Failure to implement Freedom of Information Act a national embarrassment—British analyst
Kaieteur News news story. Saturday 31 May 2008
“Essential ingredient in a country that is often saturated with allegations of corruption, racial discrimination, racially and politically motivated crimes, nepotism, death-squads and the like,” GPA President
It would be an embarrassment to any government to choose not to implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
This is according to Toby Mendel of Article 49 which is a London-based organisation for freedom of expression.
Mendel was speaking to Members of Parliament at a Guyana Workshop on Parliament and the Media.
According to Mendel, information related to Public Companies was prepared by the company on behalf of the citizens. It was the fundamental right of the populace to have access to it.
He noted that the legislation must provide for limitations but public interest, will in most cases, override the limitations and force the need for disclosure.
Regarding criticism of capacity constraints, Mendel said that this must not be looked at as any reason to not adopt the legislation.
Guyana Press Association President, Denis Chabrol also used the opportunity to lash out at those Members of Parliament who stymie the process necessary for the passage of the Bill.
“Today's discourse on Freedom of Information comes at a time when the National Assembly is yet to debate and possibly approve a Freedom of Information Bill and we are yet to receive any definitive signals from the Government of Guyana and the governing People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC)…Thus far, we have been treated to a less than enthusiastic response from the main opposition People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR).”
Having the freedom to access information is a human right that is enshrined in Article 146 of the Constitution of Guyana and Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Chabrol said.
According to Chabrol, the legislation would be a welcomed tool for a journalist’s tool-kit. “If we are to be more authentic, fact-based, and credible…These are essential ingredients in a country that is often saturated with allegations of corruption, racial discrimination, racially and politically-motivated crimes, nepotism, death-squads and the like.”
Yesterday’s workshop also benefited from a presentation by Trinidad and Tobago’s Minister of Information, Neil Parsanal, on the Freedom of Information Act that was recently introduced in that country.
According to Parsanal, the populace of that country has responded well to the idea and facilities to access information on public companies.
Sasha Mohammad, a journalist based at TV 6 in Trinidad who also had an input on the topic, said that despite the teething problems in implementing the FOIA it has proven to be a powerful piece of legislation.
She did note that following the implementation of such a Bill there should be an awareness programme alerting the citizens to their right to information on Public Authorities.
Status of local FOIA
Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Raphael Trotman, who is pushing for the Freedom of Information Bill to be passed by the National Assembly, has noted his caution in proceeding to lay the Bill in that he wants the support of the government side of the House first.
This, according to Trotman, does not exist at the moment and he does not want to “kill the Bill” given that if he proceeds without the support of the government side and there is a vote against it then he could not take it to the House again until the next Parliament.
Trotman tabled the Freedom of Information Act in 2006 and on December 14, last, took steps to have the Bill deferred in order to save it from being thrown out during the stage of its first reading.
He later told reporters that this was done to allow Government time for study and assessment of the administrative implications of the bill and to allow for broad-based consultations.
According to Trotman, a compromise with the Government will be crucial if the bill is to see the light of day.
During debate on the 2007 Budget, Trotman had indicated that the passage of legislation to allow access to information is more important than personal endeavours, and indicated his willingness to step aside and allow the Government to take up the initiative.
Vice Chair of the party, Sheila Holder, wrote in an AFC column in Kaieteur News that once Government supports the passage of the Bill, Guyana will join some 60 other countries in this hemisphere that have enacted freedom of information legislation.
She stated that the freedom of information has become the international consensus deemed to be the impetus needed to bolster transparency and accountability, to curtail corruption, and raise the standards of governance in developing countries struggling to alleviate poverty.
The Bill proposed by Trotman is based on the Trinidad model.
The call for freedom of information legislation has been widely made, especially resounding from the media corps, which find it difficult to access information related to Government spending and various projects.
The Bill clearly spells out the objective is to extend the right of members of the public to access information in the possession of public authorities by making available to the public information about the operations of public authorities.
In particular, the Bill holds public officials to ensuring that the authorizations, policies, rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those authorizations, policies, rules and practices.
While the Bill generally states the right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of public authorities, it also states that such documents could be withheld for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whose information is collected and held by public authorities.
To protect Guyana’s territorial integrity, the Bill states, documents could be withheld on the ground that the release of such information would prejudice relations between the Government and that of any other State.
The Bill also states that documents could be withheld if their release would prejudice relations between the Government and an international organisation of states.
If documents would divulge information or matter communicated in confidence, or on behalf of the government of another state to the Government of Guyana, or to a person receiving a communication on behalf of the government of that state, then the Bill allows for those documents to be withheld.
Documents that would disclose matters in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation prepared by an officer or Minister of Government could be withheld.
The Bill will allow a person to seek legal action against documents that are withheld by public officials.
But, no action for defamation, breach of confidence or infringement of copyright may be brought against the public authority or against the responsible Minister, or an officer or employee of the public authority as a result of providing personal information of someone who subsequently claims it to be inaccurate, according to one of the provisions.
The Bill states that a person who willfully destroys or damages a record or document required to be maintained and preserved commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for six months.
However, if a person knowingly destroys or damages a record or document which is required to be maintained and preserved while a request for access to the document is pending, that person has committed an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for two years.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Freedom of info law ‘oxygen’ of democracy– advocate tells workshop
Freedom of info law ‘oxygen’ of democracy– advocate tells workshop
Stabroek News news item. Saturday May 31, 2008
By Miranda La Rose
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=13879
Toby Mendel
It is embarrassing for any country that claims to be a democracy not to have a freedom of information law, an advocate for freedom of expression said yesterday at a seminar at which top government and opposition members of Parliament were present.
Canadian Toby Mendel of Article 19 - a global campaign for free expression – who has authored a book and several articles on freedom of information laws, said that at present there were 75 countries with freedom of information laws, with the numbers changing regularly, as there were some 30 in various stages of progression.
Noting that a freedom of information bill had been tabled in the Guyana Parliament, Mendel, addressing members of parliament and representatives of the media at the four-day Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA)-sponsored workshop at the Grand Coastal Inn, yesterday expressed the hope that it could become law in a reasonable time.
The discussion that flowed from his presentation, ‘Overview of FOI: Importance (for good governance, democracy and development), trends and legislative principles,’ featured comments and questions relative to the need for more transparency and reasons why there might be a delay in the enactment of FOI law.
In recent times, Mendel said, all the multilateral financial institutions (MFIs) have adopted their own policies on pushing FOI laws. The move to adopt freedom of information legislation by governments and MFIs, he said, was probably one of the most remarkable events to occur since the end of World War II.
The right to access information, he felt, came about because of globalization and the emergence of 62 new countries, with the majority in Europe, the emergence of new information technologies, and the public now recognizing the power of information.
He noted that with access to information and new information technologies, a person could sit at desk and talk to world, put on website information that the whole world reads and journalists could investigate and expose corruption sitting at their desks and without going out of the room.
The power of information and the right to access information is now more important to citizens than before and it has reached a critical stage to where countries have adopted legislation.
“It is now embarrassing for a country, which claims to be a democracy, not to have one of those laws,” he said adding that the UK adopted legislation in 2000 and it was totally unacceptable that the UK was one of last countries in Europe to do so.
In the Caribbean Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda and the Cayman Islands have FOI laws in place.
