not be completed until February 2020. Since this comment was made, other PNCR GECOM Commissioners, including Charles Corbin, have said changed positions – claiming now that house-to-house registration can be completed by the end of October 2019.

Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Bibi Shaddick, is on record stressing 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. SLOW FIAH, MOH FIAH Meanwhile, last Friday (June 21, 2019), the APNU+AFC Coalition Government staged protest actions outside GECOM offices, including its head office on High Street, Georgetown. Questions have been raised as the rationale of the APNU+AFC Coalition in protesting outside GECOM office, where they chanted ‘no registration, no election’, since GECOM – despite strong ob-

jections by the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) – is still pushing ahead with its plans for new national house to house registration. Advertisements about new national house-to-house registration continue to the published in the local daily newspapers. Also, in a call back to the violence of the 90’s, a gathering of supporters were being

taking place. The whistleblowers came forward after the telephone numbers of four of their fellow officers, in Police Division ‘B’, were been found in a mobile phone belonging to an accused bandit who was killed in a shootout with the police recently. In one report, one off the whistleblower referred to one of the corrupt top officers in question as “the President’s boy” and lamented the inaction to address what are serious issues. Jagdeo had stressed that, “There must be a probe into the actions of the ‘president’s boys’… it is a few individuals who are breaking down the systems in the security forces.” Another report noted that at least two detective constables have been transferred from their posts because they were suspected to be “the whistleblowers”. The same report added that the corrupt top officers in question are “hunting” for other whistleblowers. To date, the David Granger-led APNU+AFC Coalition remains silent on the issue.

(From back page)

addressed by People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member, James Bond, during which shouts of “Slow fire, more fire” became audible. Video recordings of this disturbing scene have since gone viral on social media platforms and hundreds of Guyanese expressed their outrage at such irresponsible behaviour. Bond urged PNCR sup-

porters not to appear weak in the eyes of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C). “The minute they see weakness, these piranhas will strike and we have got to be vigilant, we have got to be mobile,” Bond said. There has been no comment by the Leader of the PNCR, David Granger, on this matter.

Protestor Linda Gomes-Halley with a placard claiming her name was not on the Voters’ List, but this proved false as a check of GECOM’s official List of Electors showed that her name was indeed on the list

The APNU+AFC Coalition government protest outside GECOM’s High Street office had a poor showing of support

While protestors chanted ‘The youth vote must count’ there were hardly any young people on the picket line

Protestors chanted ‘no registration, no election’ outside GECOM’s High Street office even as GECOM is pushing ahead – despite objections by the Parliamentary Opposition – with house-to-house registration; raising the question as to why the protestors was picketing GECOM at all

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

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

Genuine democratic forces unite must stand up to prevent a return to the pre-1992 era of authoritarianism By Dr. Leslie Ramsammy

ertain important stakeholders chose silence as David Granger and APNU+AFC rejected the No-Confidence Motion

(NCM) and ignored the March 21, 2019 deadline for General and Regional Elections. The excuse for silence was the government exercised its options to challenge the NCM in court and,

while the challenge was absurd, everyone should allow the courts to adjudicate. The courts have taken more than six months, essentially granting APNU+AFC a six-month deferral of the

constitutionally-mandated elections. The court processes now have been exhausted. Guyana’s final court – the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) – has definitively ruled the NCM was valid. Article 106 (7) of the Constitution states that elections are due within three months. Elections must be held in accordance with the law. Those stakeholders who were silent have no excuse to be silent anymore. Local and international stakeholders must understand their continued silence is acquiescence, reinforcing disrespect for the constitution and supporting dictatorship. One of the most worrying silent stakeholder has been CARICOM. CARICOM has been shamelessly hypocritical in the events in Guyana since December 21, 2018. After the NCM, CARICOM claimed the matter was a judicial one and everyone should await the outcome of the judicial process. Now that the Judiciary has spoken, including the CARICOM court, the CCJ, I expect CARICOM to continue its silence. They have not even urged the government and other stakeholders to respect the law. Their silence is acquiescence to the ongoing railroading of Guyana's constitution and democratic processes. CARICOM's silence in the face of constitutional malfeasance in Guyana abrogates its future ability to speak out against authoritarianism and unconstitutional behavior anywhere else. It will be sheer hypocrisy if CARICOM tries to speak out against any assault on democracy anywhere else,

