Weekend Mirror 6-7 July 2019

PPP/C hopeful, cautious of gov’t assurance of good-faith engagements 6-7 July, 2019 / Vol. 10 No. 80 / Price: $100

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

PAGE 15

‒ Process for appointment of new GECOM Chair agreed on ‒ Three-month election deadline remains non-negotiable

Supreme Court condemns use of judges’ photos on Coalition gov’t campaign poster PAGE 3

Public servants continue to be targeted PAGE 27

Facts about massive giveaway of State lands have not been refuted, Granger remains silent

PAGE 11

SEE INSIDE

‘Marijuana talk’ by APNU+AFC gov’t a transparent ploy PAGE 10

Challenge to GECOM’s proposed de-registration of Guyanese PAGE 9 voters will likely be ‘overtaken by CCJ’s consequential orders’ – Nandlall

Firearms and ammunitions being ‘unlawfully’ used by NICIL-SPU – GuySuCo PAGE 3

2

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

MMA accused of corruption by Region 5 residents R esidents of Region Five ( Mahaica- Berbice) staged a peaceful protest outside of the Mahaica-Mahaicony-Abary Agriculture Development Association (MMA-ADA) Tuesday (July 2, 2019) calling the association out on corruption.

The residents accused the MMA of taking the lands that they occupy and distributing thousands of acres to members of their Board, relatives and friends of Board members, as well as Members of Parliament.

“The former chairman of MMA board got over 5000 acres of land and I barely have 10 acres and fighting to take it back. How this could be fair? We are farmers and we just trying to make a living for ourselves and families,” one of the residents said.

Another resident called on the Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the gross mismanagement of the State’s resources by the MMA Board.

According to the resident, Board members have been distributing land to persons close to the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, who are not farming on the land but rather, renting it out. “We are farmers and we can’t even get a piece of land to farm. But APNU and their friends getting thousands and thousands of acres of land which they renting out,” the resident said.

Meanwhile, other protesters questioned if MPs are

getting land, why ordinary farmers who are occupying the land and depending on farming for their livelihood cannot benefit. “How these people getting land? Jennifer Wade and other MPs and so… and we living right here on these lands and can’t get,” a protestor questioned.

“We want the President and the ministers to help these farmers to get back their lands that were taken away and given to APNU MPs,” another protester said.

Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) member, Faizal Jaffarally, and other residents of the region who formed part of the protest action, called for an independent inquiry into how the lands were distributed and urged the Minister of Agriculture and President to examine the process by which the lands were given.

Meanwhile, Region Five Vice Chairman Rion Peters, who was also in support of the protest, said that he stands firm with the residents since they are being treated unfairly. According to him, the protest is in response to large quantities of land being distributed by the Board of the MMA to family and friends while region five farmers cannot acquire any and are left to suffer as they depend on farming for their livelihood. He said such an act cannot be condoned and reiterated calls on those responsible to investigate the way the Board has been handling State lands in Region

Five. “We cannot allow them to trample on the rights of the people in Region Five who were occupying these lands for years and we believe that every resident should be able to have equal access to these lands. I am supporting this cause because it is just and the MMA should have acted fairly,” the Vice Chairman said.

The MMA/ADA has remained silent on the concerns raised by the residents.

SILENCE Additionally, weeks after cattle farmers from Region Five (Mahica-Berbice) raised concerns over the issuing of new leases by the Mahaica-Mahaicony Abary-Agricultural Development Authority to lands which they utilised, there has been no response from the organisation.

The concerned farmers disclosed that they are still awaiting a response to know whether consideration is being given for them to access the land.

The MMA-ADA had evicted several cattle owners from lands. The area, located at Blairmont, covers 1360 acres and had been used by farmers to rear hundreds of cattle. However, the farmers received a notice from the agency earlier this year, indicating that they have to vacate the lands since new leases were issued to other persons, some of whom are not even cattle farmers.

Without the lands, their daily operations will be severely

challenged.

On Sunday (June 30, 2019), People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Member of Parliament, Harry Gill in a letter to the editor said

that in Region Five (Mahaica-Berbice), lands that were used by cattle farmers of the Shieldstown Cattle Rearer’s Co-op Society in an area known as Rampoor for over

20 years, were taken away by the MMA-ADA and were allegedly given to a close associate of the Government. He also called for a full-fledged investigation into the matter.

3

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

Firearms and ammunitions Supreme Court condemns use of judges’ photos on Coalition being ‘unlawfully’ used gov’t campaign poster

by NICIL-SPU – GuySuCo W

orrying disclosures were made by the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc. (GuySuCo) on Wednesday (July 3, 2019) about the use of the Corporation’s firearms and ammunition.

In a statement, GuySuCo said arms and ammunition, which were acquired and issued to its Security Department, as part of its resources to execute its security mandate are now unlawfully in the possession of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited-Special Purpose Unit (NICIL-SPU).

These arms and ammunitions are reportedly located at the Rose Hall and Skeldon Estates and are currently being unlawfully used by representatives and agents of NICIL-SPU. GuySuCo said, “These estates were vested in December of 2017, and since then NICIL-SPU has been refusing to return the firearms and ammunitions to the

Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc. claiming that they were vested as a part of Skeldon and Rose Hall Estates. The Corporation would like to inform NICIL-SPU that firearms cannot be vested; and these weapons are licensed exclusively to the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc.” Under the Laws of Guyana, Firearms Act,Chapter 16:05, Section 16 (1) it states that ‘subject to this Act, no person shall purchase, acquire or have in his possession any firearm or ammunition to which this Part applies unless he holds a firearm licence in force at the time’.

Section 16 (2) of the Act further states that, ‘subject to this Act, if any person purchases, acquires or has in his possession any firearm or ammunition to which this Part applies without holding a firearm licence in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a license,

or, in case of ammunition in quantities in excess of those so authorised, shall be liable…’

GuySuCo made clear that this issue was reported months ago to the Commissioner of Police and other relevant authorities, but is still awaiting the return of the firearms and ammunitions to the Corporation.

“The Corporation is requesting that the relevant authorities act speedily to ensure that the weapons and ammunitions are returned.

The Corporation, its officers, employees, servants and agents shall not be liable for any injuries, loss of life, damage to property or any other claims resulting from the use and/or misuse of the said firearms and ammunitions at the abovementioned two Estates from 31 December, 2017 to the date when they are returned to the Corporation’s possession,” GuySuCo said.

GuySuCo misses first crop target

I

n addition to worries about the state of the sugar sector, followed the much criticized decisions of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) disclosed that it has been unable to meet its first crop production target/ According to figures released, GuySuCo only managed to produce 33,531 tonnes of sugar.

In May, it was reported that the Albion Estate had produced 15,462 tonnes of

sugar out of its target of 18,511 tonnes. The Blairmont Estate had produced 8,879 tonnes of sugar. For the Uitvlugt Estate then, 7,397 tonnes of sugar had been produced.

Worker attendance for the first crop averaged 61 per cent across the industry, with the Blairmont and Uitvlugt Estates recording 62 per cent attendance at each, while Albion Estate recorded a 60 per cent attendance record.

GuySuCo’s second crop

target is currently set at 73,160 tonnes of sugar.

In 2018, the first crop last year, the sugar company had produced 34,450 tonnes of sugar, failing to meet its target, and recording the lowest ever first crop for the industry in the last two years.

For 2017, GuySuCo had fallen short of a projected figure for the first crop by some 24,566 tonnes of sugar.

In 2016, the sugar company also fell short of its first crop target, producing only 56,825 tonnes.

A

strongly worded missive was released by the Supreme Court of Judicature on Saturday (June 29, 2019) about the use of the photographs of two judges that were used in campaign materials produced by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government.

The controversial poster includes the photos of Justices Gino Persaud and Simone Morris-Ramlall who are plastered side by side with other prominent members of the APNU+AFC coalition Government and Parliamentarians.

The statement said: “The Supreme Court of Judicature firmly condemns the use of photographs of two Puisne Judges that have been published in a social media post captioned ‘Confidence in Youth Leadership- Promised Delivered’.

“The Supreme Court of Judicature is calling on members of the public to

refrain from associating Judges and Judicial Officers with any political party or activity.

“The Judiciary reaffirms its independence and integrity and rejects any attempt to tarnish and discredit its

reputation.”

The controversial poster was being circulated by Alliance For Change (AFC) member and Director on the Board of NCN, Michael Leonard, on social media last week.

East Coast residents told to wait another two years for APNU+AFC gov’t to deliver house lots

A

week after the disclosure that persons connected to the hierarchy of the current David Granger-led APNU+AFC Coalition Government received massive tracts of land, several of the transactions occurring after the December 21, 2018 passage of the no-confidence motion, many Guyanese have raised concerns about their own inability to access house lots.

And during an outreach at Golden Grove, East Coast of Demerara, on Wednesday (July 3, 2019) residents were told that they have to wait for almost two years to have any application for house lots even reviewed by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA).

This disclosure was made

by Junior Housing Minister Annette Ferguson said Wednesday. “I cannot guarantee you that by tomorrow you will get a land or a plot.

What has happen is that we have to develop the lands.

We have to ensure that the basic infrastructure such as roads, electricity, water are in the various housing development areas so it will take your government in excess of twelve to eighteen months to have house lots readily available,” she said.

In an attempt to deflect attention from the Coalition’s failure to develop a single house lot in over four years, Ferguson said her Government entered office in 2015 and was greeted by a “huge backlog” of pending applications.

Ferguson said, “I want to assure you applicants, all those of you who would have applied, your applications will be addressed. Just hold, stand with your government and rest assured that we will deliver based on our promises.”

At that several residents expressed the view that this was just another empty promise made by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government.

Notably, in line with the June 18, 2019 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the APNU+AFC Coalition Government does not have a guaranteed two more years in office, as General and Regional Elections are now constitutionally mandated to be held before the end of 2019.

Coalition Ministers acknowledge lack of jobs as a problem, fail to respond to residents’ concerns S everal Government Ministers were in the Beterverwagting/Triumph are on Wednesday (July 3, 2019) to talk about residents’ needs, the government’s achievements and its plans for the future.

And among the issues

addressed was job creation.

However, the Ministers failed to give any detailed position on this matter.

To date there has been no job creation initiatives advanced by the APNU+AFC Government.

For over four years the

creation of an enabling environment for jobs creation and investments has been touted by President David Granger and his government.

The aim of your new government is to create jobs, jobs and more jobs in

the shortest time possible.

This was the promise of the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition during the 2015 General and Regional elections campaign.

Also, 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 promised too that public expenditure measures would be determined by related factors, which include: Stimulating productivity, investment, savings and growth of the economy; and the provision (Turn to page 9)

4

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

The delivery of free and credible elections hinges on the A peoples’ acceptance of the appointment abnormal is how dictatorships start of a credible “A GECOM Chairman

EDITORIAL

n enlightened and informed population is one of the surest ways of promoting the health of a democracy.” These were the words of Nelson Mandela. And even today, they remain true.

The untruths peddled by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government have made it necessary for the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) to repeat, ad nauseam, the facts behind the Coalition Government’s so-called ‘reasoning’ for a new national house-to-house registration.

From mid-May 2018 to the early part of July 2018, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) conducted a Continuous Registration process. The names of eligible Guyanese voters are included in a database called the National Register of Registrants. A Continuous Registration process ensure that persons who reached the age of 14 are added to this database and when they become 18-years-old their names are automatically added to the Voters’ List.

A Continuous Registration process also ensures that all other eligible persons are registered so that they can be able to vote when the time come. It ensures too that other transactions can be conducted as well.

This FACT debunks the Coalition Government’s claims that young people will not be able to vote. In the May – July 2018 Continuous Registration process every young person who would have attained the age of 14 by October 31, 2018 would have been registered.

On July 5, 2018, a press release from GECOM urging all those who were eligible to visit GECOM offices and be registered said: “These registration exercises commenced on May 21, 2018 in an effort to ensure that all eligible person are afforded unlimited opportunities to be included on the National Register of Registrants database.”

The press release adds that: “This process (Continuous Registration) ensures that GECOM is in a state of preparedness which would enable it to respond to calls for Elections in a timely manner.”

Since then, on April 30, 2019 the validity of the Voters’ List expired – meaning the validity of the Voters’ List at April 30, 2019 has to be refreshed – not that the Voters’ List should be thrown away and a new one created.

On February 5, 2018, GECOM’s Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, declared that a short period of Claims and Objections can refresh the validity of the Voters’ List. “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 had said.

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.

The only difference between a Claims and Objections process and a Continuous Registration process is that persons who are 14-years-old will not be registered.

However, the FACT is that anyone who is 18-years-old can be registered under a Claims and Objections process – meaning that no first time voter will be denied their right to vote.

Also, on February 5, 2018, GECOM’s Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, declared that the last

Valid List of Electors was “clean” – a sentiment echoed by all the political parties who contested the November 12, 2018 Local Government Elections.

So how come, all of a sudden, the list is “bloated” – to use the words of President David Granger?

Even if we were to take to Granger’s word, the Chief Elections Officer himself said any problem with the Voters’ List can be address via a Claims and Objections process. “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. It is a limited way to cleanse the list. One of the options before the operations committee speaks to that,” Lowenfield had said.

Why is the Coalition government still pushing for a new house-to-house registration? Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Bibi Shadick, is on public record stating that the push for new national house-to-house registration was led by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) General Secretary, Amna Ally. It is a FACT that the call for new national house-to-house registration was made after the passage of the no-confidence motion.

What new national house-to-house registration means is that the names of all eligible Guyanese voters currently on the List of Voters’ will be deleted – the country will be starting from zero to create a new database of voters.

And there is no guarantee that starting over will ensure that the names of all eligible Guyanese voters are put back into the database.

Guyanese must also not forget that as part of their push for new national house-to-house registration, the Coalition is also proposing that persons who are not currently in Guyana – students studying abroad, Guyanese working overseas or Guyanese on holiday for a few months – will all be DE-REGISTERED. The claims made by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government – one, that young people will not be allowed to vote; and, two, that the Voters’ List is bloated – have been proven as false, repeatedly.

Yet, the Government insists on peddling misinformation to the Guyanese people. We saw this only on Sunday (June 30, 2019), in comments made by Guyana’s diminished Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo (responsible for nothing except the state media).

Nagamootoo claims that in 1992, a clean list was one of the main calls by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). He says that the Party, in 2019, are now resisting new national house-to-house registration. That Nagamootoo would compare 2019 with 1992 is shameful. Nagamootoo exposes his political opportunism, yet again. The fact that Guyana’s Elections were rigged for years using the names of fake people and fake addresses – prior to the return of free and fair Elections in 1992 – is internationally known. By no means, can the PPP’s call for a clean voters’ list in 1992 be compared with the Voters’ List we have in 2019, not when an elections was held the same list just a few months ago without complaint from any contesting political party.

These facts expose the call by the APNU+AFC Coalition for new national house-to-house registration as nothing but a ploy to further delay constitutionally mandated General and Regional Elections.

A peoples’ acceptance of what is abnormal – accepting anything other than constitutional compliance and the fact that the rule of law must prevail – is how dictatorships start. It is a slippery slope, one that Guyanese cannot allow our country to be pushed onto.

Dear Editor,

T

he issue of free, fair and credible elections is uppermost in the minds of Guyanese. This is so because of the very history of past elections, especially during the post-independence period when all elections were rigged to perpetuate the life of the then PNC regime. It was not until the elections on October 5, 1992 that democratic elections were finally restored, thanks to the intervention of the United States through the Carter Center and other western powers.

There are some who seek to apportion blame equally between the PPP and the PNC for the rigging of elections to obtain political power. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is grossly unfair to the PPP. Indeed, it was the PPP that received, as it were, the short end of the stick in all elections since 1964 and from all indications this coming elections are potentially fraught with electoral drama not dissimilar to what obtained during the pre-1992 period.

Whatever else can be said of the PPP, there is one fact that cannot be contested, which is that the PPP, unlike the PNC, has consistently abided by the democratic norms of our country as reflected in free and fair elections.

This coming elections will be the first since the historic1992 elections in which the PPP will not be in the seat of power. In the May 2015 elections, the PPP narrowly lost the elections to the APNU+AFC coalition albeit under questionable circumstances which are being challenged by the PPP/C in the Court. This matter is still be heard and seems unlikely to come up given the successful passage of the no-confidence vote.

It is in the above context that the issue of a politically neutral Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission has to be seen. The fact that both the political opposition and the ruling coalition have equal representation on the Commission means that the appointment of a mutually agreed Chairman is a necessary condition for there to be any level of confidence in the ability of GECOM to deliver free and credible elections. The CCJ has ruled that the current GECOM Chairman was unconstitutionally appointed after over a week of the June 18, 2019 ruling, there was no indication that the Chairman would take his leave.

The CCJ, in its most recent hearing on June 24, 2019, deferred the issue of the consequential orders on both the no-confidence vote and the appointment of the GECOM Chairman until July 12. Many Guyanese were expecting the CCJ to deliver on its Orders much earlier. The fact that the Court was unable to do so is indicative of the difficulty of arriving at that delicate balance ‘between practicality and principle’ as alluded to earlier by the Court.

Yours faithfully, Hydar Ally

5

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

The Constitutional distortions continue Dear Editor,

O

ne would have thought that the commendably clear language of the Caribbean Court of Justice, in its Judgement recently handed down in the case filed by Zulfikar Mustapha, would have finally put to rest all controversies in relation to the purport and meaning of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.

However, it appears that such is not the case. In a letter addressed to Gail Teixeira, for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Joseph Harmon informs that the Government interprets the CCJ to have ruled that Article 161 (2) of the Constitution empowers “both the President and the Leader of the Opposition to provide nominees on the list of six persons.”

In apparent support, Harmon’s letter quotes paragraph 26 of the Judgement of the Court. A less than cursory analysis of the excerpt quoted, impels to no such conclusion, expressly or by implication.

The CCJ was charged with the responsibility of interpreting Article 161 (2), not rewriting nor distorting it. The clear and literal language of the Article places, exclusively, in the domain of the Leader of the Opposition, the responsibility of compiling and submitting the list of six names. The moment that Article is construed to empower the President to submit names, then the absurd consequence would be, the President, unilaterally, appointing one of his own choosing. This was the fundamental error which President David Granger made in the appointment of James Patterson, which the CCJ rendered

flawed and unconstitutional.

It is against this constitutional tapestry, that one must view the recent pronouncements of Dr. David Hinds. Concealed in the Trojan Horse of “structured consultations”, Dr. Hinds argues for the President formally submitting nominees “in a bid to find consensus in keeping with the Carter Centre formula…” thereby, dangerously, turning Article 161 (2) on its head.