T&T Minister of Information Neil Parsanlal shared his country’s experience and T&T TV 6 journalist Sasha Mohammed shared a journalist’s experience in putting the FOI laws to work.
Noting that FOI laws were important to everyone, including the media, women’s groups, environmental groups, citizens groups, Mendel said the fundamental premise behind this right was that government held information not for itself but as a service for the people and people should be able to access that information.
Sensible
Civil servants, who were working for the people and withholding information from the people practice the wrong model he said, adding, “That is not the democratic model of governance”.
He said access to information was the fundamental underpinning and “the oxygen of democracy” adding that if people did not know about governments, their policies and programmes, they could not make sensible decisions. He said long-standing experiences chronicled by development actors showed that where people took part in development policies and programmes, there were better results but where this was not done misplaced development resulted.
Access to information, too, he said was fundamental to accountability and good governance. If there was no information about what government was doing, he said there would be no way in which the government’s actions could be scrutinized, assessed or criticized and this was detrimental to a democracy.
Access to information was also important for exposure of corruption and he noted that stories were abundant about this aspect all over the world. This was one reason why governments in many instances were not keen on enactment of legislation in this regard.
The exposure of corruption, he noted, had brought down governments.
In the Guyana context, the FOI law was laid in Parliament in November 2006 as a private member’s bill by AFC MP Raphael Trotman but has stayed there, since, although it has the support of the PNCR-1G and the GAP-ROAR, there was no commitment of support from the party in government, the PPP/C.
Mendel also spoke about the characteristics of the right to access information in terms of procedure, provisions of the law including request modalities, timeframe within which information should be provided, the refusal of information and judicial review in the event of refusal.
The FOI laws, he noted, should also set out a regime of legitimate exceptions, which would cover commercial and tender processes, private medical records to be given only to the individual concerned, national security interests and legally privileged information.
One of the problem areas, he said, was secrecy laws. However, he said, provisions should be made for the FOI laws to protect secrecy and for the FOI laws to override the secrecy laws in the public interest.
Mendel also spoke about the right to protect civil servants who provide information to the public as requested and for whistle blowers as well.
Giving a background to the FOI laws, which first came into being in Sweden in 1766, he noted that the information revolution as he called it only gained momentum since the end of the Cold War at about 1990.
By 1990 only 15 countries had freedom of information legislation and no inter-government organisation, international financial institution or global governmental organisation had adopted right to information policies.
Stabroek News news item. Saturday May 31, 2008
By Miranda La Rose
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=13879
Toby Mendel
It is embarrassing for any country that claims to be a democracy not to have a freedom of information law, an advocate for freedom of expression said yesterday at a seminar at which top government and opposition members of Parliament were present.
Canadian Toby Mendel of Article 19 - a global campaign for free expression – who has authored a book and several articles on freedom of information laws, said that at present there were 75 countries with freedom of information laws, with the numbers changing regularly, as there were some 30 in various stages of progression.
Noting that a freedom of information bill had been tabled in the Guyana Parliament, Mendel, addressing members of parliament and representatives of the media at the four-day Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA)-sponsored workshop at the Grand Coastal Inn, yesterday expressed the hope that it could become law in a reasonable time.
The discussion that flowed from his presentation, ‘Overview of FOI: Importance (for good governance, democracy and development), trends and legislative principles,’ featured comments and questions relative to the need for more transparency and reasons why there might be a delay in the enactment of FOI law.
In recent times, Mendel said, all the multilateral financial institutions (MFIs) have adopted their own policies on pushing FOI laws. The move to adopt freedom of information legislation by governments and MFIs, he said, was probably one of the most remarkable events to occur since the end of World War II.
The right to access information, he felt, came about because of globalization and the emergence of 62 new countries, with the majority in Europe, the emergence of new information technologies, and the public now recognizing the power of information.
He noted that with access to information and new information technologies, a person could sit at desk and talk to world, put on website information that the whole world reads and journalists could investigate and expose corruption sitting at their desks and without going out of the room.
The power of information and the right to access information is now more important to citizens than before and it has reached a critical stage to where countries have adopted legislation.
“It is now embarrassing for a country, which claims to be a democracy, not to have one of those laws,” he said adding that the UK adopted legislation in 2000 and it was totally unacceptable that the UK was one of last countries in Europe to do so.
In the Caribbean Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda and the Cayman Islands have FOI laws in place.
T&T Minister of Information Neil Parsanlal shared his country’s experience and T&T TV 6 journalist Sasha Mohammed shared a journalist’s experience in putting the FOI laws to work.
Noting that FOI laws were important to everyone, including the media, women’s groups, environmental groups, citizens groups, Mendel said the fundamental premise behind this right was that government held information not for itself but as a service for the people and people should be able to access that information.
Sensible
Civil servants, who were working for the people and withholding information from the people practice the wrong model he said, adding, “That is not the democratic model of governance”.
He said access to information was the fundamental underpinning and “the oxygen of democracy” adding that if people did not know about governments, their policies and programmes, they could not make sensible decisions. He said long-standing experiences chronicled by development actors showed that where people took part in development policies and programmes, there were better results but where this was not done misplaced development resulted.
Access to information, too, he said was fundamental to accountability and good governance. If there was no information about what government was doing, he said there would be no way in which the government’s actions could be scrutinized, assessed or criticized and this was detrimental to a democracy.
Access to information was also important for exposure of corruption and he noted that stories were abundant about this aspect all over the world. This was one reason why governments in many instances were not keen on enactment of legislation in this regard.
The exposure of corruption, he noted, had brought down governments.
In the Guyana context, the FOI law was laid in Parliament in November 2006 as a private member’s bill by AFC MP Raphael Trotman but has stayed there, since, although it has the support of the PNCR-1G and the GAP-ROAR, there was no commitment of support from the party in government, the PPP/C.
Mendel also spoke about the characteristics of the right to access information in terms of procedure, provisions of the law including request modalities, timeframe within which information should be provided, the refusal of information and judicial review in the event of refusal.
The FOI laws, he noted, should also set out a regime of legitimate exceptions, which would cover commercial and tender processes, private medical records to be given only to the individual concerned, national security interests and legally privileged information.
One of the problem areas, he said, was secrecy laws. However, he said, provisions should be made for the FOI laws to protect secrecy and for the FOI laws to override the secrecy laws in the public interest.
Mendel also spoke about the right to protect civil servants who provide information to the public as requested and for whistle blowers as well.
Giving a background to the FOI laws, which first came into being in Sweden in 1766, he noted that the information revolution as he called it only gained momentum since the end of the Cold War at about 1990.
By 1990 only 15 countries had freedom of information legislation and no inter-government organisation, international financial institution or global governmental organisation had adopted right to information policies.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Judiciary should not be made scapegoats for law enforcement failures- Bar Association
Judiciary should not be made scapegoats for law enforcement failures- Bar Association
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 30 May 2008
The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) says that judges and the legal profession should not be made scapegoats for the failure of the law enforcement agencies to do their job of intelligently investigating and prosecuting crimes.
The Bar Association in a press release expressed great alarm “at recent comments and statements made by the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee, and His Excellency, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana, concerning the administration of justice in our community, the most recent of which appeared in an article published in the Kaieteur News of May 22nd, 2008, in which the Minister considered the decision to grant bail to a murder accused to be a challenge to the government by the judiciary.”