should its silence persists as one of its governments continue to disrespect both the constitution and the judiciary, in effect consolidating dictatorship. If a dictatorship exists where CARICOM's headquarters is located and CARICOM chooses silence, its legitimacy to ever speak out is forever dented. Yet I would be shocked if CARICOM does the right thing and speak out. They did not even once speak out when the PNC carried on for 28 years with a brutal dictatorship and rigged elections. CARICOM turned the other way then and CARICOM seems determined to turn the other way again. The ABCE countries, to their credit, immediately urged all the political stakeholders to respect the rulings of the CCJ and to hold elections in accordance with the constitution. Having urged the political stakeholders to respect the law and democratic processes, the question is what are these countries prepared to do as the Guyana Government has already pronounced its intention to ignore the rulings. Essentially the ABCE countries' urgings for all political stakeholders to respect the constitution and rulings of the CCJ has been rejected by APNU+AFC. David Granger and APNU+AFC is emphatic - they will determine the terms, conditions and timeline for holding election, CCJ or no CCJ, ABCE countries, or no ABCE countries. Granger and APNU+AFC have unequivocally thumb their noses at the CCJ and the ABCE countries. Immediately after the June 18, 2019 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Granger and APNU+AFC gave the proverbial middle finger to the Guyanese people, telling them, constitution or not, NCM or not, their behavior is only guided by themselves. They are dictators and dictators respond to their own whims and fancies, not to any constitution, not to ant law, not to any court and definitely not to any other country. Granger is a dicta-

tor and he has always been upfront about this - after all he has proudly pronounced he is a disciple of Forbes Burnham and his inspiration for being President is to ensure the return of Burnhamism in Guyana. Unless all the genuine democratic forces unite and stand up to David Granger and APNU+AFC, democracy is dead and Guyana returns to the pre-1992 era of authoritarianism. The dictators have made it clear - they are not bound by the law and the constitution. The CCJ cannot dictate to them. David Granger, in his usual self-righteous style, on one hand meaninglessly parrot the mantra he will respect the CCJ's rulings. On the other hand, he insists he is unable to uphold the law. Either he respects the CCJ and call elections in accordance with the law or he does not care about the CCJ. His Prime Minister and his Finance Minister let the "cat out of the bag" when they insist, CCJ or no CCJ, no elections are being held in accordance with the law. Elections, according to them, will be held under terms and condition and in a timeline, APNU+AFC decide. The law is irrelevant and meaningless to them. True, the CCJ decisions mean that the Cabinet is resigned, that the National Assembly no longer can legally sit. It is true that Granger now is in charge of a caretaker government. But these truths only apply to those of us who believe in democracy, those of us who are dictated to by the laws and by the constitution of Guyana. While Granger and APNU+AFC Cabinet members swore to uphold the constitution, they also swore to return Guyana to the days of Burnhamism and party paramountcy. These are two different constructs and only one can survive. In the meanwhile, we have a choice - silence gives APNU+AFC permission to continue a dictatorship, speaking out is resistance.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Jagdeo tells Granger he is prepared to meet ‘daily if necessary’ on appointment of new GECOM Chairman

he post of Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is now vacant. In light of a letter from Director General, Joseph Harmon, advising the Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, of President Granger’s willingness to meet, a response has been sent. A letter dated June 25, 2019 from People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira, to Harmon, on behalf of Jagdeo, advised that the Opposition Leader is willing to meet. The letter said: “Mr. Jagdeo is prepared to meet with the President at any time, and, on a daily basis if needs be, to address the appointment of a new Chairman

of the Guyana Elections Commission consistent with the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice ruling on June 18, 2019.” On June 18, 2019, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled that Granger’s appointment of James Patterson as the Chairman of GECOM was flawed and in breach of the Constitution. Teixeira referred Harmon’s attention to specific paragraphs in the full ruling, which stated that: “[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 President 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. “[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.” In other words, the CCJ judgement, as referred to by Teixeira, points out to Granger the flaws in the process he previously used in his unilateral appointment of Patterson as GECOM Chairman.