In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition ever cedes such a power to the President, it would strike at the heart of the very “consensus” which the Carter Formula postulates. This danger must be guarded against zealously.

The Leader of the Opposition has evinced sufficient magnanimity by indicating that he is not opposed to suggestions emanating from the President in their impending engagement. Anything more would erode, irreparably, into the functional responsibilities of the Leader of the Opposition and would destroy that delicate equilibrium upon which the Carter Formula, so revered by Dr. Hinds, is predicated.

In the circumstances, it is clear that letter of the Leader of the Opposition in response to Harmon’s is being grossly misconstrued and twisted to meet certain political objectives.

As citizens, it is our civic and indeed, patriotic duty to ensure that both the Constitution and the Judgements of the CCJ are not thwarted and misconceived.

Sincerely, A. Nandlall

Major transactions after the passage of no-confidence motion are fraudulent, null and void Dear Editor,

A

ll major transactions conducted by this PNC-led coalition Government after the successful passage of the No-Confidence Motion are fraudulent and considered null and void.

Even if those transactions were Cabinet decisions, they nonetheless constitute a fraud on this nation and I hasten to say all of those land deals will be at the investigation and recovery of the State Assets Recovery Agency. It is the mistaken belief in some quarters that because these are Cabinet decisions those land deals are binding on succeeding governments.

Well, they are ever so wrong because no deal, business or otherwise, conducted after the No-Confidence Motion will stand, this a fraud perpetrated at the highest level which will see recovery at the detriment of the beneficiaries.

The State Assets Recovery Agency will be in full mode to recover those stolen assets, this Government cannot wantonly break the law and expect us to be cheerleaders for them.

It also means that the benefactors of these corrupt deals must kiss those sweet assets goodbye. It is as simple as that, end of discussion.

For some strange unexplained reason, Mr Granger believes that this country is his private domain for him to do as he pleases.

He has turned up his nose on the law some six

months now and is presently in the process of a brazen sellout of our prime resources to his friends. This is corruption at its highest if you have ever seen one.

So, I hasten to tell Mr Granger that Guyana is not his private property and we are not for sale. Your actions have not gone unnoticed and there will be consequences for those gross violations of our laws. There will be consequences for your transgressions.

Some time ago, Kaieteur News used to carry a section captioned “Heist of Guyana” I wonder what they are saying now that thousands of acres of prime lands were given away to PNC friends and associates? I wonder what are their thoughts now seeing everything is in the spotlight with verifiable and damnable evidence. I see Adam Harris in his usual apologetic role, trying desperately to make out a case for Granger’s actions by making the Opposition Leader’s claims to be a racial one. Well, I must tell this learned gentleman that it is not any of what he is insinuating, but what we have witnessed this past week was a clear case of a Government’s crass disrespect for the laws of this country and nothing else.

This type of behaviour is symptomatic of the old dictatorial PNC party which should not be allowed to flourish here. We say down with dictatorial and illegal governments.

Respectfully, Neil Adams

Coalition Government’s resistance to the CCJ’s rulings is an outright assault on our democracy Dear Editor,

W

ith each passing day, the excessively vulgar behaviour of the now illegal Granger-led APNU/AFC clan is becoming more and more frontal in adding to Guyana’s constitutional crisis. In the face of amazed global and international observers, the cabal continues to demonstrate its lack of concern for the democratic observance and rights of the majority of the citizens while effectively defacing the nation’s image. The APNU/AFC coalition has taken to displaying a heightened pretence of concern while abusing the nation’s public purse. This is only because the Opposition Leader’s No-Confidence Motion (NCM) has driven them in this direction.

The sequence of events leading up to this embarrassing fiasco indicates the extant characteristic, defiant and abusive nature of the cabal, for which the majority of citizens have long demonstrated a loss of confidence. Their previous and current actions place no holds on the abundance of radicalism and unlawful dictatorship that they attempt to force, while illegally occupying the seat of Government.

Guyanese are experiencing serious survival difficulties associated with the sky-rocking cost of living due to impositions of a laden tax system, escalating scary and dangerous crime situations, while people cannot provide the basics for their children’s education and healthcare. We are now witnessing substantial fraudulent giveaway of State lands to persons reflecting a significant conflict of interests in the instance of SARA and other public persons that is most worrying. Further, this entire nation is in tension, as our people live under an illegal and unconstitutional regime.

At the time of penning this letter, it was plain for all to see that President Granger, who now has the responsibility of ensuring elections are held within 90 days in keeping with Section 106 (7) of the Constitution, remains in his go-slow mode. He still had not responded to the Leader of the Opposition’s acceptance to his invitation to meet on the urgent critical matter of appointing a new Chairman of the GECOM, urged by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

From the top-heavy self-aggrandising APNU/AFC Government officials to the many bullish agents of the cabal, there is a wickedly utilised approach of de-stabilising Local Government Areas where the Government lost support so they suffer the population. It is also clear that the Government knew all along that their abuse of the people was intolerable and that they became illegal with the passing of the NCM on December 21, 2018. Mr Harmon and Mr Nagamootoo at the recent Bartica Public meeting affirmed that the Government was very clear that their case at the CCJ had no basis, but yet continued to deliberately frustrate our democracy and the nation while spending lavishly and creating further debts.

The Government’s resistance to the CCJ’s rulings is an outright assault on our democracy. On one side, the Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo’s call for “war” is inciting and most worrying, and this would be confirmed by the older population that the PNC never wants to adhere to free and fair elections. On the other, President Granger’s slurs, together with the rants of the senior APNU/AFC Ministers in their open criticisms and rejection of the CCJ and against the acceptance of the CCJ decisions, is most distasteful and unacceptable.

As it turns out, the PNC/APNU/AFC has been forced to accept that the former Chair-

man of GECOM, Justice Retired James Patterson had to go. It was indeed silly to know that President Granger was questioning the ruling of the CCJ, on the ruling that Chairman Patterson was not properly appointed.

The fact that the CCJ ruled in favour of the No-Confidence Motion (NCM), makes it clear that we will have to get Regional and National Elections within ninety days. With the ongoing lack of urgency and due diligence given by the President regarding the CCJ’s advised consultations with the Leader of the Opposition, the resulting unwarranted delays make it absolutely clear that time-bound directions must emerge in the CCJ’s consequential orders.

Given the posture adopted and publicly demonstrated by the President, however, these orders, critically, should pave the way for the immediate appointment of a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission and the time schedules for the organisation to hold free and fair elections within the time established by the Guyana Constitution.

Obviously, with all of the increasing waste of time and taxpayers’ monies in this respect by the Government, it is understandable that the Leader of the Opposition has signalled his party’s decision of not going back to the National Assembly to grant additional time.

Over the last three years, it has been really painful to follow the poor performances of Guyana ‘PNC’ Attorney General Basil Williams. Most disgraceful is his recent lies and misrepresentations to the eminent Judges of the CCJ. We are indeed ashamed as citizens to be receiving related calls from people in the diaspora, and worst of all, to listen to them talking about the incompetent Basil Williams.

It is indeed heartening to hear that the Leader of the Opposition, Former President Bharrat Jagdeo, is willing to reach with President Granger albeit, on a daily basis in order to resolve the appointment of a Chairman of GECOM. Further appreciated are his stance and urgings by the diplomatic community to all stakeholders to respect the CCJ’s rulings.

The mirrored willingness of civil society, in particular, the Private Sector body, is also most welcoming and demonstrative. Indeed, the CCJ’s ruling, so far, is final and the highest in the land, which must now be followed up with specific timelines to stop this blatant bullying and illegality.

It is clear that the coalition Government will only respond to pressure and they have no respect for the Constitution and the highest court of law. As the wanton, rampant thieving, and unlawful spending continues, our people are boiling up. It is of note that the coalition Government lawyers alluded to the massive spending by GECOM to train nine thousand enumerators in preparation for House-to-House Registration and this is very serious. This column already hinted at the significant wastage and non-accountability at GECOM. All of the monies being spent on the enumerators will achieve much less than will be acquired in one week of the Claims and Objections cycle in preparing the Preliminary Voters’ List.

Inside sources at GECOM have already publically declared their readiness for holding Regional and National Elections and this is the only acceptable way forward. The CCJ must, therefore, assert themselves and rule, giving directives on the viable way forward for immediate efficacy in upholding constitutionally required elections in Guyana.

Sincerely, Neil Kumar

6

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

Protection of democracy is paramount in any society

What were the facts P presented by Lands and Survey to dismiss the disclosures made by Jagdeo?

Dear Editor,

Dear Editor,

B

y exposing the massive land-grab at Lands and Survey (GLSC), the Leader of the Opposition has undoubtedly disturbed a vampire’s nest. And now all the blood-suckers are running wild trying to cover-up their tracks!

At his recent press conference, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, armed with copies of maps with valuable information from Lands and Surveys, very articulately exposed the shameful theft of prime real-estate by government officials and a tiny elite cabal of the APNU, approved in the name of the President himself.

Despite this, we’re yet to hear from President Granger under whose name strategic areas of state land were given away.

It’s unbelievable how a man who avoids the press like a plague, whose government has been engaged in scandals and corruption almost on a daily basis, gets a free pass by some sections of the media, while the PPP/C gets blame for everything that goes wrong in Guyana by Kaieteur News and another news entity even though the PPP/C has been out of office since 2015.

When the land-grab scandal, complete with maps, names and file numbers were exposed to the public, Kaieteur News chose to carry a headline, “Lands and Surveys Commissioner provides facts on Opposition Leader’s land-grabbing claims”.

But what “facts” were presented by Lands and Survey to dismiss the disclosures made by Jagdeo? Was he accusing Jagdeo of presenting fake maps? Did the Commissioner of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) Trevor Benn at his press conference present the original maps of the areas identified with a different ownership to prove Jagdeo was lying? What other “facts” were produced by Benn to refute these allegations? The evidence presented by Jagdeo was indisputable, and Trevor Benn knows it. And while the government propagandist Gordon Mosley was too busy trying to prevent others from airing the damaging report, another news entity did not even carry the original story when it was exposed by Jagdeo, but instead carried the entire Charles Ceres’ statement to the media the very next day. But what else can be expected?

Editor, doesn’t the President feel obligated to provide answers to the public for all the corruption that’s taking place in his name?

It is my opinion that the PNC propagandist has been collaborating with Lands and Surveys to cover-up the corruption, and to use the press conference to draw attention away from the President in another attempt to protect his “clean” image. So as usual,

racism lifts its ugly head again, and they’re painting this as a “Black” issue.

Let’s not be fooled, this has nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with corruption. Ordinary Black people are not benefitting from this land giveaway by the government that they voted for, nor have they benefitted from the so-called “good life”, which they were promised. It is only a privileged few like a so-called “Black Activist”, with strong connections to President Granger and his cabal, who are the beneficiaries of this pathetic act of greed and corruption. And this is going on nationwide.

Just recently in Region 5, land that was used by cattle farmers of the Shieldstown Cattle Rearer’s Co-op Society in an area known as Rampoor for over 20 years, were taken away by the MMA/ADA and were allegedly given to cronies of this government.

If this is true, I am calling for a full fledged investigation into this matter.

Despite the successful passage of the Whistleblowers Act, a dangerous trend is emerging by this government to silence anyone who is opposed to their corrupt activities.

Recently, the newly appointed Public Service Minister, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, fired the accountant and all the staff of the Personnel Department in her Ministry because she believed that the information given to Jagdeo came from a whistleblower in her department. And so to be sure, she fired everyone for leaking Information which exposed the transfer of $20 Million in taxpayers money to the private bank accounts of the children of Minister Simona Broomes by the Ministry of the Presidency.

Similarly, rather than focus on who may have been bribed to give away massive areas of strategically located state land, Trevor Benn is allegedly on a witch-hunt to find the patriotic employee who gave Jagdeo copies of the documents from Lands and Survey to end the corruption taking place there, and are using threats to discourage whistleblowers. But Benn has no case. These documents clearly show locations, acreage, plot numbers and ownership, and could have easily been refuted by Benn at his press conference if Jagdeo’s accusations were false. But they were not! I wouldn’t be surprised if these maps no longer exists at GLSC. I urge all patriotic public servants to continue to expose all wrongdoings in their respective departments, and to play their part in putting an end to government corruption and to these illegal cabals that masquerades as ministers of government.

Sincerely, Harry Gill PPP/C Member of Parliament

olitical influences are paramount in the establishment of all the State Commissions under the APNU/AFC coalition Government.

These State Commissions are important to the growth and development of this country and to ensure impartiality, patriotism and independence is a priority in all decisions. While there is no room on any constitutionally established grounds for interferences with the functioning of these Commissions, President David Granger ensured that he chose commissioners and chairpersons on State Commissions that would be “political loyalists” to him, and not impartial commissions that would be beneficial for Guyana.

If Guyanese were to examine all the State Commissions, we would notice that a pattern has been established where David Granger has been using his henchmen to manage these commissions in order to ensure that he is guaranteed his desired outcome on any decisions, for example, the GECOM, GLSC, Police Service Commission etc. Many of these commissions are not functioning or don’t even protect the interests of the ordinary citizens of Guyana. The Public Utilities Commission is a living example that refused to be practical and reasonable when they increased the water rates for the Guyanese populace.

The recent exposures by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo of land grabbing by cronies of the APNU/AFC coalition Government that was facilitated by the Chairman of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission which can cause Guyana billions of dollars

in the future is another important example.

The media is a sword arm in democracy and must ensure that the protection of democracy is paramount in any society since it’s main intention is to reach and address a large target group or audience. The media of today in Guyana is playing an outstanding role in creating and shaping of public opinion and strengthening of our society, but because of political partisan of reporters, they prejudice their integrity in relating to the public.

What is puzzling to the public is the reason or reasons why everything that takes place under the former President Bharrat Jagdeo’s stewardship or sometimes not even under his stewardship is being reported as the sole and only person responsible, but the media does not hold Granger responsible for what happens under his stewardship. This is troubling for democracy and the media might be encouraging the start of a new dictatorship.

The most recent being the headline in Kaieteur News “Jagdeo granted 20 acres weeks before leaving office” but refused to put a headline when Jagdeo exposed Granger giving away lands proposed for deepwater harbours in Guyana. Maybe a headline “Granger granted land proposed for deepwater harbours to cronies”, might be fairer and balanced.

Guyanese must urge the media to be fairer and balanced in the dissemination of information and the protection democracy.

The media must also hold David Granger responsible for everything that’s being done under his tenure too.

Regards, Zamal Hussain

Moses Nagamootoo continues senseless fabricated charade to delay Elections Dear Editor,

P

rime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, is now the latest member of the Government’s orchestra synchronizing to distort and obfuscate the Caribbean Court of Justice’s recent rulings, in their desperate quest to delay elections, avoid the electorate like a plague and continue to squat in Government.

Not being satisfied with his comical and clumsy attempt broadcast on National Television, a few weeks ago, to explain and justify that 33 is not a majority of 65, the Prime Minister was at it again in his weekly column, ‘My Turn’, published last Sunday in the Chronicle Newspaper. In that article, Prime Minister Nagamootoo abysmally failed in his attempt to make out a case for houseto-house registration as a sine qua non for Regional and General Elections, which he so frantically set out to do. Clearly unfamiliar with the relevant statutory provisions that govern Registration and which mandate a cyclical form of continuous registration as opposed to house-to-house registration, Mr. Nagamootoo deliberately makes no reference to the law, but instead premised his arguments on certain statements attributed to Dr. Steve Surujbally, allegedly, made on the eve of the 2015 elections.

Conspicuously, Prime Minister Nagamootoo deliberately omitted to recall that there was no house-to-house registration

immediately preceding the 2011 elections, which the APNU and AFC won the majority in the National Assembly, nor the 2015 General and Regional elections, in which APNU+AFC won Government as a coalition, nor the 2016, nor the 2018 Local Government elections, both of which were held under the Coalition Government.

The nation is unaware of any criticisms, whatsoever, from the Prime Minister, or his Government, regarding the integrity of any of those elections or the lists used in respect thereof. Unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister glaringly neglected to allude to the new and emerging circumstances and factors that precipitated his sudden clamour for houseto-house registration. Unfortunately, for the Prime Minister, to the initiated, the reason is clear: it is nothing but a recent and senseless fabricated charade to delay the elections with which the Government Commissioners at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and its erstwhile Chairman are willing co-conspirators.

I am of the considered view that the article was intended to make an unethical and unsavoury pitch to the President of the CCJ, whom the Prime Minister knew was in Georgetown, to participate in a judicial colloquium.

The Prime Minister, however, did not end his perversity there. He went on to prophesied (Turn to page 7)

7

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

The serious deficiencies at ‘B’ division warrant a broader Commission of Inquiry Dear Editor,

I

t was bound to happen. Notwithstanding the Commander-in-Chief’s pleadings that he wants incorruptible and unbribable Officers to lead the Guyana Police Force (GPF), ironically, quite the opposite has transpired under his watch.

Senior ranks who are perceived to be politically favoured are prone to flaunt their political plumage while strutting the passageways at Force HQ knowing full well that the penalties inherent in the Standing Orders of the GPF and Police Disciplinary Act are applicable to them should they be found guilty of violating the rules.

Perception became reality when a coterie of five Deputy Commissioners were handpicked at the conclusion of a Commission of Inquiry held in July 2017.

The COI was established to address ostensibly, ‘serious deficiencies in the Guyana Police Force,’ in effect, the strategic objective was to weed out a number of officers considered unacceptable to the Granger-led administration.

The appointments by their very nature, came across as intimidatory. They sent a strong political signal to subordinate ranks, who in turn, began expressing serious trepidations over ways and means of executing their duties professionally, while at the same time not allowing themselves to be demotivated

in doing so.

It was precisely in that environment, that subordinate ranks came to the realization that they would suffer unbearable consequences should they be unprepared to kowtow to illegal orders by those, over whose heads, rested politically inspired halos indicating their Most Politically Favoured (MPF) status in the GPF. Experience has shown that in any public service institution, where some are perceived to be politically favoured over others, there is bound to be institutional turmoil, fueled by discriminatory practices by those incapable of handling the prestige of power.

In the case of the GPF, officers perceived to be politically favoured over those who were not, are known to take advantage of their superior status to the extent of abusing the powers vested in them within the meaning of the Police Act. Few Guyanese would lose sleep over ‘breaking news’ revealing that a favoured senior rank in the GPF was ‘found in bed’ with a shady character known to be involved in criminal/corrupt activities.