The GBA said that it wishes to remind the Minister that the primary law of the country is the Constitution before which all other Laws must subordinate.
According to the GBA, the Constitution says at Article 144 (2) (a) that a person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty by a Court of Law or has pleaded guilty.
This means that neither the Legislature nor the Executive can direct the Courts how to find a person on the trial of a matter, and therefore neither the Legislature nor the Executive should presume to tell the courts how they must determine matters.
“The freedom of an individual is still sacrosanct in our country, and the only guarantee of that freedom is the operation of independent Courts of Law staffed by independent judicial officers,” the GBA said in its press release.
It added that there have been much learned papers written about the object and application of bail, and all of them have in common that bail is not to be used as a punishment of an accused person before the court has found him guilty.
“In fact, the urging of members of the Executive to deny bail when our Constitution provides that a person shall not be deprived of his personal liberty except in certain conditions (Article 139) is a form of intimidation that sets a dangerous precedent and should not be lightly trifled with,” the GBA said.
The GBA explained that bail is a judicial discretion that must be weighed by the judicial officer in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each and every case and administered according to principle and precedent.
It is unreasonable to expect that the decision of the magistrate or judge will find universal approbation, but it must find universal respect as an inherently judicial process, the GBA explained.
The Bar Association pointed to Minister Rohee’s further assertion that “There appeared to be a disjointed criminal justice system, which was granting bail to murder accused. We now have bail applications being granted to murder accused. The judiciary has now become totally unpredictable and case law is now thrown out the window,” pointing out that it is unfortunate and unjustified, and implies that the Minister is more au fait with case law than the Courts or indeed the legal profession.
Such an assertion and attack on the judges and the legal profession, the Bar Association stated, is unacceptable.
According to the body of legal practitioners, in the context of these recent utterances by Minister Rohee, the disclaimer notwithstanding, earlier comments by his Excellency the President Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo reported in the Stabroek News of the 29th April, 2008 raise serious implications regarding policy.
The President is reported as saying – “We have witnessed some element of judicial lawmaking and I hope that you will look into that to see that the judges and the magistrates abide with the laws of the country and the will of the legislature because we need a fair judiciary that is bound by the laws of the country, so we need to work on that.”
The statement was made in an address to the Police Officers’ Conference at Eve Leary on Thursday 24th April, 2008.
According to the Bar Association, the exhortation to look into and see that “the judges and the magistrates abide with the laws of the country” can be interpreted as a threat aimed at the judicial officers of this country, a notion that is improper and violative of our Constitution.
“When the statement is further embellished with the words that ‘we need a fair judiciary that is bound by the laws of the country’, this suggests that the judiciary is not fair and is not bounded by the laws,” the Bar Association stated.
The GBA urges that as Guyanese there is the need to understand and at the very least realize that the judicial system is staffed by human beings who have flaws, but who must be presumed to be acting with professional integrity.
To threaten the judiciary is to shake the very foundations of the society and wake the beast of anarchy, the Bar Association pointed out.
“These statements can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate persons who hold judicial office and make them fearful of deciding matters in a manner that the executive does not approve”.
The GBA wishes to therefore urge a more sober and tempered approach which avoids recent utterances.
“What is needed instead is a commitment to systemically revamp law enforcement whilst working with the judiciary to achieve a common understanding for the good of the country and all of its citizens as a whole,” the Bar Association said.
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 30 May 2008
The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) says that judges and the legal profession should not be made scapegoats for the failure of the law enforcement agencies to do their job of intelligently investigating and prosecuting crimes.
The Bar Association in a press release expressed great alarm “at recent comments and statements made by the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee, and His Excellency, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana, concerning the administration of justice in our community, the most recent of which appeared in an article published in the Kaieteur News of May 22nd, 2008, in which the Minister considered the decision to grant bail to a murder accused to be a challenge to the government by the judiciary.”
The GBA said that it wishes to remind the Minister that the primary law of the country is the Constitution before which all other Laws must subordinate.
According to the GBA, the Constitution says at Article 144 (2) (a) that a person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty by a Court of Law or has pleaded guilty.
This means that neither the Legislature nor the Executive can direct the Courts how to find a person on the trial of a matter, and therefore neither the Legislature nor the Executive should presume to tell the courts how they must determine matters.
“The freedom of an individual is still sacrosanct in our country, and the only guarantee of that freedom is the operation of independent Courts of Law staffed by independent judicial officers,” the GBA said in its press release.
It added that there have been much learned papers written about the object and application of bail, and all of them have in common that bail is not to be used as a punishment of an accused person before the court has found him guilty.
“In fact, the urging of members of the Executive to deny bail when our Constitution provides that a person shall not be deprived of his personal liberty except in certain conditions (Article 139) is a form of intimidation that sets a dangerous precedent and should not be lightly trifled with,” the GBA said.
The GBA explained that bail is a judicial discretion that must be weighed by the judicial officer in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each and every case and administered according to principle and precedent.
It is unreasonable to expect that the decision of the magistrate or judge will find universal approbation, but it must find universal respect as an inherently judicial process, the GBA explained.
The Bar Association pointed to Minister Rohee’s further assertion that “There appeared to be a disjointed criminal justice system, which was granting bail to murder accused. We now have bail applications being granted to murder accused. The judiciary has now become totally unpredictable and case law is now thrown out the window,” pointing out that it is unfortunate and unjustified, and implies that the Minister is more au fait with case law than the Courts or indeed the legal profession.
Such an assertion and attack on the judges and the legal profession, the Bar Association stated, is unacceptable.
According to the body of legal practitioners, in the context of these recent utterances by Minister Rohee, the disclaimer notwithstanding, earlier comments by his Excellency the President Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo reported in the Stabroek News of the 29th April, 2008 raise serious implications regarding policy.
The President is reported as saying – “We have witnessed some element of judicial lawmaking and I hope that you will look into that to see that the judges and the magistrates abide with the laws of the country and the will of the legislature because we need a fair judiciary that is bound by the laws of the country, so we need to work on that.”
The statement was made in an address to the Police Officers’ Conference at Eve Leary on Thursday 24th April, 2008.
According to the Bar Association, the exhortation to look into and see that “the judges and the magistrates abide with the laws of the country” can be interpreted as a threat aimed at the judicial officers of this country, a notion that is improper and violative of our Constitution.
“When the statement is further embellished with the words that ‘we need a fair judiciary that is bound by the laws of the country’, this suggests that the judiciary is not fair and is not bounded by the laws,” the Bar Association stated.
The GBA urges that as Guyanese there is the need to understand and at the very least realize that the judicial system is staffed by human beings who have flaws, but who must be presumed to be acting with professional integrity.
To threaten the judiciary is to shake the very foundations of the society and wake the beast of anarchy, the Bar Association pointed out.
“These statements can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate persons who hold judicial office and make them fearful of deciding matters in a manner that the executive does not approve”.
The GBA wishes to therefore urge a more sober and tempered approach which avoids recent utterances.
“What is needed instead is a commitment to systemically revamp law enforcement whilst working with the judiciary to achieve a common understanding for the good of the country and all of its citizens as a whole,” the Bar Association said.
Sanata Complex deal… Govt. should lay facts before parliament
Sanata Complex deal… Govt. should lay facts before parliament
- Winston Murray
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 30 May 2008
Deputy Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and Shadow Finance Minister, Winston Murray is calling on Government to explain the Sanata deal before the National Assembly.