APNU+AFC Coalition gov’t continuing with ‘business as normal’ position despite CCJ ruling ‒ Letter advising of Budget 2020 preparations sent out three days after CCJ ruling

espite the ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government has fallen with the valid passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018, the current Administration is showing no signs that it will comply – continuing with its business as normal disposition. A leaked document from the Ministry of Finance had advised all Heads of Budget

Agencies and Departments, including Constitutional Bodies, that preparations are underway to present Budget 2020 for approval – something that would require sittings of the National Assembly – sittings during a period that the APNU+AFC Coalition is illegally occupying office, since the Constitution states that after the passage of a no-confidence motion the Government remains in office in a caretaker role for

the sole purpose of holding General and Regional Elections. The document sent to all Heads of Budget Agencies and Departments including Constitutional Bodies is dated June 21, 2019 – three days after a definitive and explicit ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice. Commenting on the matter, People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) Parliamentarian, Juan Edghill,

said, “Budget 2020 must be presented by a Government that has a mandate from the people through Free and Fair Elections “…it is unbelievable that a Government that was defeated by way of a No Confidence Vote on December 21, 2018 who by way of spurious and incredible arguments of a ‘34 majority theory’, used the legal system to buy (Turn to page 27)

The letter sent three days after the CCJ ruling on June 18, 2019 advising about budget preparations

Positions from Freedom House this week (A look at the latest statements made by the People’s Progressive Party)

Police corruption reports merit wider probe, Granger’s silence remains in question R

epeated calls for President David Granger to act on the continued reports about corruption in a section of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) continue to be met with silence from the APNU+AFC Coalition Government. A June 22, 2019 report – headlined

‘Alleged police corruption fingers Deputy Commissioners; President briefed on developments’ – disclosed that the President has been briefed on the matter, which makes his silence perplexing. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) notes the

press statement of June 21, 2019 issued by the Guyana Police Force Public Relations Office, which states that: “The matter is currently being investigated by its internal organ, the Office of Professional Responsibility.” However, the PPP wish-

es to stress the reports by whistleblowers, published by the local media corps, provide enough justification for a wider probe to be ordered, particularly since what is at stake is public confidence in the leadership of the Force and a test of the commitment

to address the issue of corruption. The latest reports, published by Stabroek News on June 24, 2019 – headlined ‘Cops linked to Berbice corruption racket said to be involved in alleged plot to kill fellow officer’ – make clear the gravity of the is-

sue at hand. Earlier reports that refer to “corrupt” top officers as the “President’s boy” also send worrying signals to the Guyanese people. President Granger can be nothing but complicit via his inaction and silence. (June 24, 2019)

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Teixeira trashes arguments made by David Hinds ‒ says Guyana has much to lose if constitutional rule does not prevail