Worse yet, in the context of an evolving police/civilian culture such revelations have come to be generally recognized as police/ criminal concubinage.

Once it is established that there are favoured and knowingly corrupt senior or subordinate ranks embedded in the Force, and who, because of their political connections,

are considered ‘Holy Cows’ there will be no end to the corruption syndrome impacting the GPF. But it is precisely this pretentious and sanctimonious predisposition on the part of those perceived to be politically favoured that feeds the incestuous inbreeding of corruption, disrespect and indiscipline within the GPF. Perhaps the most embarrassing aspect to this matter was the fact that the damaging expose from junior ranks at ‘B’ division caught the attention of the media. Suffice it to say, that junior police ranks tend to be bypassed and attract little or no respect from superior officers especially those perceived to be politically favoured.

As it turned out, Eve Leary mistakenly surmised that, after a few weeks, the story would subside and eventually disappear from the pages of the newspapers. They probably calculated, that the media would go after elections related stories rather than heeding the alarm bells sounded by the aggrieved ranks at ‘B’ division.

However, to the surprise and utter disdain of some members of the Police Service Commission (PSC) as well as the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) the media persisted, it was not assuaged by constant assurances from Force Headquarters to the effect that; ‘the matter is being investigated.’

It was not until the government and the leadership of the Force were brought under the full glare of the public, that the Force’s failure to respond promptly and professionally was about to become a major scandal that it was announced that an investigation was being launched and the officer involved was directed to stand down.

It took persistent reporting on the part of media to jolt the subject minister out of his slumber and flush out those guilty of inertia before the prime suspect could be identified and hauled before the court of public opinion.

Incidentally, this is not the first time this particular officer came to the attention of the public. Earlier this year, a controversy arose

over the date of his enlistment in the GPF and concomitantly, the date of his last working day which some say should have been on February 1, 2019.

The Minister of Public Security, not the PSC intervened in the matter defending the retention of the just appointed Deputy Commissioner (Crime).

Since the Crime Chief’s appointment, unwelcome changes have been effected regarding the stationing of Divisional Detective Officers (DDO’s) at ‘B’ Division.

The situation is compounded by the fact that an important police division as East Berbice is saddled with a Commander with years of experience as Head of the Immigration Department of the GPF while his deputy spent most of his life at the forensic laboratory of the Force.

Small wonder why Berbicians are under constant pressure by the criminal enterprise in that region.

Just as the ‘serious deficiencies’ in 2017 warranted a COI, in the same way the serious deficiencies at ‘B’ division need urgent, professional attention.

The situation in Berbice is further aggravated by allegations of police corruption and complicity with criminal elements.

This is why regular polygraphing of both senior and subordinate ranks of the GPF is so critical if professionalism and honesty is to prevail within the ranks of the Force from top to bottom.

In the circumstances, the call by the Opposition PPP for ‘a wider probe 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’ is justifiable and should be supported by all those who support the view that public confidence in policing is best served by robust and independent oversight.

Yours faithfully, Clement J. Rohee, Former Minister of Home Affairs

GL&SC Commissioner’s press conference was an attempt at obfuscation Dear Editor,

O

bfuscation surrounds the statement from the Chief Executive Officer of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GL&SC), Mr Trevor Benn, who at a press conference on Friday assured the nation that he was not personally involved in any corrupt land transactions. But is that the point? Former President Bharrat Jagdeo highlighted some serious issues with regards to the mad haste to transfer State lands using the machinery of the GL&SC after the passage of the No-Confidence Motion on December 21, 2018. His statements are principally against the political influence on the leadership of the GL&SC and how it is being used to allow people who are using their official positions to influence personal gains for themselves. Transparency International defines such a practice plainly and simply – corruption. The person Mr Jagdeo seems to be holding singularly accountable for the state of affairs on these shady land transfers is Mr Granger. So I see no reason for Mr Benn to

get hot under the collar.

At best, Mr Benn should have come with his maps, his dates and his facts to help Mr Granger prove Mr Jagdeo incorrect and this he did not do. Rather, he totally skirts around the crux of the matter in a clandestine effort to play down and distort what Mr Jagdeo is saying. And for dessert, he took the opportunity to inject politics into the matter which unfortunately placed Mr Benn in a political position. Is Mr Benn, who was a former senior leader in the YSM, the youth arm of the PNC, reverting to his old role and has he decided to throw professionalism to the wind?

It is extremely important to this nation that Mr Benn refute all of these claims by Mr Jagdeo factually, item by item in a surgical fashion. Nothing else but countering evidence-based facts will remove the perception now that the decision-making process at the GL&SC is corrupt. So this smokescreen of calling in the police is not helping Mr Benn, rather it illustrates a feature in many Governments of Guyana when caught in a corruption

probe, they put on their battle fatigues and in the most gruesome fashion, commences a cover-up operation by blaming all and sundry but themselves for the financial and administrative skulduggery unearthed. So if Mr Benn wants to help Mr Granger, he better get down to work or shut up.

In the final analysis, Mr Benn’s press conference was nothing else but a decoy that causes the facts to be lost in a scramble to get his points over without competently addressing the issues raised by Mr Jagdeo. It is unfortu-

nately that Mr Jagdeo’s information had to be met with disinformation by Mr Benn since Guyana is now forced to choose sides based on the information in the public domain and from the way it is being assessed, Mr Jagdeo’s information with his maps and dates is more authentic than Mr Benn, who came to the press conference totally unprepared.

I expected better from Mr Benn.

Sincerely, L. Ally

Moses Nagamootoo continues... that the CCJ “would make orders that are advisory and not coercive”. In my considered view, this is another malevolent attempt at influencing the Court. Thankfully, most law student would know that Court Orders are declaratory, coercive or prohibitory.

In any event, none of the parties in the cases have approached the CCJ for “advice”.

(From page 6)

Hence, the Court has adjourned the matter to hear the parties via written submissions, in respect of “consequential orders”, not “consequential advice”.

Yours faithfully, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, PPP/C MP, Attorney-at-Law

8

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

A totally bogus position by GECOM Dear Editor,

I

f one is to study the work plan from the 2011 Elections, it reveals an important point. From July 18, 2011 when the Preliminary List of Electors (PLE) was extracted from the National Register of Registrants (NRR) to put the Claims & Objection (C&O) process into gear, until that process was completed on September 4, 2011, only 48 days (just over 6 weeks) were consumed.

At the end of the C&O process Guyana had a Revised List of Electors (RLE). The political parties were able to use this RLE to further help GECOM make any last minute valid and verified modifications before they

printed the Official List of Electors (Actual Voter’s List).

Any person with an average mathematics competence will tell you that there were still 42 days for GECOM to exhaust the full 90 days or 3 months as prescribed by Article 106 of the Constitution.

So why is there a school of thought coming out GECOM that they can only produce a Christmas List? It is a bogus position, full stop.

Mr. Keith Lowenfield, the Chief Election Officer must be called to account.

Yours faithfully, Sasenarine Singh

Granger’s fear of facing the electorate is palpable Dear Editor,

A

vote for David Granger and his coalition in 2015 was touted as a “vote for change” and indeed, there have been changes in the Administration of Government of Guyana. A major change has been the levelling of corruption charges based on evidence. Former President Bharrat Jagdeo has used the constitutional office of Leader of the Opposition to transform the previous culture of allegations based on innuendo or anecdote. When in office, the PPP/C often replied to allegations with requests for evidence. Given a chance to prosecute many of these claims made while in Opposition, the Granger Administration has fallen woefully short of credible. The sale of land for housing at less than market value at Sparendaam and a mix-up about the inclusion of the purchase of law reports in an employment contract speaks more to political witchhunts than serious corruption.

We are now in the ear of evidence-based allegations, with files and complaints being filed at various law enforcement agencies, whistleblowers have emerged in every sector of the public service and from across the political spectrum to provide tangible proof of wrongdoing. Names, dates, documents, images, file numbers, specificity to the nth degree.

As interesting as this phenomenon is, a pattern emerges after the response. Following allegations, there is a period of total silence which lasts for seven to seventeen days.

During this period, the claims are pushed with vigour by media, corruption watchdogs and political activists. If the hue and cry dies down, we never get an explanation as with claims of verbal abuse of a constable by Annette Ferguson and the requested release of an unlicensed motorcycle rider in August 2018. However, when allegations do persist, the public is then treated to an ‘explanation’.

These are not accompanied by policy documents, paper trails or any other exculpatory evidence. For example, the bizarre case of the payment of US$9000 into David Patterson’s

personal account has not been attended by any paperwork. Patterson has repeatedly avoided explaining how a Chinese company got his personal bank account details; short of it being printed on the back of his business card, there is no plausible explanation, nor has Patterson provided paper evidence to demonstrate repatriation of the “travel expenses” to MARAD. Take my word for it, this is not an option preferred by taxpayers.

There is also the denial of allegations based on specificity. Winston Jordan denied receiving a “US$20 million” signing bonus.

His defence when the truth came out was a lame excuse that the actual bonus is “US$18 million”. Eric Philips denied receiving “3000 acres” of land. Now that the evidence has come to light of a grant of “2000 acres” with probable cause to believe there may be more revelations of additional acreages allocated, there is no doubt Phillips will rely on the ‘Jordan’ defence.

There are other minor patterns that show the Granger Administration lacks moral and ethical direction from top to bottom; acceptance of paid travel and lack of policy directing courses of action.

The clearest and most damming pattern is of the inaction by President Granger when faced with irrefutable evidence. His Excellency’s ability to turn his face from black and white realities is remarkable if only for its consistency. He is the rock upon which his corrupt Ministers stand, on drug bonds, on D’Urban Park, on the Harbour Bridge, on downsized but increased priced airport renovations, contracts for family and friends.

More and more of the Cabinet clamber onto the safety of Granger’s rock, seemingly not noticing that it is sinking inexorably into the quicksand of corruption.

We are into the silence again and David Granger is experiencing that sinking feeling, and his fear of facing the electorate is palpable.

Respectfully, Robin Singh

One-sentence response from Top Cop on complaint about ‘threat to public order and safety’ ‒ ERC also acknowledges complaint letter P olice Commissioner, Leslie James, responded to a complaint about the “threat to public order and safety” on June 20, 2019.

His letter said only that: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 19, 2019 and wish to indicate that the contents is being perused.”

Progressive Party (PPP) Executive, Gail Teixeira, wrote to James, following declarations made by several APNU+AFC Coalition Government officials, following the June 18, 2019 ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on the validity of the no-confidence motion and the illegality of the appointment of James Patterson as the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, are cause for profound concern.

Teixeira reminded that in a report, published on March 21, 2019 by the Department of Public Information that he, as Police Commissioner, called for Guyanese to remain calm and keep the peace.

The report stated that: “The Commissioner underscored the fact that anyone who breaches the law will be held accountable and punished. The leadership and the members of the Guyana Police Force have noted on social media of seeming intention to disrupt the current calm in our society. ‘May I warn that anyone found in breach of the law will be dealt with in a condign manner. The Force’s membership throughout the ten (10) Administrative Regions are on high alert and endeavours to prevent and respond to any eventuality,’ Commissioner warned.”

Teixeira, in her letter to James said, “I hope, sir, that as Commissioner, you continue to hold that same view following the June 18, 2019 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the highest court of our land, which ruled that the unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections

Commission was flawed and in breach of the constitution; that the No Confidence Motion was valid, that 33 votes was the majority of all 65 elected members of the National Assembly and that Charandass Persaud’s vote was valid and that Persaud was free to vote outside his party’s list. There is therefore no further room for doubt and ambiguity as to what is required by the President and government at this time.”

According to her, James’ comments on March 21, 2019 are more relevel now.

“We have now the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the highest court, and we are all therefore expected to abide by the CCJ rulings that the No Confidence Motion is valid and elections must be held within the shortest time,” she said.

The PPP Executive added, “I, therefore, call on you as Commissioner and the custodian of public safety and order to carry out your mandate vigorously and to publicly defend, preserve and protect the rule of law and the Guyana Constitution in our nation.”

ERC RESPONSE Additionally, Teixeira, on June 19, 2019, also sent a letter to the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), Dr. John Smith, which has been acknowledged.

In her letter she said, “Reports in the media emanating from the President and Ministers are cause for concern. These statements in response to the rulings of the highest court of Guyana, the Caribbean Court of Justice, have been unsettling and disturbing. These statements and declarations should no doubt also be cause for profound concern by Ethnic Relations Commission and the entire citizenry.”

Teixeira made reference to publications, as well as video recordings being circulated on social media,

including: 1. A Demerara Waves – June 19, 2019 – article headlined ‘Gov’t in defiance mode; “no registration, no election - Jordan, Nagamootoo’. Minister Jordan is quoted as saying: “Notwithstanding the ruling today and not withstanding all the consequential orders, we will be here until the elections are called and we will be at the tape when the next term begins.” Jordan stated too that there would be no elections until there was house to house registration and called on supporters on the streets to picket “no registration, no elections.” In the same report “the Prime Minister warned that if that if youths are disenfranchised there would be “trouble” if the youth are not registered.”

2. A Guyana Daily News – June 19, 2019 – article headlined ‘Jordan tells Barticians ‘war break’, calls on residents to be ready to take to the streets’. Minister Jordan was quoted as saying that its “war break” as the CCJ handed down its decision on the Guyana no confidence motion, saying “no registration, no elections”.

3. A video of a the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s public meeting in Bartica – June 18, 2019 – where Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo stated that he “had put back on his olive green shirt as he was back in battle gear, back in the battle and will not be surrendered by him.”

According to Teixeira, these statements are inciting and a threat to public order and safety and are in contempt of the Caribbean Court of Justice rulings of June 18, 2019. “I therefore call on the ERC to carry out its constitutional mandate vigorously to promote peace and harmony and to stand publicly in defence of the rule of law and the constitution. I urge you to register with the President and his Ministers that the CCJ ruling must be complied with in spirit and intent,” she said.

9

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

Former President Ramotar secures injunction against Kaieteur media over misleading reporting

Challenge to GECOM’s proposed de-registration of Guyanese voters will likely be ‘overtaken by CCJ’s consequential orders’ – Nandlall

H

A

igh Court judge, Sandil Kissoon, on Tuesday (July 2, 2019) granted a temporary injunction against the Kaieteur News and Kaieteur Radio, which former President Donald Ramotar has sued defamatory publications and broadcasts.

The injunction restrains the Kaieteur News and Kaieteur Radio from publishing or broadcasting any statement whatsoever of and concerning Ramotar which suggests or tend to suggests or convey the impression that he is engaged in, connected to, associated with, involved in malpractice and/or stole money whatsoever and howsoever.

Ramotar’s $40M lawsuit argues that the media outlets commenced a series of publications about the investigation by the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) into oil blocks that were awarded during his tenure as President. These reports, he said, were responded to in a comprehensive manner on May 31, 2019 when he issued a press statement. While press statement, according to Ramotar, was extensively carried by other media houses, Kaieteur News and Kaieteur Radio refused to publish it. He added that in spite of that statement, the defendants commenced publications and broadcasts

in the “Kaieteur News” and on “Kaieteur Radio Today” which were defamatory to him and done to cause injury to his “character and good reputation.”

Ramotar said that the Kaieteur News falsely and maliciously carried an innuendo and published “boldly and sensationally” what he described as a full page article with the blazing headline “Wake up Guyana!!!.”

Ramotar said that the article sought to compare him and former Senegalese President, Abdoulaye Wade. Photographs of Wade and him, he said, were included in the inset of a photograph depicting

“alleged stolen oil blocks in Senegal and Guyana.”

In the lawsuit, Ramotar added that Kaieteur News continued to cause injury to his reputation by further falsely and maliciously publishing two cartoons, “which any reasonable person would come to the conclusion” were referring to bandits. The former president said that that article had his face published in the inset of a picture showing the alleged stolen oil blocks and used the name, “Donald,” which any reasonable person would conclude was referring to him.

The Former President contends in his affidavit that the article is highly defamatory and it uses the innuendo in a manner that ensures any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that he stole US$100 million.

He said too that the Kaieteur News repeatedly published and broadcasted a plethora of other articles defamatory in nature against him and which suggested that while he served as president, he engaged in activities to deprive Guyanese of newly discovered oil fortune and that he “gave away lucrative oil blocks to companies he and or his family were in control of.”

Ramotar is being represented by the former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall.

decision in the legal proceedings filed by former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the house-to-house registration, proposed to be embarked upon by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), is expected later this month.

Nandlall in comments in the issue said, “On the last occasion, the Learned Chief Justice requested the lawyers from all sides to address the Court in writing and clarified certain issues identified by the Court. The matter was adjourned to a date in July.

“However, it is highly likely that this case would be overtaken by the CCJ’s (Caribbean Court of Justice) consequential orders, which are scheduled to be delivered on or before the 12th day of July 2019. Indeed, at an earlier hearing, the Learned Chief Justice intimated that the Court might defer its ruling to await the ruling from the CCJ, as the Court stated that it did not want to deliver a decision that may be contrary to and inconsistent with the rulings of the CCJ.” In May, 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.

Nandlall, filed legal proceedings against the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, and GECOM on her behalf.

With GECOM’s push to

house-to-house registration, eligible Guyanese voters – including students studying abroad and Guyanese working overseas – were listed for de-registration as Guyanese voters, as would any Guyanese who was not in Guyana when the house-to-house registration took place.

Notably, the Parliamentary Opposition maintains its objection to new national house-to-house registration, stressing that it is unnecessary at this point in time.

ORDERS SOUGHT In the Court documents filed, Zeenatoun, is seeking several things from the court, including: • A declaration that the proposed House to House Registration exercise to be embarked upon by the Respondents in or about June 2019, shall be unconstitutional, ultra vires, illegal, null, void and of no effect.

• A declaration that the proposed House to House Registration exercise to be embarked upon by the Respondents in or about June 2019, to create a new National Register of Registrants from which will be extracted a new Official List of Electors, shall be unconstitutional, ultra vires, illegal, null, void and of no effect.

• A declaration that the proposed House to House Registration exercise to be embarked upon by the Respondents in or about June 2019, will exclude existing qualified registrants currently on the National Reg-

Coalition Ministers acknowledge lack of jobs... of jobs, among other moves.

“The APNU+AFC objective is an integrated employment strategy,” the manifesto added.

More recently, Granger, instead of a job plan, has talked up a 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,” he said at a press conference last week.

Additionally, he 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.