Speaking yesterday at the Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara, Murray who is Chairman of the PNCR, also said that everything is suggesting that President Bharrat Jagdeo may have been the “source” that pointed the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) and the Privatisation Unit to the direction of the owners of the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation as being interested in the Sanata complex.
PIC: Deputy Leader of the
PNCR, Winston Murray
Murray noted that the President, during a press conference, had “given the impression” that he was at “arms length” when the deal was being worked out.
Given that both the President and owner of New GPC are “personal friends”, there is a need to for some kind of transparency and accountability, Murray said.
It is the first rumblings that opposition parties may not be too pleased with the Sanata deal which was announced late April in which Queens Atlantic Investments Inc.(QAII), owner of the New GPC, struck a deal with Government to rent the extensive property and open at least five businesses.
It is also the first time that anyone had publicly intimated that President Jagdeo may have been involved.
President Jagdeo said that when the matter came up for a Cabinet decision, he left the room since he and the owner of QAII were friends.
Agreeing that it was a “done deal”, the PNCR Parliamentary front-bencher said that unfortunately, it was a deal of which “we know so little” and done by a government which has been so “condemnatory of what the PNC did with privatization” while that party was in office.
One of the things that Government should have done is to lay the deal before Parliament so that the “facts” can become known, the official said.
“There should be no insinuations” that on the basis of friendship a deal was done, he argued.
“It is not too late…I would invite the government to bring this agreement to the National Assembly,” Murray urged.
The PNCR Deputy Leader also sought to clear the air on his previous statement about “dirty money” which was misinterpreted by some.
According to Murray, during an interview with another newspaper, he had raised a point that Guyana needs to be careful with investments and the source of the money being invested. This should never be misconstrued as accusing the new management of Sanata that their investments were questionable, he said.
Rather, it was made in the context that Guyana should not be a medium for money laundering since dirty money brings dirty company.
The official disclosed that a top official at QAII had explained that the money for the Sanata deal came from local and foreign banks. Murray said that he has taken the investor at his word, having met with the investor at the invitation of the latter and shown documents to support the privatization deal.
On Wednesday, Head of the Guyana Office for Investment (GO-Invest), Geoff Da Silva indicated that only two of the five projects listed for the Sanata complex deal have been granted tax holidays.
Additionally, the printing of a newspaper was not part of the deal and any requests for waivers of inputs, equipment and machinery and vehicles will have to be dealt with by Government.
Late last month, Government announced that it had privatized the almost 300,000 square foot property of Sanata Textiles at Ruimveldt to the owners of Queens Atlantic Investments Inc., for a $50 million annual rental.
However, the deal has not gone down well with letter writers and columnists who are questioning whether too many concessions were given and if enough was done to ensure that there was transparency, among other things.
Upon completion, the complex will house a modern textile mill for gauze, bandages and denim production; a state-of-the-art printery; an antibiotics plant and a research and development facility; a pharmaceutical export processing facility; and a hardware manufacturing division.
The Privatisation Unit and GO-Invest had hosted a press conference on the issues raised but the questions continue.
- Winston Murray
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 30 May 2008
Deputy Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and Shadow Finance Minister, Winston Murray is calling on Government to explain the Sanata deal before the National Assembly.
Speaking yesterday at the Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara, Murray who is Chairman of the PNCR, also said that everything is suggesting that President Bharrat Jagdeo may have been the “source” that pointed the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) and the Privatisation Unit to the direction of the owners of the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation as being interested in the Sanata complex.
PIC: Deputy Leader of the
PNCR, Winston Murray
Murray noted that the President, during a press conference, had “given the impression” that he was at “arms length” when the deal was being worked out.
Given that both the President and owner of New GPC are “personal friends”, there is a need to for some kind of transparency and accountability, Murray said.
It is the first rumblings that opposition parties may not be too pleased with the Sanata deal which was announced late April in which Queens Atlantic Investments Inc.(QAII), owner of the New GPC, struck a deal with Government to rent the extensive property and open at least five businesses.
It is also the first time that anyone had publicly intimated that President Jagdeo may have been involved.
President Jagdeo said that when the matter came up for a Cabinet decision, he left the room since he and the owner of QAII were friends.
Agreeing that it was a “done deal”, the PNCR Parliamentary front-bencher said that unfortunately, it was a deal of which “we know so little” and done by a government which has been so “condemnatory of what the PNC did with privatization” while that party was in office.
One of the things that Government should have done is to lay the deal before Parliament so that the “facts” can become known, the official said.
“There should be no insinuations” that on the basis of friendship a deal was done, he argued.
“It is not too late…I would invite the government to bring this agreement to the National Assembly,” Murray urged.
The PNCR Deputy Leader also sought to clear the air on his previous statement about “dirty money” which was misinterpreted by some.
According to Murray, during an interview with another newspaper, he had raised a point that Guyana needs to be careful with investments and the source of the money being invested. This should never be misconstrued as accusing the new management of Sanata that their investments were questionable, he said.
Rather, it was made in the context that Guyana should not be a medium for money laundering since dirty money brings dirty company.
The official disclosed that a top official at QAII had explained that the money for the Sanata deal came from local and foreign banks. Murray said that he has taken the investor at his word, having met with the investor at the invitation of the latter and shown documents to support the privatization deal.
On Wednesday, Head of the Guyana Office for Investment (GO-Invest), Geoff Da Silva indicated that only two of the five projects listed for the Sanata complex deal have been granted tax holidays.
Additionally, the printing of a newspaper was not part of the deal and any requests for waivers of inputs, equipment and machinery and vehicles will have to be dealt with by Government.
Late last month, Government announced that it had privatized the almost 300,000 square foot property of Sanata Textiles at Ruimveldt to the owners of Queens Atlantic Investments Inc., for a $50 million annual rental.
However, the deal has not gone down well with letter writers and columnists who are questioning whether too many concessions were given and if enough was done to ensure that there was transparency, among other things.
Upon completion, the complex will house a modern textile mill for gauze, bandages and denim production; a state-of-the-art printery; an antibiotics plant and a research and development facility; a pharmaceutical export processing facility; and a hardware manufacturing division.
The Privatisation Unit and GO-Invest had hosted a press conference on the issues raised but the questions continue.
Divestment and privatisation under PNC
Divestment and privatisation under PNC
Kaieteur News letter. Friday 30 May 2008
Dear Editor,
‘Peeping Tom’ is calling on Mr. Winston Brassington to inform the public about who did the valuation of the property of the Sanata and what was the figure quoted.
I am seeking an answer from Peeping Tom on this Privatisation deal of the Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority Anna Regina, by Mr. H.D. Hoyte.
Here is the deal. The lands owned by the Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority by order dated March 17, 1991 as published in the Official Gazette of May 17, 1991-No 28 of 1991 transferred to CARICOM Rice Mills Ltd as follows:-
Tracts A, B, C, D, and E, being a portion of plantation Anna Regina situated on the Essequibo Coast, in the County of Essequibo, containing a total area of 11.8 acres as shown on a Plan by J. Ramnauth, Sworn Land Surveyor, dated 1990-10-28 on record in the Department of Lands and Surveys as Plan No.23264.