oving forward, following the rulings on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on June 18, 2019 and ahead of the granting of the consequential order to give effect to those ruling, engagements between the Parliamentary Opposition and the Coalition Government demand a demonstration of good faith by President David Granger, according to People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira. During the broadcast of an online programme on Sunday (June 23, 2019) – themed ‘CCJ ruled: What’s Next?’ She said, “The attitude of the Government since the ruling has been less than inspiring and, frankly, quite disturbing. We need good-faith efforts by the President…we have to have good-faith efforts by Granger to name a date for elections within 90 days from June 18, based on the CCJ ruling. “Those two things, were he to do them, would certainly enhance the Government’s dedication or declared dedication to the Constitution and would give some comfort to Guyanese that we are still within the democratic fold of countries. That is the next step.” Taking on arguments made by Working People’s Alliance (WPA) Executive, David Hinds, the PPP Executive charged that the APNU+AFC Coalition continues to fail to demonstrate good faith in engaging key stakeholders in the political arena. Hinds argued that the political process has played itself out. “The Courts have taken us to where we are to.” To this, Teixeira underscored the fact that the Coalition’s change in position – accepting that the no-confidence motion, then backtracking on this acceptance – and its move to the Courts is what has brought Guyana to the current position. She said, “We are here because the Government did not want to comply with the Constitution.” Teixeira added, “When Dr. Hinds talks about a political process, before we get there, we must deal with the Constitution....the President is reluctant to follow the Constitution.” The WPA Executive tried also to argue that the onus on moving Guyana forward is on both the APNU+AFC Coalition Government and the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C). Teixeira shot back that the repeated notion that

the “plague is on both houses” is a false one, since the PPP/C has acted responsible since the December 21, 2018 passage of the no-confidence motion, while the Granger-led Government has acted in a manner to ensure that it hangs on to power. “The plague is on APNU,” she declared. The PPP Executive noted too that the constant deriding of Guyana as a nation incapable of resolving internal issues is unacceptable – more so when it is used by apologists to excuse the behaviour of the APNU+AFC Coalition. “We have a Constitution that guides our behaviour…our principles, what we stand for as a country is outlined in our Constitution….we have worked hard to have a Constitution that reflects in some way the way we want to conduct ourselves,” she said. KEY ISSUE Hinds argued that the matter at hand is “very complex” and centers around two fundamental issues – compliance with the Constitution and free and fair General and Regional Elections that see the participation of all eligible voters. “Both are sacrosanct,” he said. Teixeira rubbished his attempts to obfuscate the issue. She reiterated that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government has demonstrated that it is unwilling to comply with the Constitution. On the point about Elections that must see the participation of all eligible voters, Teixeira stressed that the fallacies behind the call for new national houseto-house registration has been exposed. She pointed out that the last valid List of Electors was used at the November 2018 Local Government Elections without complaint by any political party and the call for house-to-house registration only came up after the High Court, on January 31, 2019, ruled that the no-confidence motion was validly passed. “With the current timelines proposed you are saying that we will have Elections till September 2020? No way! With an illegal government?” she questioned. The position of the Parliamentary Opposition is that to address any concerns about the last Valid List of Electors, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) can hold a Claims and Objections exercise that will: • Allow any eligible Guyanese who has reached the age of 18-years-old to be

registered if their name is not on the Voters’ List. • Allow any eligible Guyanese to get a transfer from one voting district to another, in the event that they changed their place of residence. • Allow any eligible Guyanese to do a name change. • Allow for the removal of a dead person from the Voters’ List. • Allow for objections to be made to the name of someone not eligible to be on the Voters List. This process, according to the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, in comments on February 5, 2019 can be completed within the three-month deadline within which General and Regional Elections are due, as a result of the valid passage of the no-confidence motion. With these points being stressed by the programme’s moderator, Sasenarine Singh, Hinds said, “What has happened is that APNU look at the List (of Electors) and realise it cannot win (the Elections) with that list.” RED HERRINGS Hinds added that the APNU+AFC Coalition is being demonized for its current positions, when the former PPP/C Government, under former President Donald Ramotar, did not even allow a debate on the 2014 no-confidence motion that was being advanced by the AFC. Teixeira put Hinds on blast for this comment. “There is no similarity between the two, Dr. Hinds… you are intelligent enough to know that….Ramotar acted in line with the Constitution. The AFC’s no-confidence motion was never tabled in the Parliament. It was never debated. It was never passed. What Ramotar did was to prorogue the Parliament, in line with the Constitution, and move to General and Regional Elections…whether you like what he did or not is not the issue. It was a constitutional Act,” she declared. Notably, in 2015, Parliament was dissolved on February 28, 2019 and General and Regional Elections were held 71 days later – on May 11, 2015. The PPP Executive added that what the APNU+AFC Coalition did was far different that was took place between the latter part of 2014 and in 2015 – there was a no-confidence motion that was tabled, debated and validly passed – as declared by the Caribbean Court of Justice on June 18, 2019. “What the APNU+AFC has