Granger’s last major statement on jobs was in a May 2016 broadcast of ‘The Public Interest’, where he 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

ister of Registrants and on the Official List of Electors, shall be unconstitutional, ultra vires, illegal, null, void and of no effect; • A declaration that proposed House to House Registration exercise to be embarked upon by the Respondents in or about June 2019, will exclude the Applicant who is currently on the National Register of Registrants and on the Official List of Electors, and will contravene her constitutional right to vote; • A writ of prohibition directed to the Respondents restraining them by themselves, their servants and their agents from embarking upon House to House Registration scheduled to commence in June 2019, or any date thereafter; • An injunction restraining the Respondents by themselves, their servants and their agents from embarking upon House to House Registration scheduled to commence in June 2019, or any date thereafter; and • A Conservatory Order restraining the Respondents by themselves, their servants and their agents from embarking upon House to House Registration scheduled to commence in June 2019, or any date thereafter; Prior to the CCJ, on June 18, 2019, declaring that James Patterson’s was unconstitutionally appointed as GECOM Chairman, the Commission during its statutory meetings did not discuss this issue.

(From page 3)

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 had said.

Over 30,000 Guyanese have lost their jobs since APNU+AFC took office, the

bulk of the job losses seen in the sugar sector with the mass firings of over 5,000 sugar workers.

Among the ministers on the outreach were: Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams; Minister of Public Telecommunications, Cathy Hughes; and Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman.

10

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 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 (July 4, 2019), including the continued meetings of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government Cabinet, despite the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice on June 18, 2019, and Minister Raphael Trotman’s move to blame technical staffers for failing to ensure a stronger re-negotiated agreement between Guyana and ExxonMobil.

Technical personnel should have been hired to deal with renegotiation of ExxonMobil contract

E

arlier this week, Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman, finally admitted that there were problems with the renegotiated contract between ExxonMobil and Guyana, which was signed off on by the APNU+AFC Coalition Government. And he absolved himself of any responsibility, blaming the technical staffers of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC).

Trotman had said, “My only comment is that as a non-technical person, I was not the one to negotiate the contract, and that, at all material times, I acted on the advice and direction of the GGMC…how could I see something as an indictment on myself if I didn’t draft it? I relied on the officers at GGMC at all times and was advised when the agreement

was ready for signature.”

Notably, his comment came after reports on the visit by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation, during which the Coalition Government, for the first time, expressed concern that the lack of ring-fencing could negatively affect revenue earned from the agreement it signed with Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) for the 6.6 million acres Stabroek Block.

Meanwhile, GGMC staffers have made clear that they had no input in the finalizing of the agreement.

Responding to the issues, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, noted that the Parliamentary Opposition had warned against the exclusion of technical persons from the negotiation. “We said inept negotiations would cost the

country billions,” he said.

In May 2018, Jagdeo had pointed out that responses from Minister Trotman to questions raised a meeting of the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources indicated that the renegotiation of the ExxonMobil contract was not based on national considerations or

‘Marijuana talk’ by APNU+AFC gov’t a transparent ploy T he intelligence of the Guyanese people is being insulted by APNU+AFC Coalition Government, via the “transparent ploy” regarding the announcement about marijuana.

On Tuesday (July 2, 2019) the Ministry of the Presidency announced that Cabinet approved a proposal to remove custodial sentences for possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, on Thursday (July 4, 2019) called attention to the fact that: one, the APNU+AFC Coalition Government Cabinet is illegal, given the June 18, 2019 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ); and two, the announcement has no weight, since possession still legally carries stiff penalties, including jail time.

Jagdeo also pointed to the starkly different positions held by the officials of the APNU+AFC Coalition

just recently.

When the issue of decriminalizing possession of marijuana came up, Attorney General, Basil Williams, stated that a referendum would be needed.

Asked the same question in 2018, Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, said: “I will hope that an issue like this will be subjected to broad consultations and include the opposition because you don’t want to go and have a divided position on the issue on whether you want to Reform our Psychotropic Substances Abuse.”

Prior to that, in May 2016, Granger said, “Granger - This is not something that is a preoccupation of the Administration at the present time… (and) I would not counsel the use of marijuana by young people or anybody.” Granger also pointed out that the Administration needs to be careful not to adapt pol-

icies being practiced by developed countries which have stronger regulatory frameworks to enforce the laws. On this note, President Granger said a comprehensive study on the decriminalisation/legalisation of marijuana in Guyana should be done before any decisions be taken.

Considering these positions, Jagdeo said, “This is transparent...it is nothing but a ploy.”

The issue of reviewing possession of quantities of marijuana, which attract a mandatory, minimum, jail sentence was included in the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) 2015 manifesto. After 2015, Jagdeo had also said in the past that if the issue was brought to the National Assembly by the APNU+AFC Coalition, PPP/C Parliamentarians would be free to cast a conscience vote on the issue.

what is good for Guyana and the Guyanese people.

He noted that Trotman admitted that the Coalition Government initiated the renegotiation of the contract and the move was based on threats to Guyana’s territorial integrity by Venezuela.

During the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources meeting, PPP/C Parliamentarian, Odinga Lumumba specifically asked Trotman, “Who initiated the changes to the 2016 agreement?” Trotman responded, “The Government of Guyana did.” Lu-

mumba asked, “Why?” Trotman responded, “We did it because of the threat of Venezuela.”

Jagdeo had questioned Trotman’s response and pointed out that a renegotiated contract was not needed to keep ExxonMobil from continuing its work since oil was already discovered. “You did not need a new contract to keep Exxon in that geographic area…ExxonMobil had already found oil, they were going to drill in any case in that same location,” he said.

According to him, the controversial clauses in the ExxonMobil were not addressed significantly in the renegotiation. “When he (Trotman) was asked about the stability clause he said it was plucked from somewhere,” Jagdeo said.

The Opposition Leader added, “…I think all of Guyana paid careful attention to the hearing convened by the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources. At that meeting, Trotman sought to explain the thinking behind the renegotiated contract signed with

ExxonMobil. All of Guyana was hoping that the Minister would explain some of the very contentions clauses and how they managed to find themselves in the contract.

I must say I was disappointed.”

Moreover, he noted the worrying admission that there is “no paper trail” regarding the Coalition Government’s engagement with ExxonMobil on significant matters.

Jagdeo noted Trotman’s comments about the government hiring an international law firm to help with the negotiations of future oil contracts, reflects what the Parliamentary Opposition has been calling for since 2015. “We have been saying that we need to get the best people in the room,” he said, adding that the Government cannot tout international experts and then ignore their advice.

All considered, the Opposition Leader charged that the circumstances surrounding the signing of a renegotiated contract with ExxonMobil remain murky.

Cabinet meetings, decisions illegal

T

he APNU+AFC Coalition Government Cabinet met on Tuesday (July 2, 2019), followed by a post-Cabinet press conference hosted by Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon on Thursday (July 4, 2019).

Commenting on this, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, during his weekly news conference on Thursday (July 4, 2019) said, “Harmon when he spoke at that press conference (the post cabinet press conference) was speaking on behalf of an illegal government and a Cabinet that should have not held a meeting.”

He stressed that following the passage of the no-confidence motion, on December 21, 2018, the Constitution of Guyana is clear on what should happen – more so given the June 18, 2019 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice, which declared that the no-confidence motion was validly passed.

“The provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) are clear on their face,” said the ruling [paragraph 56] of Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, in the no-confidence motion challenge case.

Justice Saunders’ ruling [paragraph three] adds that:

“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 that notwithstanding its defeat, the government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months.”

The Opposition Leader stressed that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government must respect the Constitution and uphold the rule of law in Guyana.

11

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 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 (July 4, 2019), including the continued meetings of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government Cabinet, despite the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice on June 18, 2019, and Minister Raphael Trotman’s move to blame technical staffers for failing to ensure a stronger re-negotiated agreement between Guyana and ExxonMobil.

Facts about massive giveaway of State lands have not been refuted, Granger remains silent T

he preoccupation of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GL&SC), Trevor Benn, on how documents exposing the massive giveaway of lands were leaked, was the most substantive issue he dealt with, in an attempt to respond to the revelations that were made by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, last week.

This week, during his Thursday (July 4, 2019) news conference, Jagdeo noted that, to date, Benn has failed to prove that the revelations were false.

“His primary concern is how I got the maps….he did not say that the maps are fake…are the maps lying?

No they are not…the facts of what I said have not been refuted,” the Opposition Leader said.

Notably, Benn had said: “There was evidence of the commission’s property being on display at a press conference yesterday (Thursday) without any record in the commission to show payments were made for those

properties… this is clear evidence that our staff has been corrupted.” Benn also issued a call to the police to enquire how the documents got into the hands of Jagdeo, since there was no evidence that the documents were paid for at the GLSC. Jagdeo said, “If the police have to investigate anything.

They should be investigating Trevor Benn.”

The Opposition Leader also called out Kaieteur News for attempting to downplay the damning revelations of the giveaway of State lands.

“Kaieteur News was editorializing in their story… a story that came out even before Benn had a press conference to respond to me.”

The Kaieteur News article – headlined ‘Jagdeo claims massive land giveaway, Lands and Survey refutes it’ - said: “…not a single media outlet carried the fabrication about the land distribution.”

CERES CONTINUES TO MISLEAD On the issue of comments

made by Charles Ceres, one of the persons named as beneficiaries of state lands, who is directly linked to the Ministry of the Presidency, Jagdeo made clear that the issue is not personal, rather it was to expose what was happening – the giveaway of State assets in a less than transparent manner. “The issue was not personal, it was to expose linkages,” the Opposition Leader said.

He noted that Ceres made a statement on the matter, which said: “I, Charles Ceres was never granted lease(s) for any other lands… I was never granted land in Bohemia.”

Jagdeo pointed to the map, evidence, to show that Ceres was not being truthful.

“This is not a fake map…his name is on the map with 112 acres….how did his name end up on the map?”

NO ANSWERS In the meantime, President David Granger persists in his silence on the issue.

He said, “Granger gets a free pass on issues of corruption under his watch….

he cannot not answer when he is responsible for GL&CS and four of his staff members who are beneficiaries of large tracts of land in recent times, in very recent times, some after the passage of the no-confidence motion, in locations that are critical. I pointed out where we had plans to advance development projects, including deep water harbours…the four names I mentioned are persons directly connected to Granger’s office…Granger must answer.”

Notably, 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 stressed the giveaway of laws were done in Granger’s name and he must answer for what occurred.

RACE ISSUE The Opposition Leader also trashed the arguments about race that were raised after he made the disclosures last week.

He said, “In attempt to excuse this issue, they tried to make it an issue of race.

For the last three years, I personally and the PPP have pointed out that regardless of race, if you are cronies, you get beneficial treatment.”

According to him, preferential treatment to Indo-Guyanese, including: Hardat Singh’s company, HDM Labs, being given preferential treatment to secure major contracts to supply medical supplies to the Ministry of Health; Lloyd Singh and the Wind Farm deal, as well as the problems with that project, not being in line with what should be development goals for the energy sector; Robert Badal on the matter of the sale of NICIL shares in Guyana Stockfeeds Ltd. by the Coalition Government; and BK Tiwarie and the Haags

Bosch debacle, where a basic lawyers’ letter saw the settlement of an issue that cost the treasury million.

“How come it was not race when we names these names?” Jagdeo asked, adding that the estimates indicate the cronies of the government benefited from over $100B at the expense of taxpayers.

He added, “I said the last time that this is not about race…thousands of people of every race are affected…

Eric Phillips got land equivalent to 10,000 house lots…I saw (Minister Annette) Ferguson telling people that they have to wait 18 months to get your house lots applications even looked at…. how come others applied and in three months they got it, but ordinary Guyanese have to wait 18 months?” he questioned.

The Opposition Leader stressed that the arguments about race are intended to obfuscate the issue, nothing more. [SEE PAGE 18 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON THIS ISSUE]

Coalition gov’t position on fighting corruption in question M

inister of Foreign Affairs, Karen Cummings, recently touted the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s commitment to combatting corruption at the Organisation of American States (OAS) Summit Implementation Review Group Meeting in Medellin, Columbia.

And during his Thursday (July 4, 2019) news conference, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, charged that the Coalition Government’s position on fighting corruption is in questions.

1. The deposit of US$9,000 into the personal bank account of Public Infrastructure Minister, David Patterson.

2. The transfer of over $20M of taxpayers’ monies to

the children of Minister Simona Broomes. Details on the matter indicate that in 2018, two transfers of US$25,000 each to the daughter of Minister Broomes, the Department of Public Service within the Ministry of the Presidency. In 2019, there was another transfer to Broomes’ daughter worth US$36,450 by the Department of Public Service within the Ministry of the Presidency. Minister Broomes’ son, in 2019, benefited from a fourth transfer of GYD$2.51M from the same Department. The disclosure from your Director General, Joseph Harmon, that the monies represented sums for scholarships raises more questions that remain unanswered.

3. The failure to account for the use of taxpayers’ mon-

ies on the multi-million dollar D’Urban Park Project. After months of delay, it is only recently that information has been finally handed to the Audit Office by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure. The 2017 Audit report pointed out that millions spent on the project could not be accounted for.

4. The continued breaches of Guyana’s procurement laws, relative to the feasibility study on a new Demerara River crossing. The Public Procurement Commission has pronounced on the illegal nature of this undertaking.

The report said: “The PPC noted that the Minster of Public Infrastructure, by memorandum dated November 18 2016, made a request to the Cabinet for

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

more than $$161,514,420 was spent – instead it is close to $300 million that was spent.

5. The racket involving the fraudulent appropriation of vehicles at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA).

6. The use of taxpayers’ monies for PNCR campaign work. Credible information released indicates that some $50 million of taxpayers’ monies – paid over via a government cheque – was spent on tickets for the Buju Banton concert, held on May 25, 2019 and these tickets were distributed by PNCR General Secretary, Amna Ally, in several communities.

7. The use of public office by Minister Cathy Hughes to bolter her financial standing and that of her company, Videomega Pro-

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

Since then, more information in the public domain, indicates that, in Minister Hughes’ Ministry of Public Telecommunications three contracts were awarded to her company, Videomega Productions: (Turn to page 14)

12

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 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 6-7 JULY, 2019

APNU+AFC gov’t inaction this week

13

…a snapshot of headlines making the news

Residents of St. Cuthbert’s Mission told to wait a little longer During a community meeting at of St. Cuthbert’s Mission on Sunday (June 30, 2019) residents raised several concerns.

Present were Ministers of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs Sydney Allicock and Valerie Garrido-Lowe; Minister of Social Cohesion, Dr. George Norton and others.

In response to the concerns raised, the ministers promised a solar farm, raadworks and improvements to water quality.

However, the residents were told to wait a little longer, as these promises will be delivered on in the near future.

Residents of Aliki get nothing but more promises from APNU+AFC gov’t Director-General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon and Minister of Business, Haimraj Rajkumar have assured residents of the Aliki community, Essequibo River, Region 3, that the Coalition is a caring government, during a meeting held on Sunday (June 30, 2019).

However, when it came to direct responses to issued affecting the community, the Coalition officials were not forthcoming.

Instead, contact details of residents were taken, and promises were made that issues that required attention will be relayed to the relevant ministries and agencies.

Nagamootoo refuses to address Coalition’s broken promises Addressing Guyanese on a radio programme, ‘Straight Up’, on last week, Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, insisted that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government is on “good footing” since it has a credible record of achievement over the last four-plus years.

Nagamootoo failed to address the many broken promises made by the Coalition Government, prior to the May 2015 General and Regional Elections. He also failed to address the loss of jobs, increased cost of living, corruption and other issues affecting Guyanese people.

“This is the best government we (Guyana) have had,” Nagamootoo insisted.

Four ministers visit Leguan to talk about social cohesion

In a period when most Guyanese are concerned about the increased cost of living, loss of jobs and other issues affecting their welfare, four APNU+AFC Coalition government ministers, during a visit of Leguan, Region 3, on Sunday (June 30, 2019) opted to talk about social cohesion.

Among those at the meeting, held at Leguan Secondary School, were: Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan; Minister within the Ministry of Public Infrastructure, Jaipaul Sharma; Minister within the Ministry of Communities, with responsibility for Housing, Annette Ferguson; and Minister of Social Protection, Amna Ally.

Ally, also the General Secretary of the PNCR, told residents that as far as the Coalition Government is concerned, it matters not which political party citizens support, but rather that they are provided with the opportunity to partake in a good life. However, the Coalition’s failure to deliver on the promises made to ensure the ‘good life’ for Guyanese were not acknowledged by Ally or any of the ministers at the event.

Trotman blames technical staff for problems in ExxonMobil agreement Despite the fact that has Minister of Natural Resources, he bears responsibility for happenings under his purview, Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman, has opted to back the buck to technical staffers.

During an International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation visit here earlier this month, government, for the first time, expressed concern that the lack of ring-fencing could negatively affect revenue earned from the agreement it signed with Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) for the 6.6 million acres Stabroek Block.

However, Trotman insists that the fault is with staff of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), despite the fact that they never heard about or saw the renegotiated contract until it was completed and ready for signature in June 2016 and the agency was not asked for input immediately leading up to the signing of the new agreement.

Gov’t still has no answers on the arbitrary firing of MOTP staffers More than two weeks ago, a special Board of Inquiry was commissioned by President David Granger to probe the arbitrary firing of staff at the Public Service Ministry by Minister Tabitha Sarabo-Halley but to date, no real groundwork has been done.

Lance Carberry was appointed by the APNU+AFC Coalition government to investigate the dismissal of the employees in June.

The move came after the government faced severe criticisms for the incident.

After the staff were fired, the Ministry of the Presidency (MOTP) denied it. A letter leaked to the media confirmed the dismissal. After that, MOTP Director General, Joseph Harmon, admitted to it and said the dismissals were rescinded and the persons were on administrative leave, pending the outcome of Carberry’s inquiry.

APNU+AFC continue campaigning with taxpayers’ monies On Sunday (June 30, 2019), a total of 22 ministers – and their accompanying entourages – descended on Wakenaam, Region 3. Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, was sent to another location in Region 4.

This latest Coalition Government ‘outreach’ comes on the heels a damning admission

by AFC Leader and Public Security Minister, Khemraj Ramjattan. He admitted that taxpayers’ monies are being used by the APNU+AFC Coalition to campaign. On June 20, 2019, on a radio programme, he said: “We 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.”

This is despite the fact that the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), on June 18, 2019, ruled that the passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2019 is valid. He said, “The provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) are clear on their face.” He added that: “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 that notwithstanding its defeat, the government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months.”