The buildings, structures, fittings, appliances and appurtenances for both rice mills situated at Anna Regina and Somerset and Berks were also transferred under the said Order.
These lands can be traced from the plans which had previously belonged to the Government of Guyana and held by transport Nos.779 of 1929 and 320 of 1973 respectively.
The Public Corporations Act 1998 (No 24 of 1998) in exercise of the power conferred upon me by Section 8 of the Public Corporations Act 1998 applied to Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority under Section 66 of that Act. I hereby make the following order. The order may be cited as the Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority transfer of property order 1991 and shall come into operation on 17th March 1991.
Pursuant to the agreement and subject to the representations, warrants, covenants and the terms and conditions specified therein, the property is hereby transferred to the purchaser.
The unpaid purchase price of US$2,100,000 shall be a first charge on the property and, if default is committed by the purchaser in making payment of the same to the Government in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the said sum may be recovered, without prejudice to any other remedy the Government may have against the purchaser, by enforcing the charge.
Also in the deal was lands sited on Somerset and Berks, Essequibo, containing an area of 19.74 acres tract A being portions of Lots 37, 38 and 39 Plantation, Somerset and Berks and the State Farm behind Dartmouth with over 500 acres of state lands now rented out to big rice farmers.
This deal is a rotten one too by the PNC and it has left a bad taste on the rice farmers because this was the only vibrant Rice Mill in the country at the time of privatisation. To date we do not know the shares held by the government and no shares were ever offered to the employees.
Mohamed Khan
Kaieteur News letter. Friday 30 May 2008
Dear Editor,
‘Peeping Tom’ is calling on Mr. Winston Brassington to inform the public about who did the valuation of the property of the Sanata and what was the figure quoted.
I am seeking an answer from Peeping Tom on this Privatisation deal of the Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority Anna Regina, by Mr. H.D. Hoyte.
Here is the deal. The lands owned by the Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority by order dated March 17, 1991 as published in the Official Gazette of May 17, 1991-No 28 of 1991 transferred to CARICOM Rice Mills Ltd as follows:-
Tracts A, B, C, D, and E, being a portion of plantation Anna Regina situated on the Essequibo Coast, in the County of Essequibo, containing a total area of 11.8 acres as shown on a Plan by J. Ramnauth, Sworn Land Surveyor, dated 1990-10-28 on record in the Department of Lands and Surveys as Plan No.23264.
The buildings, structures, fittings, appliances and appurtenances for both rice mills situated at Anna Regina and Somerset and Berks were also transferred under the said Order.
These lands can be traced from the plans which had previously belonged to the Government of Guyana and held by transport Nos.779 of 1929 and 320 of 1973 respectively.
The Public Corporations Act 1998 (No 24 of 1998) in exercise of the power conferred upon me by Section 8 of the Public Corporations Act 1998 applied to Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority under Section 66 of that Act. I hereby make the following order. The order may be cited as the Guyana Rice Milling and Marketing Authority transfer of property order 1991 and shall come into operation on 17th March 1991.
Pursuant to the agreement and subject to the representations, warrants, covenants and the terms and conditions specified therein, the property is hereby transferred to the purchaser.
The unpaid purchase price of US$2,100,000 shall be a first charge on the property and, if default is committed by the purchaser in making payment of the same to the Government in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the said sum may be recovered, without prejudice to any other remedy the Government may have against the purchaser, by enforcing the charge.
Also in the deal was lands sited on Somerset and Berks, Essequibo, containing an area of 19.74 acres tract A being portions of Lots 37, 38 and 39 Plantation, Somerset and Berks and the State Farm behind Dartmouth with over 500 acres of state lands now rented out to big rice farmers.
This deal is a rotten one too by the PNC and it has left a bad taste on the rice farmers because this was the only vibrant Rice Mill in the country at the time of privatisation. To date we do not know the shares held by the government and no shares were ever offered to the employees.
Mohamed Khan
Thursday, May 29, 2008
At CPA workshop…Speaker, Opposition MP expound on Parliament, Media practices
At CPA workshop…Speaker, Opposition MP expound on Parliament, Media practices
By Tajeram Mohabir
Guyana Chronicle news item. Thursday 29 May 2008
SPEAKER of the National Assembly, Mr. Hari Narayan (Ralph) Ramkarran, yesterday underscored the need for the legislature and the media to define their relationship, either by understanding or accepting their respective duties and the principles applied in discharging them.
He made the pronouncement at the opening of the four-day ‘Guyana Workshop on Parliament and the Media’ being hosted by the local legislature and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) at Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara.
The forum seeks to sensitise the media and Members of Parliament (MPs) on their rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges.
Among those who spoke were Prime Minister Samuel Hinds; member of the United Kingdom (UK) House of Lords, Baroness Valerie Amos and CPA Assistant Director, Mr. Shem Baldeosingh.
In attendance also were other visiting CPA members, Government and Opposition MPs, as well as parliamentarians from Trinidad and Tobago and Bermuda.
Ramkarran pointed out that both parliamentarians and the media have roles and parameters around which they function and noted that the topics for discussion have been carefully chosen to deal with the challenges facing MPs and media practitioners in discharging their respective duties and recommendations to address them.
He said the initiative is in keeping with ongoing efforts by the National Assembly to upgrade its members with the latest information on requisite knowledge and skills to effectively discharge their responsibilities to the electorate.
Ramkarran told the participants that, locally, there is no body of written principles to guide the media in relation to Parliament nor does the National Assembly or the Speaker find it necessary to intervene in any matter relating to the media.
He recalled that, on one occasion, the Parliamentary Management Committee (PMC) approved a set of uncontroversial principles, prepared by an Australian expert who came here through the CPA, compliments of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
But, according to Ramkarran, due to lack of support from the media, the PMC was unable to proceed with the proposal and decided to wait for a more opportune time.
The Speaker emphasised, however, that, at some point in the future, as the work of the National Assembly expands, a set of agreed principles will be needed and, if the media is reluctant to buy into the quest, inevitably legislation will be enacted.
Ramkarran thanked the CPA and the local Parliament Office for planning the workshop, which he said, was long pending but has come at an appropriate time.
Alliance For Change (AFC) Co-Leader and MP, Mr. Raphael Trotman, who also expounded his views, said the occasion, in the opinion of the Opposition, coincides with a time when the freedom of the press is under threat by both State and non-state actors.
“There is a growing body of opinion which says, and with justification, that we are witnessing the rolling back of fundamental rights and freedoms in Guyana to an Orwellian time when we, too, can lament that, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act,” he lamented.
According to Trotman, the recent events involving the Stabroek News, CNS Channel 6 television, the continued exclusion of the Opposition and Civil Society from the State-owned media and the refusal to share information on matters of public interest, such as the sale of State assets, have brought the notions of the right to information, freedom of the press and the responsibilities of the media into sharp focus.
He lauded the programme, continuing through Saturday, pointing out that, apart from MPs and the media understanding their respective roles, they will be better educated as to what is appropriate and inappropriate and why, in the discharge of their functions, there are certain universal expectations.
Trotman said, from the legislator’s point of view, the media, too, will be better enabled to distinguish between useful and helpful information and utter trash and sensationalism.
He also observed that, many times, there have been reports in the media which were improperly researched, riddled with errors and overtly biased.
“We have to rise to the occasion, at times, by placing national interest above sales and revenue and refrain from shouting fire when there is only a spark to be seen,” the opposition MP exhorted.
