Guyana Focus
held in breach
Guyana’s population can kiss goodbye to promises of greater transparency, less corruption, lower levels of crime, a more inclusive society and the utopian dream of national unity.
These were all electoral promises made by the APNU+AFC coalition government which attained power just over two years ago by holding out that it was a better choice than the allegedly corrupt and opaque former PPP administration.
Now the population has come to the realization that the more things seemed to have changed, the more they have either remained the same, or are perhaps heading for the worse.
Even the “neemakharams” and “soup
drinkers” who switched party support because they felt neglected, or believed they had a better chance at getting a bigger piece of the political pie, or simply wanted change for the sake of change, are scratching their heads, asking: how come we jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. The truth is: Guyanese politicians, like most politicians, will typically say, do, or promise anything to get into power. When APNU and AFC were in the opposition – albeit with a combined one seat majority – they were critical of almost everything, good or bad, that the previous administration did. Accusations of corruption, autocratic decision making, and nepotism, among a host of other allegations, were rife.
And they effectively used the media both at home and abroad to paint the PPP black, garnering support from people from all walks of life to get rid of the PPP.
The subsequent formation of the APNU+AFC alliance led to a questionable one-seat majority victory at the May 2015 elections. Following the elections, the coalition government pledged to bring those associated with their allegations to trial. But following extensive audits at a cost of more than US$140 million, no high level charges have been laid against members of the former administration.
In as much as the former PPP administration had many misgivings and might have been corrupt, no credible evidence has so far been produced to convict anyone. There was more a perception than reality about its misgivings.
Once in power, as widely expected, the performance of the coalition government was in no any better than their predecessor's. A local journalist probably put it best: now we have pee pee pee 2.
APNU, the former PNC renamed, has had a notorious track record for destroying Guyana between 1973 and 1992, during which the country became the poorest in the Western Hemisphere and was widely regarded as a mendicant. And the AFC was interested in only one thing: the opportunity to be part of the power mix.
Even at its worst the PPP did not engage in destructive economic tactics; and at the very least, had greater transparency when it came to making decisions about the people and the country at large.
The dismantling of the sugar industry is a good case in point. At the outset, it must be recognized that sugar was unprofitable largely due to inept management. However, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) which led to the dismantling of the industry has never been made public.
Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to disclose the contents of a report which directly affects the lives of more than 30,000 people, plus the communities to which they belong? And the economic and social impact of an industry that was once the backbone of the economy? Are there any viable plans to replace sugar, other than by ad hoc initiatives?
Evidently, sugar workers have become pawns in the political struggle. Most have never been supporters of APNU and are disappointed in the support of the PPP which neglected them when it was in office.
But the bigger story surrounds oil which has created unbridled optimism. With Guyana now set to become a major oil producer, the silence surrounding the government’s contract with oil-giant ExxonMobil is deafening.
There’s no doubt that oil could make Guyana wealthier but contrary to wild imaginings of affluence, it does not appear that forecasted revenues from oil will resolve Guyana’s economic woes any time soon – at least not in the first phase of extraction, which is expected to commence in 2020. Don’t the people have a right to know what to expect from oil? Or will oil become the grand-daddy of corruption?
The argument can be made that the former administration never disclosed the terms of the contract with ExxonMobil. But oil was not then the reality it is today.
The lack of transparency surrounding oil and sugar is compounded by a host of other issues. For example, questions about contracts for the Durban Park Project for the country’s 50th independence anniversary celebrations were never answered by the government. So are questions about procurement initiatives for the Ministry of Health and the Elections Commission.
These failures to make disclosure about procurement and about numerous contracts that have been awarded is indicative of a government that believes it is not answerable to the people.
Failing to approve a new Head of the Guyana Elections Commission in spite of the submission of three separate lists by the opposition PPP is another display of arrogance by the government which fuels suspicion that it wants to fill the position with its "own people" who it can manipulate and control.