14

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

Coalition gov’t position on... (From page 11) The resilience we seek to build must • June 4, 2018 – Advertisement of Vacancies - $939,738 • June 25, 2018 – Facebook Page - $119,670 • September 21, 2018 – CTU/ITC Roadshow 2018 - $2,291, 128 Videomega Productions benefited, also, from: • Ministry of Public Infrastructure: September 19, 2018 – Television advertisement - $256,500 • Ministry of Business: September 28, 2018 – Video for Caribbean Tourism Diaspora Forum - $198,800 • Ministry of Education: July 12, 2018 – Video Production - $1,487,700 • Ministry of Natural Resources: May 25, 2018 – Artwork - $1,420,115 • Ministry of Public Health: July 27, 2018 – Advertisement - $3,592,236 8. Sell-off of State Assets. The sale by the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) of two Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) transmission towers – located at Camp Street, in George-town and at Drill, Mahaicony – to

Bobby Vieira’s Multicultural Communications Inc. without public tendering at a vastly undervalued price.

9. The securing of a $30B bond against assets of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo). To date, use of the monies remain secret, despite the fact that tax dollars are being used to repay interest on the bond, and will be used to repay the bond in the years to come.

10. The non-reflection of the US$18M signing bonus in the National Accounts. For three years, 2017-2019, the receipt of these monies were not reflected in the annual National Estimates. The intent behind the attempt to hide the receipt of the monies from the Guyanese people remains unexplained.

11. The settlement of taxes owed by Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL). The sum owed by DDL, according to the GRA assessment, was $5.392B from 2001 to 2006.

The settlement saw DDL paying only $1.5B and also writes off all possible liabilities in respect of Excise Tax up to March 9, 2016. This

unexplained write off has exposed the national Treasury to billions in losses, as seen with the case filed by Banks DIH against your Government.

If DDL had not released a press release disclosing that there was a settlement, the matter would have remained secret. Other similar write-off remain shadowed by secrecy.

The Guyanese people are in the dark about what revenues have been given up as a result of your Administration’s actions.

12. The payment of over $300M, for a three-year period, in rentals for the house of a card-bearing PNCR member that was passed off as a ‘drug bond’. In breach of Guyana’s financial laws, your government handed over $12M monthly in rent for a house located at 29 Sussex Street, Albouystown. When the contract was finally released, after pressure from the Parliamentary Opposition, it showed that your Government was renting a professional office, not a storage bond for pharmaceuticals.

These are only a few of the scandals.

be built within the CARICOM Single Market and Economy – CARICOM SG

T

he 40th Regular Meeting of the Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government, opened on Wednesday evening (July 3, 2019) under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister Allen Chastanet of Saint Lucia, at the Royalton St Lucian Resort, with strong calls to strengthen regional integration mechanisms.

In the first of four addresses during the opening ceremony, CARICOM Secretary-General, Ambassador Irwin LaRocque said the Community’s resilience must reside within the CARICOM Single Market and Economy.

“Mr. Chairman, Heads of Government, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, the resilience that we seek to build extends to our economies. It must be built upon the foundation provided by the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME). ” Ambassador LaRocque acknowledged the “challenging task” of creating one market out of 12 developing economies, each of which is at different levels of development. However, he also struck an encouraging tone noting, “We have persevered,

and we have made progress.”

Stressing the importance of meeting agreed deadlines for implementation of administrative provisions for the CSME to function effectively, he said, “it is in our interest to accelerate this process and to create a competitive regional economy.”

The Secretary-General underlined the steps the Community has been taking to reinvigorate the CSME, including engaging the private sector, labour, and civil society.

He underscored the interest of the youth in the advancement of the CSME, a signal he said they gave him during a live-streamed forum on Monday 1 July, which reached more than 15,000 youth via the internet.

“These stakeholders are the beneficiaries of the CSME, and therefore have a major stake in its implementation,” the SG stated.

CARICOM Heads of Government will receive a preliminary report from the restructured Commission on the Economy, which was tasked last December at the Special Meeting on the CSME, to formulate broad

guidelines to enhance growth within CARICOM economies, and to strengthen the functioning of the CSME. The Secretary-General told Heads of Government that progress in advancing the CSME “must be on a bedrock of a safe and secure Community.”

Pointing out the pervasiveness of crime and security within the Community, he stated too that the Community has been making every effort to enhance co-operation and put in place a security architecture to combat the scourge.

“We must be prepared legally and operationally to defy those who are intent on disrupting our society and destroying our way of life,” the SG said, stressing the importance of Member States signing agreed legal instruments that will support an enhanced regional security architecture.

CARICOM Heads of Government are expected to review the recommendations which emanated from the Special Summit on Security last May, aimed at deepening security co-operation in addressing transnational and domestic crime.

15

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

PPP/C hopeful, cautious of gov’t assurance of good-faith engagements ‒ Process for appointment of new GECOM Chair agreed on ‒ Three-month election deadline remains non-negotiable

W

ith the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) having ruled, on June 18, 2019, that President David Granger’s appointment of James Patterson as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is flawed and in breach of the Constitution, moves are now being made to have a new Head of the elections body.

After almost two weeks of exchanges between the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) and the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, a meeting between the two sides was held on Thursday (July 4, 2019).

FOCUS Prior to going into the meeting and in re- “We are hoping that with good faith negotiations on both sides, sponse to comments by we can resolve the matter of a new Chairman of GECOM. Director General of the – Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon, Opposition Leader, Bharrat tions with the non-govern- (as nominees for the post of On December 21, 2016, the Jagdeo, raised concerns about mental political parties in the GECOM Chair) must origi- six names sent [Rejected on nate from the Leader of the January 9, 2019] were: how the meeting was being National Assembly.”

Opposition and it must be 1. Governance and Conflict characterized.

PROCESS DECIDED ON done only in consultation Resolution Specialist, LawHe said, “What Joseph Jagdeo, in briefing the with the non-governmental rence Lachmansingh Harmon was engaged in was entirely misleading. He char- media after the meeting, said, parties in Parliament. That is 2. Attorney-at-Law and acterized the meeting as one “We met in line with my con- what the Constitution says. Chartered Accountant, to deal with the interpretation stitutional duty and in light We are prepared to consider Christopher Ram of the ruling of the CCJ in of the CCJ ruling to address names, if the President were 3. Retired Major General, relation to the submission of the issue of the Chairman of to suggest, in an informal Norman Mc Lean 4. Business Executive, Raprocess.” the list for the appointment of GECOM. mesh Dookhoo “At the meeting, we did a GECOM Chairman.

5. Businesswoman, Rhyaan not get around with dealSTARTING POINT “The Constitution of Shah ing with names…we did According to him, the Guyana is the primary document. What is clear is that the not discuss any name today. engagement will start with 6. History Professor, Dr CCJ did not re-write the Con- We said that we settled the the submission of the names James Rose stitution of Guyana. The CCJ process…we dealt with the previously sent to Granger. On May 2, 2017, the other “I suggested that I will start six names [Rejected on interpreted the Constitution.” process.”

He explained that the with the re-submission of June 2, 2017] included: Article 161(2) of the smaller group of reps from the 18 names, appropriately 7. Retired Justice of Appeal Guyana Constitution defines both sides are still to be adjusted, for people who may B. S. Roy the process and provides the named. not want to have their names 8. Retired Justice William mandate to the Leader of the Jagdeo said, “We are re-submitted…persons who Ramlall Opposition and the role of the hoping that with good faith are willing still and persons 9. Former Magistrate OneiPresident with regard to the selection of the Chairman of negotiations on both sides, who events have not over- dge Walrond-Allicock the Guyana Elections Com- we can resolve the matter of taken, because you know we 10. Attorney Kashir Khan a new Chairman of GECOM. already have comments about 11. Attorney Nadia Sagar mission. “...we agreed that both someone who was submitted 12. Captain Gerald GouIt states that: “The Chairsides, with smaller groups, in 2017, but was a lawyer in veia man of the Elections Comwill get together to try to a particular court case…we On August 25, 2017, the mission shall be a person who hammer out the names, over will go through the list again final six names [Rejected on holds or who has held office the next couple of days, be- and then we will engage the October 19, 2017] included: as a judge of a court having cause I will submit names President…we will use those 13. Retired Major General unlimited jurisdiction in civil and the President, as I said names as a starting point,” Joseph Singh and criminal matters in some 14. Teni Housty part of the Commonwealth or in my letter, he could initiate he said.

15. Attorney-at-Law, Sannames.

We are not averse to Jagdeo added, “Should a court having jurisdiction in jeev Datadin him suggesting names too. we not agree on all six names appeals from any such court 16. Annette Arjune-Mar“What is clear though coming from those 18, then or who is qualified to be tins is that the constitutional rewe will be submitting addiappointed as any such judge, 17. Onesi La Fleur sponsibility to submit the six tional names and, of course, or any other fit and proper 18. Krishnadatt Persaud names is that of the Leader the President is free to sugperson, to be appointed by of the Opposition.

The CCJ gest names too, but at the end the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable ruling did not change the of the day we have to make PLOY TO DELAY a determination that it (what ELECTIONS to the President, submitted by Constitution.

The Opposition Leader “The Constitution of Granger submits) is acceptthe Leader of the Opposition noted too that he will also Guyana say that six names able to us.” after meaningful consultabe writing to Granger on

the issue of House-to-House Registration.

He said, “I will write him about the other issues – the House-to-House issue and the falsehoods being spread by many in his Party.

“I said to him, if the concerns are genuine and we want to treat with your concerns – about credible elections – I would like to discuss this at length, to show you how we can have credible elections by just updating the list through a process of Claims and Objections.

“I pointed out to him that: his Party won a majority in Parliament at the 2011 Elections; n 2015, his Party won the Government with this list; and they have held two Local Government Elections on this very List (Voters’ List). They had no problems with the List before. I said to him, if your concerns are genuine, we want to engage on them, but if it is a ploy to delay the Elections, we will not make any headway.”

Asked whether the current list of Electors, the validity of which expired on April 30, 2019 and can be refreshed via a Claims and Objections process, confers advantages to any political party, Jagdeo said, “The list does not confer advantages.

On the same list, APNU won several elections. It is not the Voters’ List that confers advantages to a political party, it is your policies and your hard work on the ground.

“I saw David Hinds say-

ing ‘APNU took one look at the List and realise it can’t win the Election so we must go to House-to-House registration’. So we must not go to an Election until APNU gets a List of Voters’ it can win the Elections on? That is the conclusion?

That is the logic? The List is persons who are eligible to vote in Guyana. If you are on the List as a Guyanese, you are eligible to vote.”

He added that the motive behind the call for new national House-to-House registration is transparent. “I believe that Houseto-House registration, on their part, is a ploy to delay the Elections. They don’t want Elections within three months. They know that going to House-to-House registration means Elections next year,” he said.

ELECTION TIMELINE The Opposition Leader disclosed too that he will be writing Granger on the timeline for General and Regional Elections.

He said, “We will also write the President to meet on the timeline for holding Elections, which should be three months. At this point, we are not agreeing to an extension of that timeline.

We did not discuss that.”

Part of the Parliamentary Opposition team included: PPP/C Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali; PPP Executive, Gail Teixeira; Former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall; and PPP/C Parliamentarian, Juan Edghill.

16

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

17

National Grade Six Assessment - 2019 Top One Percent

18

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

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

Obfuscation will not change the facts of the massive give-away of State lands T

he People’s Progressive Party (PPP) notes the half-baked responses to the damning exposé about the massive land grab by persons who are linked to the hierarchy of the current APNU+AFC Coalition Government and, more concerning, linked to President David Granger’s office. The attempts to obfuscate the issue at hand have failed to undermine the facts of this matter.

The clear linkages between the land grabbing, particularly after the passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018, and the Ministry of the Presidency must be addressed by President Granger, who cannot continue to feign ignorance about what is occurring under his watch.

HERE ARE THE FACTS: 1. Marlon Bristol, Head of the Project Management Office within the Ministry of the Presidency received: • 1 acre in Mocha, Region 4 - February 2019 • 12 acres in Linden (at Dallawalla, the proposed site for Deep Water Harbour), Region 10 - June 2019 • 80 acres in Bohemia, Region 6 (the proposed site for Deep Water Harbour) – February 2019 2. Charles Ceres, whose wife, Ndibi Schwiers, is with the Department of Environment within the Ministry of the Presidency, received: • 4.5 acres at Liliendaal, Region 4 • 112 acres in Bohemia, Region 6 - File number 621112/4 (Map Available) The Party notes the comments made Mr. Charles Ceres, who peddled a blatant lie when he denied receiving 112 acres of land at Bohemia, Region 6, even though documents [File Number: 621112/4] indicate that he did. He also confirmed that he received 4.5 acres of land at Liliendaal, Region 4, and defended this acquisition by

saying that the land was used as the site for the construction of a single office. It was disingenuous on the part of Mr. Ceres to compare his land acquisition, used to build a single office, with land acquired through public tender and other allocated land, under the former People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) government, which resulted in massive investments – MovieTowne, Giftland and Texila American University, etc – and the creation of hundreds of jobs and opportunities for our Guyanese people.

The fact that former PPP/C officials are charged now for land allocations in the same area exposes the duplicity of the Coalition Administration.

To further defend his acquisition of land, Mr. Ceres made allegations about other land allocations under the former PPP/C government, which will be addressed by the Party in due time. Additionally, in an attempt to divert attention from his land acquisition, he also claimed that he was named because he is an Afro-Guyanese, even while he admitted that he, as an Afro-Guyanese, received over 1,000 acres of land under the “Jagdeo administration”, which he returned to the State because he was unable to pursue development on the land.

3. Great Wall Inc. – of which Saratu Phillips is a Director, received: • 20 acres at Schoonard Foreshore, Region 3 (in the Demerara River – proposed site for shore-based facility) – File Number 332242/3 • 20 acres at Good Fortuin, Region 3 (in the Demerara River – proposed site for shore-based facility) – File number 3322421/3 • 50 acres at Best Foreshore, Region 3 – File Number 332231/38 Mr. Phillips was involved in the Georgetown parking meter fiasco. The company, Gold Bar Development and Consulting Inc., headed by

Saratu Phillips and Shawn Hopkinson, also benefited from a gold export licence in 2018. Additionally, it is Mr. Hopkinson whose property is being rented and lived in

by Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon.

4. Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer, Deputy Head of SARA, which falls under the Ministry of the Presidency received: • 10 acres on the Linden/ Soesdyke Highway, Region 4, in 2019 – File number 411412/522b • 1 acre Mocha, Region 4, in 2019 5. Eric Phillips, SARA Special Assistant, within the Ministry of the Presidency received: • 1000 acres in the Essequibo River - April 2019 – File Number 321132/1604 • 1000 acres in the Demerara River in 2019 – File Number 331231/7 On the matter of comments by Mr. Phillips, while he now confirms that he benefited from massive land allocations, he is still to explain why, on February 22, 2019 in a letter to Stabroek News, he denied that he applied for or received land. In his letter, Mr. Phillips had called for the evidence to be produced.

Now that the evidence has been produced, he is attempting to argue using race.

When these details were released by PPP General Secretary and Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, on Thursday, June 27, 2019, he pointed out that all the beneficiaries are connected to the Ministry of the Presidency. Also, 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.” The PPP General Secretary and Opposition Leader called on President Granger to explain how individuals in a Ministry he controls received, without transparency, massive tracts of land in prime areas – strategic locations.

To hide these underhand dealings, attempts are being made to muddle the issue at hand with arguments about race. This argument was not only anticipated, but trashed by the PPP General Secretary and Opposition Leader.

He stressed that ordinary Guyanese, of every race, have been unable to benefit from land – with no house lots being developed and leases for agricultural lands being revoked, etc. – while a select few who are linked to the APNU+AFC cabal are the only ones benefiting. He contrasted the fact that over 40 Afro-Guyanese farmers had their leases revoked with the ongoing land grab by a ‘connected’ cabal.

The issue is, has been, and remains that: 1. Ordinary Guyanese continue to suffer the hardships imposed by the policies of the Coalition Government, including their inability to access house lots, since NOT ONE house lot has been developed in the past fourplus years, while there is “wanton” and “obscene” land grabbing that benefits a select few; 2. Persons in agencies that report to President Granger have been implicated, while President Granger remains silent – as he has on the plethora of corruption scandals that have plagued the last four-plus years of his Government’s term in office, several of which have been documented and pronounced on by the Public Procurement Commission (PPC); and 3. That the land grab in taking place in strategic loca-

tions – locations for possible shore-based facilities, deep water harbours and other major infrastructural developments.

Another official who recently received land is Chief Elections Officer (CEO) at the Guyana Elections Commission, Keith Lowenfield.

Lowenfield received: 216 acres at Millie’s Hideout, Region 10 – June 2019; and 2 acres at Mocha, Region 4.

Since these facts were made public by the PPP General Secretary and Opposition Leader, Head of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GL&SC), Mr. Trevor Benn, hosted a press conference on Friday, June 28, 2019. During his almost hour-long press briefing, Mr. Benn seemed more preoccupied with how the information was disclosed.

This preoccupation manifested itself into the latest call for whistleblowers to be targeted, following the path of Mr. David Hinds, who recently called for a Commission of Inquiry to identify whistleblowers. Mr. Benn expressed his intention to target and deal “condignly” with persons he believes are whistleblowers. Mr. Benn also disclosed that there will be a police investigation. His call for a police investigation exposes the priority of the current Administration – to take our security forces away from tackling crime to conduct a witch-hunt of whistleblowers, who are exposing massive levels of corruption.

The PPP urges the Guyana Police Force (GPF) not to be caught up in politics of covering up corruption. If there is a police investigation, it ought to be an investigation of Mr. Benn’s actions in the GL&SC, as well as the massive corruption within the agency. Nonetheless, any lawsuit or police action will allow the Party to address this matter in greater detail in the future.

Further, aside from Mr. Benn’s preoccupation with how the damning details became public, he failed to respond to major questions that were raised by the Party’s General Secretary and Opposition Leader. Key among these unanswered questions is, what rationale was used by the GL&SC to give out practically the entire Demerara River waterfront to politically connected persons – land that will now be worth hundreds of millions of US dollars, given the need for shore-based facilities, as the oil and gas sector further develops.

Also, Mr. Benn said he had “no apologies” for granting 216 acres of land to Mr. Lowenfield in June of this year, at Millie’s Hideout, Linden, Region 10. Could Mr. Benn say why persons in Region 10, particularly Lindeners, who applied for lands to be used for housing and other economic activities, in the same area, did not have their applications approved?

Does he have an apology for these Guyanese?