The AFC leader said his expectations of the seminar are that it will be a mechanism for moving one step closer to the realisation of access to information legislation in Guyana.
As part of his deep and abiding interest in the promotion of democracy, he tabled a Freedom of Information Bill in the National Assembly in 2006 and explained that “it was Mahatma Gandhi who taught us that the spirit of democracy cannot be superimposed from the outside. It must come from within.”
Trotman said: “I still believe we have it within us to wake up and do what is necessary to establish a true democracy, where provision is made to ensure that the people are properly informed and the voices of all will be heard and listened to in the decision-making processes.”
Chairperson of the opening session, Adviser to the President on Governance, Ms. Gail Teixeira declared that, while Trotman’s observations are topical, they are “irrelevant” to the occasion.
Prime Minister Hinds, in brief remarks, also acknowledged that the sessions will be of great benefit to both MPs and the media and charged the participants to open their minds and internalise the experiences that will be imparted by the eminent speakers.
Baldeosingh was optimistic that the seminar will help MPs, the media and civil society to work towards the development of a better legal and political environment, in which the public is provided with all the information required to make informed decisions.
The topics discussed yesterday included ‘The CPA and Parliament and the Media Review of Recommendations for an Informed Democracy’, ‘The role of the Media as the Fourth Estate’, ‘Parliament and the Media: General issues’, ‘Defining Public Interest’ and ‘Access to Parliamentary Information.’
By Tajeram Mohabir
Guyana Chronicle news item. Thursday 29 May 2008
SPEAKER of the National Assembly, Mr. Hari Narayan (Ralph) Ramkarran, yesterday underscored the need for the legislature and the media to define their relationship, either by understanding or accepting their respective duties and the principles applied in discharging them.
He made the pronouncement at the opening of the four-day ‘Guyana Workshop on Parliament and the Media’ being hosted by the local legislature and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) at Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara.
The forum seeks to sensitise the media and Members of Parliament (MPs) on their rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges.
Among those who spoke were Prime Minister Samuel Hinds; member of the United Kingdom (UK) House of Lords, Baroness Valerie Amos and CPA Assistant Director, Mr. Shem Baldeosingh.
In attendance also were other visiting CPA members, Government and Opposition MPs, as well as parliamentarians from Trinidad and Tobago and Bermuda.
Ramkarran pointed out that both parliamentarians and the media have roles and parameters around which they function and noted that the topics for discussion have been carefully chosen to deal with the challenges facing MPs and media practitioners in discharging their respective duties and recommendations to address them.
He said the initiative is in keeping with ongoing efforts by the National Assembly to upgrade its members with the latest information on requisite knowledge and skills to effectively discharge their responsibilities to the electorate.
Ramkarran told the participants that, locally, there is no body of written principles to guide the media in relation to Parliament nor does the National Assembly or the Speaker find it necessary to intervene in any matter relating to the media.
He recalled that, on one occasion, the Parliamentary Management Committee (PMC) approved a set of uncontroversial principles, prepared by an Australian expert who came here through the CPA, compliments of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
But, according to Ramkarran, due to lack of support from the media, the PMC was unable to proceed with the proposal and decided to wait for a more opportune time.
The Speaker emphasised, however, that, at some point in the future, as the work of the National Assembly expands, a set of agreed principles will be needed and, if the media is reluctant to buy into the quest, inevitably legislation will be enacted.
Ramkarran thanked the CPA and the local Parliament Office for planning the workshop, which he said, was long pending but has come at an appropriate time.
Alliance For Change (AFC) Co-Leader and MP, Mr. Raphael Trotman, who also expounded his views, said the occasion, in the opinion of the Opposition, coincides with a time when the freedom of the press is under threat by both State and non-state actors.
“There is a growing body of opinion which says, and with justification, that we are witnessing the rolling back of fundamental rights and freedoms in Guyana to an Orwellian time when we, too, can lament that, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act,” he lamented.
According to Trotman, the recent events involving the Stabroek News, CNS Channel 6 television, the continued exclusion of the Opposition and Civil Society from the State-owned media and the refusal to share information on matters of public interest, such as the sale of State assets, have brought the notions of the right to information, freedom of the press and the responsibilities of the media into sharp focus.
He lauded the programme, continuing through Saturday, pointing out that, apart from MPs and the media understanding their respective roles, they will be better educated as to what is appropriate and inappropriate and why, in the discharge of their functions, there are certain universal expectations.
Trotman said, from the legislator’s point of view, the media, too, will be better enabled to distinguish between useful and helpful information and utter trash and sensationalism.
He also observed that, many times, there have been reports in the media which were improperly researched, riddled with errors and overtly biased.
“We have to rise to the occasion, at times, by placing national interest above sales and revenue and refrain from shouting fire when there is only a spark to be seen,” the opposition MP exhorted.
The AFC leader said his expectations of the seminar are that it will be a mechanism for moving one step closer to the realisation of access to information legislation in Guyana.
As part of his deep and abiding interest in the promotion of democracy, he tabled a Freedom of Information Bill in the National Assembly in 2006 and explained that “it was Mahatma Gandhi who taught us that the spirit of democracy cannot be superimposed from the outside. It must come from within.”
Trotman said: “I still believe we have it within us to wake up and do what is necessary to establish a true democracy, where provision is made to ensure that the people are properly informed and the voices of all will be heard and listened to in the decision-making processes.”
Chairperson of the opening session, Adviser to the President on Governance, Ms. Gail Teixeira declared that, while Trotman’s observations are topical, they are “irrelevant” to the occasion.
Prime Minister Hinds, in brief remarks, also acknowledged that the sessions will be of great benefit to both MPs and the media and charged the participants to open their minds and internalise the experiences that will be imparted by the eminent speakers.
Baldeosingh was optimistic that the seminar will help MPs, the media and civil society to work towards the development of a better legal and political environment, in which the public is provided with all the information required to make informed decisions.
The topics discussed yesterday included ‘The CPA and Parliament and the Media Review of Recommendations for an Informed Democracy’, ‘The role of the Media as the Fourth Estate’, ‘Parliament and the Media: General issues’, ‘Defining Public Interest’ and ‘Access to Parliamentary Information.’
Parliament and Media Workshop opens amidst controversy
Parliament and Media Workshop opens amidst controversy
By George Baird
Guyana Chronicle, Thursday 29 May 2008
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html#Anchor-------8772
THE Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) sponsored ‘Guyana Workshop on Parliament and the Media’ opened amidst controversy yesterday, with Government and Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) trading barbs.
Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Hari (Ralph) Ramkarran made welcoming remarks but, no sooner had he concluded that Alliance For Change (AFC) Co-Leader, Mr. Raphael Trotman raised current controversial issues.
Trotman spoke about the alleged challenge to the Executive by the Judiciary, the process of State assets disposal and the House being a “rubber stamp” for Government actions.
He plugged for the Freedom of Information Bill, which he proposed, to be passed into law, offering it as a solution to revealing secrets in Government dealings and advocated that all MPs be presented free laptop computers.
Trotman said the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had not given its support nor said it is against the measure but thanked the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) for its endorsement.
PPP/C MP, Ms. Gail Teixeira, who chaired the opening session, noted that the matters mentioned by Trotman would certainly be debated later and Prime Minister Samuel Hinds refused to be drawn into the fray.