In the meantime, while official reports seem to indicate that the crime rate is falling, visible evidence suggests it is increasing more dramatically. At the same time, more questions about the integrity and professionalism of the police force have emerged than at any other time in the country’s recent history.
On the question of inclusiveness and national unity, shades of racism have emerged with questionable appointments in the public sector; the apparent deliberate victimization of certain established businesses; and official calls to supporters of APNU of a particular ethnic origin “to uplift” themselves.
To give it a sense of legitimacy, the government has been engaging foreigners to conduct studies on a variety of social and economic issues – from how to reform the prison system, reduce crime, solve corruption, tackle illegal drugs and juvenile delinquency. And soon it will be engaging foreigners to craft the country’s national development plan.
Using foreigners shows disrespect for local intellectuals but also feeds the ego of both APNU and AFC which have consistently sought the approval from foreign entities to bolster its image. Many of these foreign entities are not necessarily qualified to deal with local issues but this has been the modus operandi of the coalition parties long before they came to power.
One other thing that has stymied progress is the holding of COI’s about a host of issues, bringing back memories of the unending dialogue process when the late PNC leader Desmond Hoyte was in the opposition. Then there were dialogues about having dialogues, dialogues about who should be included in dialogues and dialogues about where dialogues should be held, prior to formal dialogues.
Evidently, social, political and economic conditions are worsening in Guyana since the election of the APNU+AFC coalition. It appears that everyone is holding on to the hope that oil will make a difference and people will forgive the government for its misgivings. But hope is certainly not a viable strategy.
And they effectively used the media both at home and abroad to paint the PPP black, garnering support from people from all walks of life to get rid of the PPP.
The subsequent formation of the APNU+AFC alliance led to a questionable one-seat majority victory at the May 2015 elections. Following the elections, the coalition government pledged to bring those associated with their allegations to trial. But following extensive audits at a cost of more than US$140 million, no high level charges have been laid against members of the former administration.
In as much as the former PPP administration had many misgivings and might have been corrupt, no credible evidence has so far been produced to convict anyone. There was more a perception than reality about its misgivings.
Once in power, as widely expected, the performance of the coalition government was in no any better than their predecessor's. A local journalist probably put it best: now we have pee pee pee 2.
APNU, the former PNC renamed, has had a notorious track record for destroying Guyana between 1973 and 1992, during which the country became the poorest in the Western Hemisphere and was widely regarded as a mendicant. And the AFC was interested in only one thing: the opportunity to be part of the power mix.
Even at its worst the PPP did not engage in destructive economic tactics; and at the very least, had greater transparency when it came to making decisions about the people and the country at large.
The dismantling of the sugar industry is a good case in point. At the outset, it must be recognized that sugar was unprofitable largely due to inept management. However, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) which led to the dismantling of the industry has never been made public.
Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to disclose the contents of a report which directly affects the lives of more than 30,000 people, plus the communities to which they belong? And the economic and social impact of an industry that was once the backbone of the economy? Are there any viable plans to replace sugar, other than by ad hoc initiatives?
Evidently, sugar workers have become pawns in the political struggle. Most have never been supporters of APNU and are disappointed in the support of the PPP which neglected them when it was in office.
But the bigger story surrounds oil which has created unbridled optimism. With Guyana now set to become a major oil producer, the silence surrounding the government’s contract with oil-giant ExxonMobil is deafening.
There’s no doubt that oil could make Guyana wealthier but contrary to wild imaginings of affluence, it does not appear that forecasted revenues from oil will resolve Guyana’s economic woes any time soon – at least not in the first phase of extraction, which is expected to commence in 2020. Don’t the people have a right to know what to expect from oil? Or will oil become the grand-daddy of corruption?
The argument can be made that the former administration never disclosed the terms of the contract with ExxonMobil. But oil was not then the reality it is today.