done is dug their heels in…. Granger is disobeying the Constitution. Ramotar did not….I am not debating that the legal recourse pursed by the APNU+AFC was an option available to them… but you are wrong to equate what happened under Ramotar and what is happening now….you are throwing out red herrings…the issue you don’t want to deal with is that the highest office holder in the land is breaching the Constitution,” Teixeira said. She added, “When I listen to Mr. Hinds I wonder why we have Constitution at all.” THREE-MONTH TIMEFRAME According to her, the fact that there is a three-month timeframe for General and Regional Elections, once a no-confidence motion is passed is not new. “The three months is not a fiction….the same threemonth deadline is also enshrined in Article 61 of the Constitution…the idea that we can play with the Constitution is absurd,” Teixeira said. She noted too that with General and Regional Elections due, the Guyanese people have a choice to make – a government that will “thumb its nose” at the Constitution or a government that will uphold the Constitution and fight to preserve democracy in Guyana.

MUCH IS AT STAKE Much is at stake, according to her, if the Government continues to disregard the Constitution and leadership is not shown by President Granger. She noted that Guyana is at a crossroads where it can either respect the Constitution, or become a pariah State that does not respect the rule of law. She said, “My whole life has been dedicated to the struggle for democracy in this country. At my more mature age, I am not going to allow any body to come along, after the struggle of the 70 and 80’s – getting beat up, getting lock up, rigged elections – and throw out all that we have worked so hard for…my generation who fought for democracy.

What is out legacy? We left a democratic Constitution… let that be the legacy we leave our young people. “If we allow the Government to thumb its nose at everything, we are on the path of an authoritarian state and the young people that Mr. Hinds and others are so concerned about, will have to start that fight all over again…I am not prepared as a leader of the PPP or as a Guyanese to see us go down that road again.” The order of the day, Teixeira stressed, must be constitutional rule. “Right now the issue is constitutional compliance and whether or not we will find ourselves coming out from the global fold of democratic nations,” she said.

APNU+AFC Coalition gov’t... (From page 25) themselves seven months and counting to implement a budget that they had no mandate to implement. Rather than offering goods and services to all the people of Guyana, they used questionable processes of procurement to award contracts to their political allies, friends and families to shore up political support.” He charged that the letter was sent to all Heads of Budget Agencies and Departments including Constitutional Bodies in the face of the operationalization of Articles 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution. “Is someone being delusional or is it plain stubbornness? Or maybe it is a mentality that is being exposed that this Government believes that it can continue to hang on to power indefinitely. How desperate can one be?” he questioned. Edghill added, “The charade continues, they used an argument of the

‘34 majority theory’ to implement the 2019 Budget and now they hope to use the argument of House to House Registration to buy themselves more time so that they can formulate, prepare and present a 2020 Budget. The Minister of Finance who stood resigned on December 21, 2018 is presumptuously pursuing a path of provocation by causing this circular No. 7/2019 to be issued.” The PPP/C Parliamentarian called on all Heads of Budget Agencies, Permanent Secretaries, Regional Executive Officers and Heads of Constitutional Bodies to familiarize themselves with the rulings of the CCJ which are available on their official website. “Do not be bullied!” he appealed. Edghill added, “We in the PPP/C Parliamentary Opposition will not allow this folly and untamed

ignorance coupled with the brazen arrogance of this APNU/AFC Government to go unchecked. No caretaker Government which is the current status of this Granger led Coalition should be allowed to be this blatant and disrespectful in its conduct. To pursue this illegality is to create an environment for collision and confrontation rather than conciliation and preserving the wellbeing of our people. The provisions in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act provide for a Budget by March/April, 2020; there is no crisis.” A Budget which defines the vision, priorities and programs for the prosperity and development of all the people of Guyana by a Government that is legal, constitutional and democratically elected through free and fair elections, is the only one that will be accepted, he charged.