Mr. Hinds, in a conciliatory tone, confined his presentation to bidding the participants from overseas a warm welcome and expressing the hope that the four-day programme would result in all those involved learning more about the workings of the local Legislature.
Guyanese-born Baroness Valerie Amos, from the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament, agreed that Ministers should be held accountable to Parliament and spoke of her own experience while holding a portfolio in the British Government.
She said she definitely expected to be questioned about or criticised over administrative initiatives but said Guyana had gone much further than Britain, by broadcasting what happens in its Parliament, while the constituents in the UK were not as interested in the parliamentary business.
Under the chairmanship of PPP/C MP, Mr. Albert Atkinson, the forum heard different opinions on how the Guyana Parliament functions.
Ramkarran said he did not want to contribute to the debate on whether or not the House was a rubber stamp but contended that it was functioning much better under the implemented system through which sectoral committees have rotating chairpersons from Government and Opposition and 50 per cent of the Bills tables are referred for consultation.
Minister within the Ministry of Education, Dr. Desrey Fox, concurred that the procedure afforded the Opposition more say but PNCR Chairman Murray maintained that it did not devolve any power.
Other PNCR MP, Mr. Basil Williams, agreed with Murray that the situation has improved but said, because membership of the committees is based on the representation of the parties in the House, unless there is consensus, the Government majority prevails.
After Ms. Sasha Mohammed of Trinidad and Tobago TV6 had outlined how the media in the twin-island republic treats with its legislators and exposes wrongdoings, Murray rejoined to state that the local media targets certain personalities for denigration.
Another PPP/C MP, Mr. Neil Kumar, was among others who added to the morning discussion.
Earlier, Mr. Shem Baldeosingh, the Trinidadian Assistant Director of the CPA, gave a background to how the workshop was arranged and shared recommendations made to the secretariat for similar exercises to enhance democracy.
The workshop, at Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara, continues through Saturday, with participants also from Bermuda.
By George Baird
Guyana Chronicle, Thursday 29 May 2008
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html#Anchor-------8772
THE Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) sponsored ‘Guyana Workshop on Parliament and the Media’ opened amidst controversy yesterday, with Government and Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) trading barbs.
Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Hari (Ralph) Ramkarran made welcoming remarks but, no sooner had he concluded that Alliance For Change (AFC) Co-Leader, Mr. Raphael Trotman raised current controversial issues.
Trotman spoke about the alleged challenge to the Executive by the Judiciary, the process of State assets disposal and the House being a “rubber stamp” for Government actions.
He plugged for the Freedom of Information Bill, which he proposed, to be passed into law, offering it as a solution to revealing secrets in Government dealings and advocated that all MPs be presented free laptop computers.
Trotman said the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had not given its support nor said it is against the measure but thanked the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) for its endorsement.
PPP/C MP, Ms. Gail Teixeira, who chaired the opening session, noted that the matters mentioned by Trotman would certainly be debated later and Prime Minister Samuel Hinds refused to be drawn into the fray.
Mr. Hinds, in a conciliatory tone, confined his presentation to bidding the participants from overseas a warm welcome and expressing the hope that the four-day programme would result in all those involved learning more about the workings of the local Legislature.
Guyanese-born Baroness Valerie Amos, from the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament, agreed that Ministers should be held accountable to Parliament and spoke of her own experience while holding a portfolio in the British Government.
She said she definitely expected to be questioned about or criticised over administrative initiatives but said Guyana had gone much further than Britain, by broadcasting what happens in its Parliament, while the constituents in the UK were not as interested in the parliamentary business.
Under the chairmanship of PPP/C MP, Mr. Albert Atkinson, the forum heard different opinions on how the Guyana Parliament functions.
Ramkarran said he did not want to contribute to the debate on whether or not the House was a rubber stamp but contended that it was functioning much better under the implemented system through which sectoral committees have rotating chairpersons from Government and Opposition and 50 per cent of the Bills tables are referred for consultation.
Minister within the Ministry of Education, Dr. Desrey Fox, concurred that the procedure afforded the Opposition more say but PNCR Chairman Murray maintained that it did not devolve any power.
Other PNCR MP, Mr. Basil Williams, agreed with Murray that the situation has improved but said, because membership of the committees is based on the representation of the parties in the House, unless there is consensus, the Government majority prevails.
After Ms. Sasha Mohammed of Trinidad and Tobago TV6 had outlined how the media in the twin-island republic treats with its legislators and exposes wrongdoings, Murray rejoined to state that the local media targets certain personalities for denigration.
Another PPP/C MP, Mr. Neil Kumar, was among others who added to the morning discussion.
Earlier, Mr. Shem Baldeosingh, the Trinidadian Assistant Director of the CPA, gave a background to how the workshop was arranged and shared recommendations made to the secretariat for similar exercises to enhance democracy.
The workshop, at Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara, continues through Saturday, with participants also from Bermuda.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The multi-agency task force in the Polar Beer case must be allowed to function independent of executive direction
The multi-agency task force in the Polar Beer case must be allowed to function independent of executive direction
Stabroek News letter. Monday May 26, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=13535
Dear Editor,
With reference to the ongoing Polar Beer saga, my primary concern is that the multi- agency team be allowed to perform its tasks in a professional manner, and more importantly that all those fingered are allowed due process and indicted on the basis of evidence and proof and not on what any high official believes.
The President of Guyana at the last press conference in which the subject was raised, was asked whether the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) was part of the multi-agency team probing allegations of bribery at the said GRA. The President did not answer the question directly. He avoided a direct response by indicating that when he met with the team the Commissioner General was present. The Stabroek News can carry out its own investigations to verify that two senior officers of the GRA were part of the panel that interviewed the three most recently dismissed officers.
Having established the multi-agency task force, it is important that this team be allowed to function independent of executive direction. The team should be allowed to carry out its work in an independent and professional manner, and at the conclusion to submit their findings to the President.
The Head of State however seems to have ongoing access to information about what the interviewed officers are alleged to have said to the probe team and what actions the probe team has so far undertaken. At his press conference the President indicated that the officers had given inconsistent descriptions of the aerated drinks they examined. This is not unexpected. While I cannot vouch for the credibility of the reports reaching the President, I do not expect any Customs Officer to recall exactly the finer details of an examination done over six months ago. Which Customs Officer is going to recall precisely an examination that he or she did six months ago? For this very reason, the standard practice in Customs administrations has always been to rely less on the memory of the officers and more on the record – the examination of the Customs entry which details what was seen at the time so that when memory fails, the record is there.
The President further revealed that the investigators spoke to persons who work at the bond of the importer and those persons all said that they saw no aerated drinks. What does the President expect them to say? Further, the President observed that not one of the three million units of aerated drinks had been found. I am not surprised. Does the President of Guyana expect that soft drinks imported beginning last June to still be around in April of this year when the probe was launched? By now those drinks would have expired. Is the President aware that the weekly consumption of aerated beverages exceeds three million units and that over the Christmas holidays this amount trebles?
Since the President is so preoccupied with the maths of this case perhaps he should do his own calculations in respect to the number of beers that the company is supposed to account for. The GRA investigators by perusing the bill books of the company established that some 191,000 cases of beer were unaccounted for. If for argument’s sake we take all the soft drinks that were imported and assume them to be beer instead, the numbers would still fall way short of the 191,000 cases, way short. So, Mr President from where did all the extra beer come?