Finally, the People’s Progressive Party is obligated to call attention to the Kaieteur News publication of June 29, 2019. The newspaper article – headlined ‘Jagdeo in possession of stolen Land and Surveys documents…Police called in’ – clearly demonstrates the agenda of this newspaper. During the years that the PPP/C held office, the government was demonized by the Kaieteur News without documentary evidence. Yet, when evidence is provided to expose the current APNU+AFC Coalition Government, the Kaieteur News is more concerned about how the documents were accessed and not the fact that the documents expose a mad rush by a select few linked to the APNU+AFC cabal to grab land in strategic locations. Even the first article (Turn to page 19)

19

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

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

Does the Coalition not intend to comply with the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice?

T

he People’s Progressive Party (PPP) notes the transparent ploy by the APNU+AFC Coalition to mislead Guyanese, in particular the Rastafarian Community, with its announcement that Cabinet approved a proposal to remove custodial sentences for possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

The APNU+AFC Coalition Government is currently illegal and Cabinet should have already resigned, consistent with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution and the recent ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

How then, is Cabinet meeting and making decisions?

On February 15, 2019, Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency (former Minister of State), Joseph Harmon told the Guyanese people that Cabinet has not been meeting since the January 31, 2019 decision of the High Court to declare that the passage no-confidence motion is valid. “There is a judgement of the Court that was made with respect to the Cabinet and that judgement is appealed but we have not obtained a stay of the judgement as yet and, therefore, we have

not held Cabinet meetings as such,” Harmon said, according to a Demerara Waves report on the said date.

If the Coalition Government accepted the High Court’s declaration of the no-confidence motion as valid, why is there not similar acceptance of the ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice, which is Guyana’s final Court? Does the Coalition not intend to comply with the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice?

“The provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) are clear on their face,” said the ruling [paragraph 56] of Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, in the no-confidence motion challenge case.

Justice Saunders’ ruling [paragraph three] adds that: “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 that notwithstanding its defeat, the government shall remain in office and

shall hold an election within three months.”

Additionally, the David Granger-led Coalition has had over four years to address the issue of removing custodial sentences for possession of small quantities of marijuana. It failed to do so. The Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances (Control) (Amendment) Bill – a bill to remove custodial sentences for possession of small amounts of marijuana – was brought to the National Assembly since December 10, 2015. The Coalition Government refused to debate it.

Instead, in May 2016, President Granger declared that: “This is not something that is a preoccupation of the Administration at the present time…I would not counsel the use of marijuana by young people or anybody.”

Importantly too, without an act of Parliament, talk about removing custodial sentences for possession of small amounts of marijuana is nothing more than talk. It is not a promise fulfilled by the Coalition Government.

It is a reminder that this is just another promise that was broken.

Further, the position of

Obfuscation will not change the facts of the...

(From page 18)

published by the Kaieteur News, on June 28, 2019, following the release of the documents by the PPP General Secretary referred to the disclosures as “fabrications” despite the fact that the entire media corps was presented with real, documentary, evidence. The Kaieteur News’ continued attempts to excuse the corruption and incompetence of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government has been demonstrated yet again.

No attempt at a cover-up will undermine the facts,

which are clear in the minds of our Guyanese people. No attempt to make this issue about race, when it is about corruption and the wanton give-away of State assets to a select few, will not be allowed to stand.

In the meantime, it has now been over 53 hours since details about the massive land grab has been disclosed.

Still, President Ganger is silent. The President must provide answers on these issues to the Guyanese people – lest his silence be interpreted as

complicity.

The PPP General Secretary and Opposition Leader, on Saturday (June 29, 2019) said: “More revelations will be made soon regarding the giving away of State lands at the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), Mahaica Mahaicony Abary Agricultural Development Authority and the Guyana Lands and Survey Commission.” (June 29, 2019)

the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) on this issue has been clear for years now. The issue of reviewing possession

of quantities of marijuana, which attract a mandatory, minimum, jail sentence was included in the PPP/C 2015 manifesto.

This issue has been used repeatedly by the APNU+AFC Coalition to secure political mileage, nothing more. (July 2, 2019)

20

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 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 [Continued from last’s week’s edition]

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 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.

[51] Fealty to one’s party cannot override sworn allegiance to the Constitution and to the people of Guyana. Members of parliament, should they so decide, and as long as they are willing to pay the political price, are not to be denied the freedom to vote according to the dictates of their conscience even in a proportional representation system. This was also made clear in the South African decision of United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National Assembly in which the South African Constitutional Court clarified the remarks in Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, ex p Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly cited at [48] above. The court noted: “[78] The most effective extra-parliamentary mecha-

nism for holding the people's elected representatives accountable, is a general election. It is in this context that this Court said 'it is parties that the electorate votes for, and parties which must be accountable to the electorate'.

Also, that a party's unacceptable abandonment of its manifesto is likely to result in electoral defeat. A factor that is relevant to the Speaker's decision-making in relation to a democratically permissible voting procedure is that 'an individual member remains free to follow the dictates of personal conscience' [see Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa].

[79] Central to the freedom 'to follow the dictates of personal conscience' is the oath of office. Members are required to swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution and laws. Nowhere does the supreme law provide for them to swear allegiance to their political parties, important players though they are in our constitutional scheme.

Meaning, in the event of conflict between upholding constitutional values and party loyalty, their irrevocable undertaking to in effect serve the people and do only what is in their best interests must prevail. This is so not only because they were elected through their parties to represent the people, but also to enable the people to govern through them, in terms of the Constitution. The requirement that their names be submitted to the Electoral Commission before the elections is crucial.

The people vote for a particular party knowing in advance which candidates are on that party's list and whether they can trust them.”

[52] Cessation of membership of the National Assembly, as provided for in Article 156, is conditional upon the occurrence of one of the events mentioned in that Article. None of those events actually occurred before the fateful vote on 21 December.

There is nothing in Article 156(3) or anywhere else in the Constitution that prohibits any member of the National Assembly (including members extracted from the List whose Representative was appointed as the President) from voting against the Government on any particular measure. Such a vote may well cause the Representative to remove the member from the Assembly, but the latter’s prior vote will still be valid. It cannot be

recalled and substituted. In these circumstances therefore there is nothing that prevented Mr Persaud from voting in favour of the December 21st motion.

us, and the court has agreed to hear further submissions before deciding what consequential orders, if any, should be made by this court in all the circumstances.

DOES ARTICLE 165(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ANY EVENT PRESERVE THE VALIDITY OF MR PERSAUD’S VOTE? [53] Article 165(2) of the Constitution provides that “The Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership (including any vacancy not filled when the Assembly first meets after the commencement of this Constitution or after any dissolution of Parliament) and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly shall not invalidate those proceedings.”

[54] This Article protects proceedings of the Assembly from being invalidated due to the participation or presence of any person who was not entitled to participate in or be present at those proceedings.

It would obviously apply where, after voting took place on a motion of no confidence, it is later discovered that a member of the Assembly who was present and who voted on the motion was not entitled to be a member of the Assembly.

The Respondents’ case is that Mr Persaud was not entitled to vote on the motion of no confidence because of his disqualification at the time of the 2015 election.

[55] Having concluded that the court currently lacks jurisdiction to impeach Mr Persaud’s election, there is no real need to ascertain whether Article 165(2) preserves the validity of his vote on the December 21st motion.

However, even if the Court had jurisdiction to declare Mr Persaud’s election to the Assembly to be void from the outset, we agree with the courts below that Article 165(2) would preserve the validity of his vote. We are therefore of the view that the National Assembly properly passed a motion of no confidence in the Government on 21 December 2019, and that the provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) referred to above at [3] were accordingly triggered.

[56] The provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) are clear on their face. They hardly require further interpretation on the part of the courts.

Leading Counsel on both sides, however, have asked

CONCURRING JUDGMENT OF THE HON. MR JUSTICE WIT, JCCJ [57] I concur fully with the President’s judgment but would like to add some points that were not stressed as much as I would have wished.

[58] First the majority point. This point received a lot of attention, but I think it was the simplest of them all.

The eminent lawyers representing the Government’s views, worked their legal magic in the court below and succeeded in persuading the majority of the Court of Appeal that a majority of a total of 65 seats under Article 106(6) of the Constitution must be 34 against 31 instead of 33 against 32. It is very clear, however, that this is not and cannot be right as the President has demonstrated with the solid reasoning in his judgment. The answer to the question “What is a majority in a parliament of 65 members?” could be very short. I would simply use the words of Justice Potter Steward of the US Supreme Court who, defining obscenity, famously stated: “I know it when I see it.” In the same vein, I know a majority when I see it; if one side has one vote more than the other, that is a majority, a narrow one but still a majority. And no magic is needed.

[59] Of a more complex and interesting nature, are some of the other issues before this Court: (a) Does a “vote of confidence” mentioned in Article 106(6) of the Constitution also include a motion of no confidence? (b) What is the relevance of a member of the National Assembly having dual citizenship both at the time of the elections and afterwards? (c) What is the effect of the anti-defection provisions in Article 156(3) of the Constitution on a vote by a member of the assembly “against the List from which his or her name was extracted”? Is that vote valid or not?

DOES A “VOTE OF CONFIDENCE” MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 106(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION ALSO INCLUDE A MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE? [60] As the President has explained in his judgment, the

(PART 2)

term “vote of confidence” has both a broad and a narrow, more technical, meaning.

The broad meaning includes both the narrow one, a motion of confidence initiated by the Government, and a motion of no confidence by the Opposition. The President concludes that the term used in Article 106(6) has the broader meaning. I agree with that conclusion and its reasoning. To construe the words of a constitutional provision properly, one looks at the legislative history and the structure of the Constitution as a whole.

[61] As far as the legislative history is concerned, there is not much to be found that would give us a clear indication. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill which introduced the amendment of Article 106 simply stated: “Clause 5 alters article 106 to provide for the resignation of the Cabinet and the President following the defeat of the Government in the National Assembly on a vote of confidence...”

But it does not reveal anything more. However, it is obvious that the amendments of 2000 sought to bring Guyana back from an authoritarian presidential regime to a more democratic one.

[62] As to the Constitution as a whole, I would first point at the fact that in Articles 145 and 146 of the Constitution emphatically states that “except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of” his (or her) freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought (Article 145), his (or her) freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to communicate ideas (Article 146) and his or her freedom of assembly and association, in particular to form or belong to political parties. It is against this firm background of fundamental rights that the scope of Article 106(6) needs to be approached. A constitutional provision that seeks to take away or limit these rights for members of the National Assembly especially with respect to voting and supporting or not supporting the government would need to be very clear and unambiguous for it to take effect. That clarity cannot be found in the words of Article 106(6).

[63] Another way of looking at this is to consider the nature of the constitutional infrastructure of the country.

Several Counsel have pointed (Turn to page 21)

21

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

CCJ declares that the no-confidence motion... (From page 20) at the fact that Guyana has a presidential system and not a parliamentary one. Also, it has an electoral system of proportional representation; the people vote nationally, and they vote for a List of a party or parties, not for individual persons. In these aspects, Guyana is different from most of the other states of the Commonwealth Caribbean (although a little like that of its neighbour, Suriname).

In fact, it was argued that in a presidential US system, where the president is elected directly by the people, a vote of no confidence to bring down the government led by that same president, would not be a proper mechanism, the less so by votes of members of an assembly who were not personally supported by the people but only happened to be on a List that was so supported.

[64] These arguments are not persuasive. What might be true for a pure presidential system, is in fact not true for a hybrid system as that of Guyana, which consists of a colourful mixture of both presidential and parliamentary ingredients, a truly constitutional pepper pot, if one would wish to call it that way. In a pure presidential system as that of the USA, the president cannot be sent home through a motion of no confidence (although he can be impeached) but neither can the US President dissolve Congress. In Guyana, the president can dissolve the National Assembly and so, from the perspective of the country’s constitutional infrastructure, there is no good reason to assume that a majority of the assembly cannot defeat the government, including the president, by a vote of no confidence, the less so where Article 106(2) of the Constitution stipulates that the Cabinet, which includes the president, is responsible to the National Assembly.

[65] Further, the fact that the members of the National Assembly are parliamentarians not because they were individually voted for but because their political party received the votes, does not mean that they cannot vote against their party. This happens in many countries, for example in South Africa, The Netherlands, Suriname, Curaçao and France, just to mention a few, where the members even switch parties while keeping their seats, although this last feature is no longer possible in Guyana.

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HAVING DUAL CITIZENSHIP BOTH AT THE TIME OF THE

ELECTIONS AND AFTERWARDS? [66] Article 155(1)(a) of the Constitution makes clear that no person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly if that person has dual citizenship (which I only use here as shorthand for “a person ... who by virtue of his own act is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”). Although a Guyanese with dual citizenship would not be qualified for election, he could still slip through the cracks and sail through to the Assembly if nobody knew or noticed or bothered to do something about it. To do something about it, requires somebody to petition the High Court in a certain way and within a certain time (normally 28 days after publication of the results of the election in the Gazette). The Constitution allows no other challenge, the jurisdiction of the High Court is exclusive. If the challenge is not done properly, on time or at all, the elected person is deemed to be validly elected.

In the eyes of the law that person can no longer be removed from his seat for this reason. Then, removal of the elected person can only happen if his or her party no longer has confidence in him or her, for example because he or she lied about his or her dual citizenship to the party or its leader. Otherwise, one may assume, for what it’s worth, there could be a moral duty for such a person to step down, but this would be something beyond the reach of the courts.

[67] All of this is part and parcel of the constitutional infrastructure of Guyana, closely encapsulated in Article 163 of the Constitution and in several provisions of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act promulgated under the aegis of and provisioned by that same Article of the Constitution and for that reason an organic law clothed with constitutional scope and stature. In simple words: the constitutional disqualification here described is not absolute but one of limited scope (especially as no one has argued that the Act contains provisions that are unconstitutional). Moreover, statutes of limitation are wellknown devices. Even thieves sometimes escape prison if the State waits too long to bring charges against them, although this does not mean that theft is a good thing. It isn’t.

[68] Only when a member of the National Assembly acquires dual citizenship sometime after the election, the member “shall vacate

his seat”. Article 156(1)(d) puts it this way: “... if any circumstances arise that, if he were not a member of the Assembly, would cause him to be disqualified for election as a member by virtue of...”

Article 155. The circumstances that arise must be such that they cause the disqualification. Late discovery of a member’s dual citizenship that existed a long time before could perhaps be seen as an arising circumstance, however, it is not the discovery of such a fact that causes the disqualification but only the fact itself. But even so, if the member of the National Assembly acquires dual citizenship after having been elected but refuses to vacate his seat, no legal consequences will ensue unless and until someone properly petitions the High Court in accordance with section 43 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act. This situation does not occur in this case.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE ANTI-DEFECTION PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 156(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION ON A VOTE BY A MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY “AGAINST THE LIST FROM WHICH HIS OR HER NAME WAS EXTRACTED”? IS THAT VOTE VALID OR NOT? [69] Article 156 (1) and (2) mentions when and under what circumstances a member of the National Assembly “shall vacate his seat.” Article 156(3), however, stipulates under which circumstances the member of the National Assembly shall cease to be a member: if he declares in writing that he (a) will not support his List or (b) will support another List. A third ground (c) was added in 2007: if 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 Parties that make up the List that the Party or Parties have lost confidence in that member and the representative of that List issues a written notice of recall to that member and forwards a copy of that notice to the Speaker, after which the Speaker shall declare the seat of the member vacant: Article 156(4).

[70] Mr Persaud was recalled and removed from the National Assembly based on this third and last ground. To fully understand the possible legal consequences of the recall procedure, it makes sense to look at the reason why that procedure was introduced in the first place.

None of these three grounds

have anything to do with voting. The first two existed since 2000 but they clearly required the member to make a declaration in writing. Given the consequences of such a declaration it was not to be expected that members were happy to do so. That expectation proved to be correct when some time before 2007 two members of the National Assembly, each from one of the two main political parties, left these parties but not the National Assembly. Instead, they kept “their” seat and even formed a third party, the Alliance for Change, interestingly the party to which Mr Persaud belonged. The other two parties did not consider this a good development and worked together to have Article 156(3) amended to prevent such developments from happening again. The whole idea of these recall provisions is therefore to prevent members belonging to a List from “stealing” their seats from their Party. Clearly, the possibility of recall may help to discourage (although not to prevent) members to vote against their list, but this is not the main reason for these provisions. Voting against the party is not even mentioned in the text of these provisions in contradistinction to the Constitution of Bangladesh, for example, where Article 70 states that a person elected as a member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from his party or “if he votes in Parliament against that party.”

[71] Interestingly, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in a recent judgment said this about the effect of Article 70: “…it has imposed a tight rein on the members of Parliament that they cannot go against their Party line or position on any issue in the Parliament; that they have no freedom to question their Party’s stance in the Parliament, even if it is incorrect and flawed; that they cannot vote against their party’s decision, that they are indeed hostages in the hands of their party high command... the members must toe the party line...”

[72] In Bangladesh, a vote of a member of Parliament against his party results automatically in removal from Parliament, which is a much stronger provision than Article 156(3) of the Constitution of Guyana. Even in Bangladesh, however, no doctrine exists that a vote against one’s party would be an invalid one.

To reach that result, an even more drastic provision would be required.

[73] Of course, I realise that those whom we call floor crossers or ship jumpers, or

by any other name, do not always have the best of reasons (probably in most cases not) for so doing, so there could be very valid reasons for anti-defection provisions in order to keep the government stable and to ensure continuity of governance. But where these provisions threaten to become too strict, they may well lead to strangling whatever democratic fervour is left. It is not easy to find a proper balance between the many countervailing constitutional values that make a democracy. Some would say, a perfect balance is not possible. But in any event, it is better to have an imperfect democracy than a strangled one. That much is required by Article 1 of the Constitution; that Guyana is a democratic sovereign state.

CONCURRING JUDGMENT OF THE HON. MR JUSTICE ANDERSON, JCCJ [74] The challenge to the motion of ‘no confidence’ in the Government of Guyana, which was passed on 21 December 2018 in the National Assembly, may be reduced to three basic propositions. (1) The motion was not carried by the requisite majority; (2) The Constitution does not allow for ‘no confidence’ motions; and (3) Mr Persaud, the member of the Assembly who cast the decisive vote in favour of the motion, was not qualified to sit in the Assembly and hence his vote must be discarded. I am grateful to the learned President for the clarity with which he has developed the background to these propositions thus permitting me simply to make the following brief and incidental remarks.