WEEKEND MIRROR 29-30 JUNE, 2019

Ramjattan admits that taxpayers’ monies are being used for campaigning A

t the May 15, 2019 sitting of the National Assembly, Finance Minister, Winston Jordan, tabled a financial paper requesting an addition $8B from the treasury – in addition to the over $300B that was approved as Budget 2019 expenditures. Upon reviewing the financial paper it was found that some $300M would be spent on ministerial outreaches – outreaches that started after the December 21, 2018 passage of the no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC Coalition Government. By March 23, 2019, the monies were approved to be spent. Since February 2019, the APNU+AFC Coalition Administration rolled out its ministerial outreach programme under the slogan of ‘Bringing Government to the people’. By mid-February, attention was called to the fact that Citizenship Minister,

Winston Felix, while addressing a small gathering at Tiger Pond village, located in the Karasabai District, South Pakaraimas, Region Nine, made it clear that he was there simply to garner votes. Felix had said, “You understand why it is important for us to come and convince you that you should vote for this Coalition…if I wanted to go to church, I’d go to church in Georgetown. I wouldn’t come here for Sunday school. While I wouldn’t mind worshipping with you, but I come here to ask for your vote, let’s understand that clearly. Vote coalition!” The use of taxpayers’ monies to fund campaigning activities across the country was strongly criticized by the Parliamentary Opposition. However, when questioned about these criticisms, former Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, in the latter

GPL Executives admit to missing key benchmarks in service delivery D uring an annual review of eight benchmarks in Operating Standards and Performance Targets (OSPT) of the Guyana Power and Light (GPL), Executives told the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that they failed to reach most of their projected achievements in the year 2018. GPL had committed itself under the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) to delivering no more than 70 blackouts during the year to households. Its actual result was 106.4 blackouts. This would mean that citizens on the average sustained 36 more blackouts over the year. The System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI, which measures actual blackout hours, projected no more than 80 hours of blackout per citizen. How-

ever, the actual number of blackout hours was 112.6. Additionally, for 2018, GPL had set itself a target of limiting losses to 26.6 per cent of dispatched power. However, it recorded losses of 27.7 per cent. At the start of 2019, GPL committed to produce 97 per cent of Maximum Demand Bills based on actual meter reading, but fell below this target as well to 91 per cent. The power company also reported that they were not able to maintain, in stable condition, set voltage-levels. There were also only 12 shutdowns of the Demerara-Berbice Inter-connected System (DBIS). The Guyana Power and Light (GPL) missed key benchmarks in the delivery of service to the Guyanese people, according to the report given to the PUC.

part of February 2019, told reporters that the outreaches are nothing more than “normal Government business” and that the criticisms raised were without merit. Harmon had said, “The outreaches by the Ministers was an approach to listen to persons and hear what they have to say and whether, in fact, what we’re doing is working and if, in fact, they need to give us addition advice. So these were some of the rationale behind the outreaches.” Since then Second Vice President and Public Se-

curity Minister, Khemraj Ramjattan, when he was asked about the APNU+AFC Coalition’s preparation for the impending elections – in light of the June 18, 2019 ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice declaring that the no-confidence motion was validly passed – has admitted that taxpayers’ monies were being used for campaigning. On a live radio programme, ‘Straight Up’, on Thursday (June 20, 2019) evening, he said, “We had started our campaign in a

sense. We were outreaching in all the areas, even having Cabinet in different areas, having lots of meetings on the weekends especially and carrying our Government projects and programmes for the people to see it themselves and promoting our accomplishments. And that is what part of the campaigning was all about during that time because there was always this 50-50 chance that we’re gonna lose it and indeed, we lost it.” The “campaigning” as described by Ramjattan has

been advanced in Regions Two (Pomeroon-Supenaam), Three (Essequibo Islands-West Demerara), Four (Demerara-Mahaica), Five (Mahaica-Berbice), Six (East Berbice-Corentyne), Nine (Upper Takatu-Essequibo), 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice), and more recently, Region Seven (CuyuniMazaruni). The expenses include not only travel for the large contingents of Government Ministers, Ministry staff and other –but also includes food, accommodation and other associated costs.