The lack of transparency surrounding oil and sugar is compounded by a host of other issues. For example, questions about contracts for the Durban Park Project for the country’s 50th independence anniversary celebrations were never answered by the government. So are questions about procurement initiatives for the Ministry of Health and the Elections Commission.
These failures to make disclosure about procurement and about numerous contracts that have been awarded is indicative of a government that believes it is not answerable to the people.
Failing to approve a new Head of the Guyana Elections Commission in spite of the submission of three separate lists by the opposition PPP is another display of arrogance by the government which fuels suspicion that it wants to fill the position with its "own people" who it can manipulate and control.
In the meantime, while official reports seem to indicate that the crime rate is falling, visible evidence suggests it is increasing more dramatically. At the same time, more questions about the integrity and professionalism of the police force have emerged than at any other time in the country’s recent history.
On the question of inclusiveness and national unity, shades of racism have emerged with questionable appointments in the public sector; the apparent deliberate victimization of certain established businesses; and official calls to supporters of APNU of a particular ethnic origin “to uplift” themselves.
To give it a sense of legitimacy, the government has been engaging foreigners to conduct studies on a variety of social and economic issues – from how to reform the prison system, reduce crime, solve corruption, tackle illegal drugs and juvenile delinquency. And soon it will be engaging foreigners to craft the country’s national development plan.
Using foreigners shows disrespect for local intellectuals but also feeds the ego of both APNU and AFC which have consistently sought the approval from foreign entities to bolster its image. Many of these foreign entities are not necessarily qualified to deal with local issues but this has been the modus operandi of the coalition parties long before they came to power.
One other thing that has stymied progress is the holding of COI’s about a host of issues, bringing back memories of the unending dialogue process when the late PNC leader Desmond Hoyte was in the opposition. Then there were dialogues about having dialogues, dialogues about who should be included in dialogues and dialogues about where dialogues should be held, prior to formal dialogues.
Evidently, social, political and economic conditions are worsening in Guyana since the election of the APNU+AFC coalition. It appears that everyone is holding on to the hope that oil will make a difference and people will forgive the government for its misgivings. But hope is certainly not a viable strategy.
Kingelly village
Georgetown – Concerns have arisen in the village of Kingelly, West Coast Berbice, where approximately 150 families are opposed to evidence presented to the Commission that one Kojo McPherson, had owned the said village by Transport.
Mc Pherson is said to be the ancestor of Guyanese Trade Unionist, Lincoln Lewis.
Last month, Lewis presented a transport to the Commission of Inquiry, (COI) into African ancestral and other land issues purporting to show that West Coast Berbice villages were bought by his ancestor, Mc Pherson and hence should be given to his descendants.
Attorney at Law and Opposition Parliamentarian, Anil Nandlall, met with some of the affected persons on Monday.
In a statement to the press, Nandlall explained that some of the persons are holders of Transports for lands in the village, which they occupy.
“These persons and others and their ancestors, have been in occupation of these lands for over 200 years, unopposed.”
Nandlall further explained for this reason that the Opposition had opposed the establishment of the COI into land ownership.
“I spoke on this issue at length on a Motion, which we presented in the National Assembly on this matter, opposing on the grounds that it would cause serious conflicts among segments of the population,” Nandlall said.
He said that recently, persons claiming to be descendants of McPherson have been holding meetings in the village and informing the residents that they will soon have to pay rent for the lands that they are occupying.
“These families now fear that they would lose their lands and their houses constructed thereon in which they have been living all their lives. They now wish to present their evidence to the COI.”
As such, the Attorney said that he wrote to the Commission on behalf of approximately 150 residents of Kingelly Village, West Coast Berbice.
In the letter, the lawyer noted that his clients and their ancestors have been occupying lands in that village dating back over two hundred years.
“They and their ancestors/predecessors in title have been in peaceful and quiet enjoyment and occupation of these lands, unopposed by anyone and over the years have constructed dwelling houses thereon. These lands have been passed on from generation to generation. Some of them have acquired transports for the lands which they now occupy.”