THE REQUISITE MAJORITY [75] The contention that the motion of confidence, carried by a vote of 33-32 in the National Assembly consisting of 65 members, was not carried by an absolute majority, is, for the reasons given by the President, wholly untenable and without merit. The Constitution and motions of no confidence [76] I have come to agree that the Constitution does allow for motions of ‘no-confidence’ and that the Government falls when defeated on such a motion. However, I am far from sanguine that the Constitution is unambiguous on the point and consider that the matter is one which may well merit further consideration by those responsible for proposing constitutional amendment and reform. My disquiet is based on the following.

[77] There is no provision

for motions of ‘no-confidence’ as such in the Constitution of Guyana. Rather, there is provision for ‘a vote of confidence.’ Article 106(6) ordains 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.”

Notwithstanding its defeat, Article 106 (7) permits the Government to remain in office but ordains that it, “shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall ... by not less than twothirds of the votes of all the elected members” determine.

[78] It will be seen immediately that the resignation of the Government and the holding of the election within three months, are predicated on the passage of ‘a vote of confidence.’ This wording was inserted into the Constitution by an amendment in 2000.40 Prior thereto, the wording was very different.

Article 37(1) of the 1966 Guyana Independence Constitution provided, (as is currently provided by section 37 (4) of the Belize Constitution) for resignation of the Government where a majority of the elected members of the Assembly pass a resolution “declaring that it has no confidence in the Government.”

The 1966 provision was not included in the 1980 Constitution but reappeared in the terms of Article 106(6) and (7) in the 2000 Constitution just presented.

[79] Authoritative commentary on the United Kingdom House of Commons practice establishes that there are differences between ‘confidence motions’ initiated by the Government and ‘no confidence motions’ initiated by the Opposition.41 While Government initiated ‘confidence motions’ normally function effectively as dissolution threats, Opposition ‘no confidence motions’ represent the ultimate expression of the Westminster model of ‘parliamentary opposition’; the attempt by an office-seeking Opposition to remove the Government and replace it by itself. In the specific case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 of the United Kingdom strict specificity is required. The motion intended to bring down the Government must be intituled, “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” Even if the motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a motion that stipulates “That this House has confidence in Her (Turn to page 22)

22

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

CCJ declares that the no-confidence motion...

Majesty’s Government.”

[80] The foregoing suggests that there might well be a difference between ‘confidence’ motions and ‘no confidence’ motions. In some contexts, as in the case of the UK Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, they are used for different purposes, and the results of their passage differ drastically. There is no evidence that the framers of the Guyana Constitution were ignorant of these differences when drafting Article 106 (6) and (7). There is therefore some colour to the argument that Guyana made a deliberate decision to move away from making express provision for ‘no confidence’ motions and the consequences of a successful no confidence motion, to providing for votes of ‘confidence’ and that Article 106(7) provides for the consequences for the defeat of the government on the latter vote.

[81] The argument that the Guyana Constitution does not provide for motions of ‘no confidence’ in the sense that term is traditionally used, draws support from the Constitution’s robust and unique anti-defection provision. Article 156(3)(a) provides, in part, that a member of the National Assembly elected on a List “shall cease to be a member of the Assembly if he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to 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.” Article 156 (3) (b) similarly provides that the member of the Assembly shall cease to be a member if the Representative of the List indicates to the Speaker that there has been a loss of confidence in that member. It is manifestly the case that the purpose of these provisions was to guarantee the loyalty of members to the List from which their names were extracted, to prevent members from crossing the floor, and to invest in the Representative of the List the power of recall. Given this constitutional arrangement, it seems remarkably odd that a member may evade the clear implication and purpose of these provisions by simply voting to bring down the Government formed from his or her List, before being recalled and thus avoid being recalled.

That seems not only a recipe for encouraging deception and disloyalty. It seems also, more importantly, inconsistent with, and to substantially emasculate the manifest purpose of, the anti-defection provision.

[82] It bears saying that application of Article 156(3) to prevent a member from voting against his or her List

would not necessarily render Article 106(6) and (7) redundant. A Government dependent for its majority in the National Assembly on more than one List could fail on a motion of confidence initiated by a member of the ‘alliance’ or ‘coalition’ of Lists, so to speak, and thereby trigger the resignation of the Government and the calling of elections. As this can be done without violation of the anti-defection provision, the two sets of articles cannot be said to be necessarily incompatible with each other. To put the matter another way, there might be work for Article 106(6) and (7) to do even if Article 156(3) is interpreted to prevent a member voting against his or her List.

[83] Furthermore, it is not entirely clear that Article 156(3) prohibits any and all votes by a member against a Government formed from the List or Lists from which the member’s name is extracted.

A not unpersuasive argument made at the hearing before us is that Article 156(3) is to be construed as preventing only those votes where the integrity of the List is threatened.

Presumably this would mean votes in respect of which the Representative of the List (or the whip) makes clear that support is required and other votes normally associated with the expression of confidence in the integrity of the List such as the budget, formal motions of confidence in accordance with Article 106(6), or other resolutions in parliament which are expressly regarded as expressions of confidence.

[84] But even on the most literal interpretation of Article 156(3), I am not entirely convinced by the argument that to require a member to vote according to the List from which the member’s name is extracted necessarily renders parliamentary debate sterile and farcical. At least not any more so than usually obtains elsewhere in the region. The reality of the matter is that in parliamentary debate in much of our Caribbean, especially in relation to major issues such as the annual budget, Members of Parliament almost invariably defend a common position with partisan ferocity and much less frequently with equanimity and open-mindedness. Our parliamentary debates are not usually occasions for considered introspection and for bipartisan voting based on the merits of the arguments presented. Far from it. The whip is normally in full swing. The Government extols its performance and the Opposition decries that performance.

Essentially, the real debate is between the rival parliamen-

tary parties in relation to their respective policies.

[85] Further, I would venture to suggest that there is something to be said for parliamentary continuity, save in the most extreme of circumstances. In our predominantly non-industrialized countries where issues of poverty and under-development are endemic, and where our open economies are vulnerable to destabilizing shocks, including natural disasters, stability is a paramount requirement from our governance arrangements. We have little margin for error or for malingering in advancing the people’s business. Consider the facts in this very case. General elections were last held in Guyana on 11 May 2015 and Parliament was officially summoned to meet on 10 June 2015. Under the terms of Article 70 (3) of the Constitution, elections must be held within the next year, that is, by June 2020.44 At that time the people of Guyana are constitutionally entitled to pass judgment on the stewardship of their Government. The inexplicable disregard by the organs of the State of the constitutional injunction in Article 106(7) that elections must be held within three months of the passage of a confidence motion means that the country has been mired in a constitutional crisis for the past six months with no clear end in sight. This is exacerbated by the overriding power vested by Article 162(2) of the Constitution in the Elections Commission to postpone the holding of elections because of ‘danger or serious hardship.’ There is no assurance that this scenario will not be repeated in the future, perhaps not infrequently, perhaps with a Government formed from a different List or combination of Lists. In short, in the context of a highly polarized electorate, governance of the Republic could become paralysed or tenuous, to the peril of the economic and societal advancement of its people.

[86] Nevertheless, notwithstanding the sympathy I have for the argument, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the possible implications from the wording of the Article 106(6) and the anti-defection provision in Article 156(3) are not sufficient to support the interpretation that they prohibit a member from voting against his or her List. The Report of the Constitution Reform Commission to the National Assembly dated July 17, 1999 anticipated defeat and resignation of a Government on passage of a vote of confidence. There was nothing in the Report and there is noth-

ing in the Constitution which restricts introduction of ‘confidence’ motion to members of the Government. The argument that the Leader of the Opposition is not allowed to introduce such a motion is clearly untenable. Article 171(1) expressly provides that, “...any member of the Assembly may ... propose any motion for debate” and vote in the Assembly. It must therefore be assumed that the Leader of the Opposition as a member of the Assembly can, as was done in the present case, introduce a motion of confidence: Brantley v Martin.

[87] Admittedly, the constitutional arrangements in Guyana represent a ‘hybrid’ between the Westminster parliamentary system and an Executive Presidency. However, in order to overcome the fundamental assumptions associated with motions that relate to expression of confidence in the government of the day, more direct language is required. With the best will in the world, the Court cannot be expected to read into the Constitution fundamental principles that would basically impose fixed parliamentary terms from such sparse juridical materials as the imputations offered by Article 106(6) and Article 156(3).

DISQUALIFICATION OF THE MEMBER CASTING DECISIVE VOTE [88] Section 155(1)(a) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly, “who ... is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state....” It is uncontroversial that this means that a person holding Guyanese nationality is not qualified to be elected a member of the National Assembly if that person is also, voluntarily, a citizen of another State. Accordingly, Guyanese nationals with dual citizenship are not qualified to sit as members of the National Assembly.

[89] It is not disputed that at all material times, Mr Persaud, who voted against his List and whose vote was therefore decisive in carrying the motion of confidence, held dual citizenship with Guyana and Canada. The difficulty for those who argue that Mr Persaud was neither qualified to sit in the National Assembly nor to vote on the confidence motion is that the provisions of Article 163 of the Constitution read in conjunction with the related National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act provide a specific, time-sensitive regime, for challenging

(From page 21)

that disqualification and that that time had passed prior to Mr Persaud’s vote on 21 December 2018. Challenges must be mounted within 28 days from the date of the election but the challenge to Mr Persaud was in fact initiated some three and a half years after the 2015 election and one day after he had been recalled and removed from the National Assembly.

[90] It is customary to cite the decision of Rawlins CJ in Joseph v Reynolds46 that the election court “has no power to extend time or allow amendments filed out of time unless election legislation so provides.” There are, indeed, numerous authorities holding or based on the premise that any challenge to the election of a member of parliament must be brought in accordance with the procedure (normally an election petition) and the timelines provided for in the relevant legislation: Gladys Petrie and Others v The Attorney-General and others; Winston Payne v Roy Hammond; Rudolphy v Lightfoot; Ahmed Kennedy; Nair v Telk; Elsroy Nathaniel Dorset v GA Dwyer Astaphan and Others; and Abraham Dabdoub v Daryl Vaz. [91] I agree that in the circumstances of this case, the failure to challenge Mr Persaud’s election within the specified 28-day period renders his election to the National Assembly unimpeachable. However, I do not agree that the passage of the time specified in the election legislation must invariably render the contested election unassailable. Such an inflexible rule could, with respect, lead to absurd and preposterous results. To illustrate.

An inflexible application of the rule would allow a person who is not Guyanese to remain a member of the National Assembly if his or her lack of allegiance was undiscovered for 28 days after his or her election. This would be in clear contravention of the purposes and premises of Articles 155 (1) (a) and 156(1)(c) of the Constitution.

To take another example.

An inflexible application of the rule would disallow any challenge after 28 days to a member who acquired dual nationality a day before the election; however, a member who became a dual citizen a day after the election could, under Article 156(1)(d), be removed from parliament at any time. It is highly unlikely that the framers of the Constitution intended to disallow all challenges after 28 days, whatever the circumstances, to the election of members having political loyalties and allegiances to, for example, hostile foreign powers.

[92] The Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact. The Court is above all else the guardian of the Constitution and the guarantors of rule of law. The remedies section of the Constitution gives the Court the widest powers to address constitutional infractions and to uphold constitutional integrity. I concede that the circumstances in which a court is entitled to disregard the procedures and timelines specified in the election legislation in favour of upholding the fundamental tenets of the Constitution regarding eligibility to sit in parliament, are not entirely clear and require further thought. However, I consider that one circumstance where this extraordinary jurisdiction may be warranted is where parliamentary membership was obtained by intentional and fraudulent means. In the accepted vernacular of the law, fraud unravels all. I consider that it would be an unacceptable afront to the Constitution to give its protection to a person who knowingly and fraudulently violated its provisions by embezzling his or her way into parliament knowing full well that he or she was not qualified to sit as a parliamentarian. Support for this view is to be found in the case of Venkatachalam v Swamickan where the challenged member had impersonated someone else in order to be elected.

Describing his action as a ‘fraud to the constitution’, the Supreme Court of India said: “The appellant in the present case is certainly disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. His election, however, was not challenged by filing an election petition under Section 81 of the Act. The Appellant knows he is disqualified. Yet he sits and votes as a member of the Legislative Assembly...

The question that arises for consideration is if in such circumstances the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution declaring that the appellant is not qualified to be member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly... In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. Saka Varikata Rao AIR (1953) SC 210 it may be that action under Article 192 could not be taken as the disqualification which the appellant incurred was prior to his election... Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in widest possible term and unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction of the High Court its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised when there is any act which is against any (Turn to page 23)

23

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

CCJ declares that the no-confidence motion... provision of law or violative of constitutional provisions and when recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Act for the appropriate relief....Would the Court allow a foreign citizen to sit and vote in the Legislative Assembly and not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?”

[93] In the present proceedings there were no clear allegations made or proof provided that Mr Persaud knowingly and fraudulently deceived the people and the National Assembly of Guyana in his election to the National Assembly. No other extraordinary grounds were advanced to justify the assumption of jurisdiction to pronounce on the validity of his election. Accordingly, in the circumstances, I agree that the failure to challenge his eligibility to sit within the time specified in the election legislation now renders the challenge unsustainable.

CONCURRING JUDGMENT OF THE HON. MME JUSTICE RAJNAUTH-LEE, JCCJ [94] I have read the judgment of the Honourable President of the Court, Mr Justice Saunders, and I am fully in agreement with it. I wish to add a few remarks on the system of proportional representation which exists in Guyana and the impact, if any, that that system has on one of the key issues raised before the Court, that is, whether Charrandas Persaud’s vote on 21 December 2018 was in violation of Article 156(3)(a) of the Constitution of Guyana and therefore disqualified.

[95] Guyana sets itself apart from the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean as far as its electoral system is concerned. In 1964, British Guiana adopted a system of proportional representation which replaced the “first-past-the-post” electoral system which still exists in the rest of the independent English-speaking Caribbean.

An amendment was made to the 1961 Constitution of British Guiana “opening the way for the new system of elections.”55 Justice of Appeal Peter Jamadar of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (an Attorney at Law at the time of the publication) in his book entitled “The Mechanics of Democracy” advocating for the introduction of proportional representation to replace the “first-past-the-post” electoral system in his native Trinidad and Tobago argued: “Proportional representation as an electoral system demands that the distribution of seats be proportional to the distribution of the popular vote among competing polit-

ical parties or candidates. It seeks to overcome the distribution imbalances that result from first-past-the-post and majority systems, and to create a representative body that mirrors the distribution of opinion within the electorate.

Proportional representation is an ideal that is sought after.

There are a number of different formulae in existence, but all are similar in their effect on the conversion of votes into political representation.”

[96] Guyana became an independent nation on 26 May 1966 and the 1966 Constitution provided at section 66(1) that: “The election of members of the National Assembly shall be conducted by secret ballot in accordance with the system of proportional representation prescribed by the article.”

[97] The Elections Regulations 196456 which provided for this new electoral system, were made by the Governor and those Regulations were incorporated by revision in 1973 in the Representation of the People Act.57 Accordingly, an electoral system was introduced whereby electors voted for a List of candidates submitted by one or more political parties in accordance with the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. [98] Before us, the point has been made that the electoral system in Guyana only allows for political parties to coalesce for the purpose of attaining control of the Presidency and the Executive Authority prior to the publishing of the Lists of candidates in accordance with the Representation of the People Act. Once electors have voted, Article 160 of the Constitution takes effect and the List with the majority (or in the case of three or more Lists, a plurality) of the votes wins the Presidency and gains control of the government. There can be no coalition of Lists for the purpose of gaining control of the government after the results of the elections have been published.

[99] Interestingly, this has meant that in Guyana a List of candidates can attain to government although the members of that List do not have a majority of the seats in the National Assembly.

This in fact happened in the General Elections of 2011 when the government was run with 32 seats as against 33 seats which had been gained by the two opposing parties, who had faced the polls on separate Lists. In the text “Fundamentals of Caribbean Constitutional Law” by Tracy Robinson, Arif Bulkan and Adrian Saunders, the authors describe the tumultuous parliamentary term which

followed the 2011 elections.

[100] Prior to the General Elections of 2015, the two parties that had formerly been in the Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC), signed the Cummingsburg Accord and contested the elections as a coalition. They therefore faced the polls with one List of candidates. They won the General Elections with a majority of 33 seats out of 65 and David Granger was appointed President in keeping with the provisions of Article 177 of the Constitution. The People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) which had gained 32 seats formed the Opposition. All seemed well within the Government until the 21 December 2018, when Mr Charrandas Persaud (Mr Persaud) an AFC member of the National Assembly on the Government’s List, voted with the Opposition on a motion of no confidence in the Government moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo.

[101] One of the interesting arguments made on behalf of those seeking to strike down the vote of no confidence is that Mr Persaud’s vote on 21 December 2018 was contrary to Article 156(3)(a) of the Constitution, and therefore of no effect and disqualified. Article 156(3) was introduced by way of amendment to the Constitution in 2007.60 Article 156(3) provides: “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.”

[102] It is argued on behalf of the Attorney General that having regard to the provisions of Article 156(3), Mr Persaud’s vote on 21 December 2018 should not count for the purpose of the

no confidence motion. It has been submitted that a vote contrary to Article 156(3)(a) breached he very foundations of the Constitution of Guyana and the system of proportional representation. Indeed, that such a vote betrayed the people of Guyana who had voted for the List from which Mr Persaud’s name was extracted. It was submitted that the framers of the Constitution intended that any member of the National Assembly who planned to vote against the List from which his name was extracted was under an obligation to comply with Article 156(3)(a) and to inform the Speaker in writing that he did not intend to support the List.

Having failed to comply with Article 156(3)(a), it has been submitted, Mr Persaud’s vote must not count.

[103] In a most interesting address, Mr Boston S.C. made oral submissions before us on behalf of Mr Reid. He explored elements of the system of proportional representation that exists in Guyana and submitted that as far as Article 156(3) was concerned, the system of proportional representation in Guyana prohibited a member from voting against the List from which his name was extracted unless the whip was lifted.

Since the whip was not lifted on 21 December 2018, it was argued, Mr Persaud’s vote breached the Constitution and was invalid.

[104] Mr Mendes S.C. on the other hand submitted that Article 156(3) was not relevant to the events which had taken place either before or after Mr Persaud voted on 21 December 2018. He argued that nothing in Article 156(3) prohibited Mr Persaud, whether on the no confidence motion or on any other measure before the National Assembly, from voting against the List from which his name

(From page 22)

was extracted.