APNU+AFC gov’t officials engaged in troubling defiance of CCJ, peddling of falsehoods

aking their lead from the head of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), David Granger, several APNU members, following the June 18, 2019 decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), have mouthed comments that can only be described as worrying. “We are in a state of undeclared war and the no confidence motion was a preemptive strike to force premature elections,” declared Communities Minister, Ronald Bulkan, in a missive to the local media corps. “War break…no registration, no elections…if you are ready, we will be able to call you out to picket for House to House Registration… no CCJ they can’t tell us that we must tinker with that list to call elections, declared Finance Minister, Winston Jordan. “CCJ cannot rule, Guyana has its own institution. Guyana is an independent country with its own independent laws,” declared Minister of State, Dawn Hastings-Williams. “We have a mission… that’s why we marched here… we want registration…let’s continue the fight,” declared Foreign Affairs Minister, Karen Cummings. The Alliance For Change (AFC) – the junior party in the APNU+AFC Coalition Government – has also followed the lead set by Granger. “They’re calling for trouble in this country….it would be improper to force upon the people of Guyana that they go to the polls to elect a government without a voters’ list. It cannot happen anyway,” declared Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo. TOTAL FALSEHOODS The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on June 18, 2019,

ruled that the no-confidence motion, passed on December 21, 2018, is valid. As such, Article 106 (7) makes it clear that General and Regional Elections are due within three months. However, at the center of the comments by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government officials is a call for new national House-to-House registration. Hours after the CCJ ruling on June 18, 2019, Granger said, “This (General and Regional Elections) will be after the completion of house-to-house registration.” He added that last Valid List of Electors is “outdated and corrupted” and holds “as many as 200,000 incorrect entries” – as such it cannot be used for General and Regional Elections. The claims that the last Valid List of Electors cannot be used has been debunked repeatedly by the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C). Last week, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, stressed that to address any concerns about the last Valid List of Electors, GECOM can hold a Claims and Objections exercise that will: 1. Allow any eligible Guyanese who has reached the age of 18-years-old to be registered if their name is not on the Voters’ List. 2. Allow any eligible Guyanese to get a transfer from one voting district to another, in the event that they changed their place of residence. 3. Allow any eligible Guyanese to do a name change. 4. Allow for the removal of a dead person from the Voters’ List. 5. Allow for objections to be made to the name of someone not eligible to be on the Voters List. “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 had stressed. He added, “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…their claims are total falsehoods.” The Opposition Leader had also pointed out that it was the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, who, on February 5, 2019, declared that the last valid Voters’ List was clean – a stark contrast from the claims that are being made APNU+AFC Coalition government officials. PROBLEMATIC PROPOSALS As part of the push to new national house-to-house registration, the intention is to not register any eligible Guyanese voter who is not living in Guyana – whether it is a Guyanese studying abroad or a Guyanese working in another country. Already, this matter has been the subject of court action. In April 2019, a Guyanese pensioner who moves between Guyana and the United Kingdom (UK), Bibi Zeenatoun, called on the High Court to ensure that her rights are not infringed on via the push for House-to-House Registration. The matter is still in court. Additionally, if a new national house-to-house registration were to be done, it would take a minimum of nine months – which would further delay General and Regional Elections, in light of the CCJ ruling that the no-confidence was validly passed in the Na(Turn to page 23)

PUBLISHED BY NEW GUYANA Co. Ltd., 8 Industrial Site, Ruimveldt, Georgetown, Guyana. Tel: 226-2473, 226-5875 Fax: 226-2472