“Some of these transports were issued over 100 years ago. The others would have acquired possessory title under known principles of law and would have long become the owners of these lands by virtue of the nature and quality of their occupations and that of their predecessors,” Nandlall said.
Mc Pherson is said to be the ancestor of Guyanese Trade Unionist, Lincoln Lewis.
Last month, Lewis presented a transport to the Commission of Inquiry, (COI) into African ancestral and other land issues purporting to show that West Coast Berbice villages were bought by his ancestor, Mc Pherson and hence should be given to his descendants.
Attorney at Law and Opposition Parliamentarian, Anil Nandlall, met with some of the affected persons on Monday.
In a statement to the press, Nandlall explained that some of the persons are holders of Transports for lands in the village, which they occupy.
“These persons and others and their ancestors, have been in occupation of these lands for over 200 years, unopposed.”
Nandlall further explained for this reason that the Opposition had opposed the establishment of the COI into land ownership.
“I spoke on this issue at length on a Motion, which we presented in the National Assembly on this matter, opposing on the grounds that it would cause serious conflicts among segments of the population,” Nandlall said.
He said that recently, persons claiming to be descendants of McPherson have been holding meetings in the village and informing the residents that they will soon have to pay rent for the lands that they are occupying.
“These families now fear that they would lose their lands and their houses constructed thereon in which they have been living all their lives. They now wish to present their evidence to the COI.”
As such, the Attorney said that he wrote to the Commission on behalf of approximately 150 residents of Kingelly Village, West Coast Berbice.
In the letter, the lawyer noted that his clients and their ancestors have been occupying lands in that village dating back over two hundred years.
“They and their ancestors/predecessors in title have been in peaceful and quiet enjoyment and occupation of these lands, unopposed by anyone and over the years have constructed dwelling houses thereon. These lands have been passed on from generation to generation. Some of them have acquired transports for the lands which they now occupy.”
“Some of these transports were issued over 100 years ago. The others would have acquired possessory title under known principles of law and would have long become the owners of these lands by virtue of the nature and quality of their occupations and that of their predecessors,” Nandlall said.
Georgetown – Five weeks after President David Granger was presented with a third list of nominees for the post of GECOM Chair, he is still to make his choice.
Stabroek News reports that it made inquiries on Monday but was unable to ascertain when the president will publicly address the matter and what is causing the delay.
Given the written ruling of acting Chief Justice Roxane George on matters pertaining to the appointment of a Chairman which was recently made available, it is anticipated that the president will made a choice from the list before him. On August 25, as agreed, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo submitted his third list comprising Joe Singh, a retired Guyana Defence Force Major General, who previously held the post; former long-serving magistrate Krisndat Persaud; attorneys Teni Housty and Sanjeev Datadin; pilot and biodiversity advocate Annette Arjoon-Martins; and Adventist pastor and agriculturalist Onesi La Fleur.
The post has been vacant since the former Chairman Dr Steve Surujbally demitted office at the end of February, after 15 years. The non-appointment of the Chairperson is stalling the commission’s work. Singh is seen as the likeliest candidate on the list given that the former army chief of staff successfully ran off the 2001 general elections and is respected on both sides of the political divide and in civil society.
He was Executive Director of Conservation International from 2001 to 2005 and Chief Executive Officer of GTT from 2005 to 2010, and has recently been serving as Chairman of the National Task Force Commission for the Rehabilitation, Restoration and Renewal of Guyana.
President Granger has rejected two previous lists, saying that the six nominees on each list did not meet the criteria to be appointed Chairman.
On an application by Marcel Gaskin earlier this year, Justice George had been asked for rulings on four questions connected to the President’s rejection of the first list of candidates.
Justice George’s ruling dismissed several of the notions that Granger held about the process and which he had used to reject two previous lists from Jagdeo and request a third.