[105] By Article 156(3), the Constitution has provided a mechanism whereby a member of the National Assembly who has been elected on a List ceases to be a member of that Assembly. By Article 156(3) (a) and (b), the member ceases to be a member if he declares in writing either to the Speaker or the Representative of the List that he will not support the List from which his name is extracted or that he supports another List. By Article 156(3)(c), the member also ceases to be a member if the Representative of the List informs the Speaker in writing that the Party or Parties that make up the List have lost confidence in that member and he has been recalled.

[106] The key question that arises is whether, not having declared in writing in advance that he did not support the List from which his name was extracted, Mr Persaud could validly vote on the no confidence motion against that List; in other words, whether it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that such a vote as that of Mr Persaud’s on the 21 December 2018 should be disqualified? In my judgment, there is nothing in Article 156(3) or in any provision of the Constitution which leads to the conclusion that the framers of the Constitution had such an intention. In my view, there would have to be an express provision in the Constitution that any vote by a member against the List from which his name was extracted was disqualified. The argument that it is implicit from the provisions of Article 156(3) and the system of proportional representation, that the framers intended this effect, cannot be sustained.

Such a drastic consequence would require an express provision within the Constitution

itself. The member who votes against his List no doubt risks paying the ultimate political price and can be recalled in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. We were told that on 3 January 2019, Mr Persaud was indeed recalled and replaced. That is the consequence which the Constitution permits.

[107] I therefore agree with the judgment of Saunders PCCJ that there was nothing which prevented Mr Persaud from voting in favour of the no confidence motion. I also agree that the National Assembly validly passed the motion of no confidence on 21 December 2018, and that the provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution have been triggered. As we await the further submissions of Counsel on what consequences, if any, should be prescribed by the Court in these appeals, I urge all to bear in mind that the rule of law is an important guiding constitutional principle of a sovereign democratic state like Guyana. The provisions of the Constitution must be upheld in accordance with the rule of law. In the appeal of The Attorney General of Guyana v Cedric Richardson,61 Wit JCCJ wisely made reference to Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter which reads: “Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.”

24

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

City Hall in Focus

Nothing significant done to reduce flooding in the City F

looding is a thing of the past in Georgetown!

This was the boast made by some APNU+AFC Coalition Government members to support their bid for control of the Georgetown City Council.

The stark reality is that neither the Georgetown City Council nor the APNU+AFC government had done anything of significance to prevent flooding in Georgetown including upgrading the drainage system. Nor did they acquire a significant number of high capacity pumps which could be deployed to the affected areas including the main outfalls especially during high tide periods.

We were previously informed at the City Council that the National Drainage & Irrigation Authority (NDIA) had taken over the cleaning of all the main canals in Georgetown to reduce flooding and its harm-

ful effects on communities.

Apparently, the NDIA’s efforts have not worked so far since we have widespread flooding in Georgetown.

In response to numerous calls from residents who were experiencing flooding, the PPP/Councillors from the Georgetown City Council visited many areas in the City to highlight the concerns of affected market vendors, homeowners and business owners.

What we found was extremely disturbing in many areas which are reflected in the photographs and videos which we shared on social media. Our visits took us

to Bourda Market, Regent Street, Queenstown, Bourda, Tucville, East Ruimveldt, South Ruimveldt, Lodge, Queenstown and many other areas.

The gross incompetence of the APNU+AFC government and the Georgetown City Council was on full display as citizens and businesses have to once again undergo the hazards of flooding in Georgetown.

Flooding in Georgetown is not a new phenomenon and the APNU+AFC government and City Council did not have an emergency plan to deal with heavy rainfall after all these years.

While the City Engineer had reported that all the

pumps and sluices were operational, the coincidence of high tide and heavy rainfall would have dictated that heavy duty pumps be deployed immediately to the areas that were historically flood-prune. Obviously no such plans or equipment are in place to deal with this situation and it again demonstrates the APNU+AFC government and the Georgetown City Council lack the management and operational capabilities to deal with flooding in Georgetown.

But flooding is only one area where their incompetence is on full display

as our visits discovered garbage buildup around the City, roads in need of repair, numerous health hazards, dilapidated buildings, grass and weed overgrowth among many other issues.

Where are the APNU+AFC Coalition leaders and what help have they offered the citizens of Georgetown so far?

Guyanese cannot afford the continuation of this level of incompetence and gross mismanagement of our City and country. The APNU+AFC Coalition has proven that it cannot offer anything to our people.

25

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

OBSERVER

Deceitfulness of the Granger-led APNU+AFC Coalition cabal on display for all to see P

resident David Granger and his cabal are constantly changing the narrative in relation to what is required by the Government as mandated by our Constitution, following the passage of the no-confidence motion.

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

Additionally, the Explanatory Memorandum, on Page 15, of Bill 14 of 2000 – Constitution (Amendment) – the Bill that introduced Article 106 (7) – 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.” Based upon the APNU+AFC Coalition Government’s actions and utterances it would appear that the law only matters when it is convenient to them.

Whenever the law appears to run counter to their agenda they either choose to ignore the law or try to impart their own interpretation of it, often in contrast to the real meaning for which the law was intended. They also easily flip-flop on issues, going on sides of the issues that are popular at the moment.

Things they opposed while in the Opposition benches, are now being declared legitimate. Values they espoused while in the Opposition benches are now being thrown aside.

While in Opposition, Granger, as Opposition Leader, demanded that the then President, Donald Ramotar call General and Re-

gional Elections, after he had prorogued Parliament.

At that time Granger went as far as calling upon Parliament to impeach former President Donald Ramotar, if he did not announce an election date. Mr. Granger threatened to engage the international community, to encourage them to impose sanctions on Guyana if former President Ramotar did not acquiesce to his demands. He also threatened other undisclosed actions.

For clarity, the facts of this period are that the AFC talked about bringing a no-confidence motion during the period that the National Assembly was in recess. Prior to the recess period being over, former President Ramotar used his constitutional right to prorogue the Parliament.

In 2015, Parliament was dissolved on February 28, 2019 and General and Regional Elections were held 71 days later – on May 11, 2015.

Now, fast forward to today. Granger is doing worse

than anything he accused former President Ramotar of --- bearing in mind that Ramotar’s actions were in compliance with the Constitution of Guyana and the rule of law. Mr. Granger’s actions are not in compliance of our laws.

Mr. Granger is blatantly flouting the requirements of our Constitution, particularly to the Articles covering the holding of elections. The president is utilising every means at his disposal to delay the General and Regional Elections. He is doing so in disregard to the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice.

When one takes a closer look at the actions of Donald Ramotar as President and David Granger the difference is stark. As mentioned earlier Mr. Ramotar’s actions were all done in compliance with our Constitution. After proroguing Parliament he announced the date for elections and those elections were held 71 days after the announcement, well within the 90 days as mandated by

the Constitution. Mr. Granger on the other hand has continually gone outside the requirements of the Constitution. He is constantly making excuses on why the elections cannot be held within the timeframe stipulated by law.

He is the one consistently moving the goalpost, bringing up new excuses to delay the holding of General and Regional Elections.

After the successful passing of the No confidence Motion, the first red herring Mr. Granger brought up was what constituted a majority in Parliament, whether it was 33 or 34.

Second, it was whether Mr. Charandass possessing dual citizenship disqualified him to vote on the motion.

Now, in an attempt to cover all bases, Mr. Granger and his cronies are pushing for new national house-tohouse registration prior to any General and Regional Elections.

The courts have since struck down the first two issues. Guyanese are hoping that on July 12, 2019,

when the Caribbean Court of Justice addresses the issues of consequential orders (court orders) to give effect to the June 18, 2019 rulings, house-to-house registration will also be struck down.

Since the ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice the Government should have resigned. It has not. Since the ruling from the Caribbean Court of Justice the Government should have made efforts to ready Guyana for General and Regional Elections. This has not been done.

Instead, Mr. Granger and the members of the APNU+AFC Coalition cabal seen content to continue thumbing their noses at the Justices of the Caribbean Court of Justice by maintaining that it is business as usual.

On the other hand, the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) has continuously demonstrated was responsible political behaviour is – all the while the deceitfulness of this government is on full display for all to see.

26

Bandits invade home of PPP/C MP

A

rmed robbers on Sunday morning (June 30, 2019) invaded the La Grange, West Bank Demerara home of Member of Parliament (MP) Komal Chand and brutalised his son before carting off a

quantity of cash and jewellery.

Chand, the President of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union (GAWU) and an opposition PPP/C MP, is currently out of the country.

A relative of Chand, disclosed that his injured son was taken to the hospital and has received several stitches for the injuries he suffered.

Investigations are ongoing.

Ex-cop nabbed with over 94kg of ganja

A

n ex-police detective, on Tuesday (July 2, 2019), was nabbed with a large quantity of cannabis during an operation by the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) in Berbice.

Khushyal Grant, 28, of Number Two Village, East

Canje Berbice, was arrested after he was found with 94.3 kilograms (207 lbs) of ganja in his possession.

In addition, Kerry Charles Grimmond, 34, of Nickalay Street, New Amsterdam, Berbice, was also found to be in possession of 140 grams of

cannabis during the raid.

Both men were taken into custody and charged.

Following the successful operation in the ancient county, CANU said it will continue to tighten its grip on narcotics distributors throughout the country.

Nurse found dead at Mahdia hostel

A

26-year-old nurse of was found dead at a hostel at Mahdia, Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni).

Dead is Schenise Apple of Lot 323 Block 22, Linden, Region 10.

Reports are Apple, who is a nurse at the Mahdia Hospital, was last seen on Tuesday morning (July 2, 20019) after completing the night shift. It was also reported that she

retreated to the nurses’ hostel, but nothing strange was noticed about her during the day.

At about 18:15 hour, a colleague enquired about Apple and it was then that a few persons visited the hostel and found her body.

It is suspected that the woman committed suicide since she was allegedly found hanging in her room.

Investigations are ongoing.

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

W

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

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

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

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

Presidential guard found unconscious on road

P

olice Constable # 24045, Winston Cooper,32 , of lot 761 East Ruimveldt who is stationed at the Presidential Guard was found lying in an unconscious state on Mandela Avenue Public Road with injuries to his head about 5:30 hours on Monday (July 1, 2019).

He was rushed to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation after being found.

Investigations are ongoing.

Prisoner found dead in Suddie lockups

T

he body of prisoner Lallbachan Bachan, 39 years, was discovered lifeless in the Suddie Police Station lockups about 06:10 hours on Monday (July 1, 2019).

The man was taxi driver of lot 21 Maria's Lodge ,Essequibo Coast, was arrested on 2019-06-28 on two arrest warrants for driving under the influence of alcohol.

He was pronounced dead on arrival at the Suddie Public Hospital.

The body which bore no marks of violence is presently at the hospital’s mortuary awaiting a post mortem.

Police stated that Bachan was the lone prisoner in the cell.

Investigations into the matter are ongoing.

One arrested after drug bust P

olice ranks in B Division were on roadblock duty on Weldaad Public Road on Friday (June 28, 2019) when about 23:30 hours they observed a Georgetown-bound vehicle stopped before the said roadblock.

Shortly after two males were seen in a nearby street with two large bags. When challenged, the men dropped the bags and escaped.

The bags were checked and found to contain 13 parcels of cannabis. A further check nearby also revealed nine more par-

cels of cannabis. The illegal compressed narcotics has a combined weight of 123 pounds.

The vehicle was searched but nothing illegal or unlawful found.

The driver is in custody assisting with the investigation.

Guyanese interested in volunteering asked to contact Party

T

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

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

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

27

WEEKEND MIRROR 6-7 JULY, 2019

Public servants continue to be targeted R

eports that the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) is looking to target staff were raised by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo.

He decried the continued targeting of public servants on unsubstantiated grounds.

“They want to discipline staff,” the Opposition Leader said.

Information reaching the Mirror Newspaper is that the GGMC investigation was ordered by a top Government official and include a review of documents and files, as

well as random interviews – interviews that will be recorded.

Over the past few months, increasing reports are being made by whistleblowers to

expose what is taking place under the APNU+AFC Coalition Government.

Additional, political observers contend that the current state of affairs is a call

back to the days of the past, under the Forbes Burnham regime.

In recent times, a description of what took place under (Turn to page 28)

Massive weed farm destroyed Campbellville woman robbed,

R

anks of the Guyana Police Force conducted a narcotics eradication exercise at De Veldt and Fort Nassau, Berbice River, on Thursday (June 27, 2019).

During the exercise they found four (4) fields of cannabis cultivation with about 10,500 plants ranging between 6 inches and 6 feet in height, with an estimated weight of 5,250 Kilograms .

A nursery with about 20,000 seedlings, five camps and about 100 Kilograms of dried Cannabis were also found.

The entire area was photographed and the plants, camps and dried Cannabis were all destroyed by fire.

No arrests were made.

PNCR supporter to face private criminal charge for ‘wild’ claims

T

he People’s Progressive Party (PPP) will be filing private criminal charges against People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) “apologist”, Rickford Burke, over wild claims made on social media.

Burke, on his Facebook Page, claimed that the Party was “acquiring and stockpiling” guns.

According to the PPP, the PNCR supporter is “inciting violence” and will be held accountable for his wild claims.

beaten by armed bandits

A

n Austin Street, Campbellville, Georgetown woman was left traumatised and nursing injuries to her head after she was beaten and robbed by gunmen who invaded her home in a brazen daylight robbery on Wednesday (June 26, 2019).

The woman, 49-year-old Baljinder Kaur, was at home with her maid when the three armed men invaded at about 10:00hours.

Neighbours disclosed that they heard screams emanating from Kaur’s residence and shortly after saw men with a black bag exiting the premises. One of the men was seen placing a gun into his pants’ waist as they escaped. Persons in the area, realizing that it was a robbery, rushed over to Kaur’s home and found her with a bloodied face.

Kaur was rushed to the hospital where she received several stitches for the head wound.

The gunmen reportedly escaped with over $1.5M and some G$600,000 worth

of jewelry. The woman had withdrawn the money from a city bank, on the day before she was attacked, to use for

construction work on the house.

Investigations are ongoing.

HELP IS AVAILABLE!

Persons who feel like they are at risk of harming themselves or are in need of emotional help should call the ‘Suicide Helpline’ on Telephone numbers (+592) 223-0001, 223-0009, 600-7896, 623-4444, or Email: guyagency@yahoo.com; Twitter: guyanaagency, WhatsApp: +592-600-7896, 592- 623-4444; Facebook: Guyana Interagency Suicide Prevention Help Line.

Postponement Notice The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Kitty group wishes to advise that the Raffle Draw scheduled for June29, 2019 has been postpone to August 1, 2019 at YMCA, Thomas Lands.

The shift in time was due to unforeseen circumstances.

We look forward to seeing all of those supporting the event soon.

Lands and Surveys’ Trevor Benn should ‘put up or shut up’ ‒ Jagdeo calls for him to back up his claims

W

ithout providing evidence to refute the disclosures made by Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, about massive tracts of land, in strategic locations, that were given away to cronies of the APNU+AFC Coalition Government as false, the Head of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GL&SC) claimed that Jagdeo himself has “thousands” of acres of land.

On Thursday (July 4, 2019), the Opposition Leader dismissed this claim. “I do not have thousands of acres of lease land,” he said.

He underscored the “ridiculous” nature of Benn’s claims and called on his to substantiate what he said.

According to him, Benn, as Head of the GL&SC, has access to all the records to deal with lease lands and could have easily provided documentation to the media when he made his claim. “Let him release the maps to show where I own these thousands of acres…everything I own

is declared to the Integrity Commission, from 2000…. if the (Coalition) government finds one thing that I own that is not declared, they can charge me and I will go to jail for a year….let them bring the facts,” Jagdeo said.

The Opposition Leader stressed that the onus is on Benn to back up the allegations he made.

He also responded to Benn’s other allegations that members of the former People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) government also secured leases for massive plots of lands. “We never have out the prime locations… our track record with land is clear,” he said.

Jagdeo added that the former PPP/C government developed some 105,000 house lots from scratch for the benefit of thousands of Guyanese – regardless of their race or political affiliation.

“The three lots that (Minister Annette) Ferguson got is land developed by the PPP. Ask her when she got it and how

much she paid for it,” he said, adding that any issuance of lease lands under the former PPP/C government followed strict processes, including public tendering.

The Opposition Leader added that the key thing that underpinned his disclosures about the giveaway land is the fact that the lands were given to persons connected directly to President David Granger’s office, several of transactions taking place after the passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018. “You are about to lose power and you give away land, prime land, to people connected to your government. This is what the issue is about,” he said.

Jagdeo stressed that the issued raised by Benn are “red herrings” to take attention away from the key issue.

The information released by the Opposition Leader, backed up by maps leaked to the Parliamentary Opposition by whistleblowers, show that over 13,000 acres of land was given away in a matter of months.

Public servants continue... the Burnham regime was detailed in the reports of the International Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the death of Dr Walter Rodney.

CALL BACK TO THE PAST That report noted that the politicization of the public service was accomplished by “wide-scale and intensive PNC (People’s National Congress) party penetration.”

Page 44 of the report, which made references from the book ‘Domination and Power in Guyana: A Study of the Police in a Third World Context’, by George Danns, noted that “public servants have been conditioned to be responsive to party demands even if it interferes with the smooth functioning of their own department.”

The report, on the same page, added, “Attendance at the Party congress is compulsory for senior public servants, who are asked to prepare papers on govern-

ment policies and intended policies for discussion at the Congress (PNC Congress).”

The Commission’s 155page report highlighted, on page 44 too, that where “Burnham was concerned” the public sector had to “pledge allegiance” to the PNC and the heads of all state agencies and civil service were summoned at short notices to attend any event of the ruling party, including PNC General Council meetings.

The document, at page 44, quoted Burnham, who said, “A massive campaign has now been launched in which there can be no place for disinterested and non-conformist who envisages freedom in terms of indulging in the practices and attitudes (that were unacceptable).”

According to the report, on page 43, the public service was no longer responsible to the public, but rather to “the dominant party and its

(From page 27)

leader.”

The Commission, citing testimony, noted, on page 45, that this comment was manifested in the “bitter, bitter, bitter period when the Government declared, literally, war against those who dare challenge the status quo of the State then.”

Page 53 of the report added that “all those who challenged the administration (headed by Burnham) came in for special treatment.”

The practice of “special treatment” led to the State using the public service, including the judiciary, the Guyana Police Force (GPF) and Guyana Defence Force (GDF), “going after Opposition elements.”

The Commission’s report also detailed the political, economic and social conditions of the Burnham era – including the move to transform the PNC as the “major national institution” at the expense of a professional public service.

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