Granger had indicated his preference for a judge, a retired judge or someone eligible to be a judge to be the Chairman. Justice George’s ruling however said that a judge or someone eligible to be a judge has equal ranking with persons who are considered to be fit and proper. Justice George ruled that the list did not have to contain a judge, a former judge or someone eligible to be judge.
Contrary to Granger’s views and those in his government, Justice George ruled that the President is required to give reasons for deeming the names on the list as unacceptable. Granger rejected two earlier lists without providing a reason. The judge also ruled that the finding by the President that one or more persons is not fit and proper does not render the entire list unacceptable.
Jagdeo last Wednesday welcomed the release of the written ruling and expressed hope that Granger will now make a selection from the third list that he has.
“I hope he (President Granger) will use the ruling in making a decision on the list….I hope the President reads this carefully and his advisors advise him accordingly. I hope too that he understands that the interpretation that he has is untenable in the face of a ruling from the Chief Justice and that he is now required to act. I hope this will bring us some conclusion and allow us to act in a manner in line with the ruling of the Chief Justice and the provisions of our Constitution”, Jagdeo had said.
Minister of State Joseph Harmon has repeatedly said that the list is being considered.
Stabroek News reports that it made inquiries on Monday but was unable to ascertain when the president will publicly address the matter and what is causing the delay.
Given the written ruling of acting Chief Justice Roxane George on matters pertaining to the appointment of a Chairman which was recently made available, it is anticipated that the president will made a choice from the list before him. On August 25, as agreed, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo submitted his third list comprising Joe Singh, a retired Guyana Defence Force Major General, who previously held the post; former long-serving magistrate Krisndat Persaud; attorneys Teni Housty and Sanjeev Datadin; pilot and biodiversity advocate Annette Arjoon-Martins; and Adventist pastor and agriculturalist Onesi La Fleur.
The post has been vacant since the former Chairman Dr Steve Surujbally demitted office at the end of February, after 15 years. The non-appointment of the Chairperson is stalling the commission’s work. Singh is seen as the likeliest candidate on the list given that the former army chief of staff successfully ran off the 2001 general elections and is respected on both sides of the political divide and in civil society.
He was Executive Director of Conservation International from 2001 to 2005 and Chief Executive Officer of GTT from 2005 to 2010, and has recently been serving as Chairman of the National Task Force Commission for the Rehabilitation, Restoration and Renewal of Guyana.
President Granger has rejected two previous lists, saying that the six nominees on each list did not meet the criteria to be appointed Chairman.
On an application by Marcel Gaskin earlier this year, Justice George had been asked for rulings on four questions connected to the President’s rejection of the first list of candidates.
Justice George’s ruling dismissed several of the notions that Granger held about the process and which he had used to reject two previous lists from Jagdeo and request a third.
Granger had indicated his preference for a judge, a retired judge or someone eligible to be a judge to be the Chairman. Justice George’s ruling however said that a judge or someone eligible to be a judge has equal ranking with persons who are considered to be fit and proper. Justice George ruled that the list did not have to contain a judge, a former judge or someone eligible to be judge.
Contrary to Granger’s views and those in his government, Justice George ruled that the President is required to give reasons for deeming the names on the list as unacceptable. Granger rejected two earlier lists without providing a reason. The judge also ruled that the finding by the President that one or more persons is not fit and proper does not render the entire list unacceptable.
Jagdeo last Wednesday welcomed the release of the written ruling and expressed hope that Granger will now make a selection from the third list that he has.
“I hope he (President Granger) will use the ruling in making a decision on the list….I hope the President reads this carefully and his advisors advise him accordingly. I hope too that he understands that the interpretation that he has is untenable in the face of a ruling from the Chief Justice and that he is now required to act. I hope this will bring us some conclusion and allow us to act in a manner in line with the ruling of the Chief Justice and the provisions of our Constitution”, Jagdeo had said.
Minister of State Joseph Harmon has repeatedly said that the list is being considered.
To advertise in ICW call
Call 905-738-5005