The same standards of guilt that apply to the company should be applied to the officers. They must not be indicted based on belief but based on evidence and proof. This may require painstaking investigations.
The Customs Officers in this case are being dismissed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, nasty allegations have been levelled against some of the officers to tarnish their reputations. The Special Branch visited the homes of these officers to investigate these dirty allegations which are now being made. It seems that there are forces determined to get these officers by hook or by crook.
For too long in this country, the authorities have gone after the corrupted while the corruptors are allowed to go free. This must not happen in this case.
Yours faithfully,
Rajin Ratnamala
Stabroek News letter. Monday May 26, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=13535
Dear Editor,
With reference to the ongoing Polar Beer saga, my primary concern is that the multi- agency team be allowed to perform its tasks in a professional manner, and more importantly that all those fingered are allowed due process and indicted on the basis of evidence and proof and not on what any high official believes.
The President of Guyana at the last press conference in which the subject was raised, was asked whether the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) was part of the multi-agency team probing allegations of bribery at the said GRA. The President did not answer the question directly. He avoided a direct response by indicating that when he met with the team the Commissioner General was present. The Stabroek News can carry out its own investigations to verify that two senior officers of the GRA were part of the panel that interviewed the three most recently dismissed officers.
Having established the multi-agency task force, it is important that this team be allowed to function independent of executive direction. The team should be allowed to carry out its work in an independent and professional manner, and at the conclusion to submit their findings to the President.
The Head of State however seems to have ongoing access to information about what the interviewed officers are alleged to have said to the probe team and what actions the probe team has so far undertaken. At his press conference the President indicated that the officers had given inconsistent descriptions of the aerated drinks they examined. This is not unexpected. While I cannot vouch for the credibility of the reports reaching the President, I do not expect any Customs Officer to recall exactly the finer details of an examination done over six months ago. Which Customs Officer is going to recall precisely an examination that he or she did six months ago? For this very reason, the standard practice in Customs administrations has always been to rely less on the memory of the officers and more on the record – the examination of the Customs entry which details what was seen at the time so that when memory fails, the record is there.
The President further revealed that the investigators spoke to persons who work at the bond of the importer and those persons all said that they saw no aerated drinks. What does the President expect them to say? Further, the President observed that not one of the three million units of aerated drinks had been found. I am not surprised. Does the President of Guyana expect that soft drinks imported beginning last June to still be around in April of this year when the probe was launched? By now those drinks would have expired. Is the President aware that the weekly consumption of aerated beverages exceeds three million units and that over the Christmas holidays this amount trebles?
Since the President is so preoccupied with the maths of this case perhaps he should do his own calculations in respect to the number of beers that the company is supposed to account for. The GRA investigators by perusing the bill books of the company established that some 191,000 cases of beer were unaccounted for. If for argument’s sake we take all the soft drinks that were imported and assume them to be beer instead, the numbers would still fall way short of the 191,000 cases, way short. So, Mr President from where did all the extra beer come?
The same standards of guilt that apply to the company should be applied to the officers. They must not be indicted based on belief but based on evidence and proof. This may require painstaking investigations.
The Customs Officers in this case are being dismissed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, nasty allegations have been levelled against some of the officers to tarnish their reputations. The Special Branch visited the homes of these officers to investigate these dirty allegations which are now being made. It seems that there are forces determined to get these officers by hook or by crook.
For too long in this country, the authorities have gone after the corrupted while the corruptors are allowed to go free. This must not happen in this case.
Yours faithfully,
Rajin Ratnamala
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Justice delayed
Justice delayed
Stabroek News Editorial. Sunday May 25, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14911
On Thursday the Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee was unusually the recipient of a rebuke – by implication – from the Office of the President. In his customary unaffected fashion he said in a press conference on Wednesday that there appeared to be a disjointed criminal justice system, which was granting bail to murder accused. “The judiciary has now become totally unpredictable and case law is now thrown out of the window,” he was quoted as saying.
And that was not all. Mr Rohee went on to tell the media that while the executive was insisting on draconian penalties, among other things, to enhance public security, the judiciary was moving in the other direction and was becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons. “But what about the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatized for life?” he asked rhetorically. The courts no less than the executive and the police should be taking public interest into account, he said.
In a statement the following day the Office of the President had this to say: “Notwithstanding the minister’s concerns that are a reflection of social sentiment, the Office of the President wishes to advise that the executive is unprepared to accept any contention that such a ruling actually constitutes a challenge.” The statement went on to say that the cabinet in its meeting of May 13 had urged Attorney General Doodnauth Singh to continue evaluating the implications of bail being granted in cases of frequent serious offences, bearing in mind that the stability of the society could be affected if the accused then committed further crimes while on bail, or escaped the jurisdiction.
It may be that Mr Rohee thought he was reflecting the tenor of the discussion in the cabinet room; if that is so, then what might have made the OP uneasy could have been the fact that he had homed in on a specific judgement, in this case from Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang. It must be said that the President himself has not been above criticizing the judiciary in general over the matter of granting bail, a recent example being when he addressed the police officers’ conference last month. On that occasion in the presence of Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh, he said there had been almost 60 cases this year where people had received bail for non-bailable offences. The Government Information Agency then went on to quote him as saying: “We have witnessed some element of judicial lawmaking and I hope you will look into that Mr Chancellor so that judges and magistrates abide with the laws of the country.”
In the specific case which seems to have triggered the Minister’s ire, Justice Chang had granted bail to a man who had been in court for eight years awaiting trial for murder. The delays in the case had been occasioned by prosecutorial error, and Justice Chang said the man should not have been made to suffer for it. In his ruling he cited Article 139 of the Constitution of Guyana which provides for bail, and then Article 153 which provides for the discretion to safeguard the fundamental rights of an accused.
Mr Rohee seems to think that the matter of an accused’s rights can be disregarded in the interests of security. He made an appeal to popular emotions by asking whether he was now to understand that if those who committed the atrocities at Lusignan and Bartica were to be arrested and charged, they would be granted bail under Articles 153 and 139 of the constitution. It is a non sequitur, of course, since it doesn’t follow that granting bail in one case inevitably involves granting bail in another which might have different characteristics. Every case would have to be looked at on its merits. As it is, decisions about balancing considerations of public security with the rights of an accused in any given instance, lie not with the Ministry of Home Affairs, but with the judiciary.
For his part Justice Chang pointed out in a statement after the Minister had spoken that “It is the judiciary and not the executive which is the guardian of the Constitution.” Needless to say he is correct. He also observed that some tension between the judiciary and executive was inevitable, and must be accepted as normal in a state structure in which the doctrine of the separation of powers inhered.
While a separation of powers reflects the intent of the constitution, Minister Rohee from his current remarks and the administration in general have shown themselves less than enamoured of the concept, seeking to treat all branches of government as an extension of the executive. Justice Chang, however, expressed the view that the Minister’s comments should reassure the public that the judiciary was not the subservient mistress of the executive. Well in this particular instance, certainly not, but the public would require far more evidence before it would feel confident in accepting the rather general proposition set forth by the acting Chief Justice.
In any case, both the Minister and the President have oversimplified the bail issue. Apart from the fact that the circumstances of each individual case would have to be looked at before a conclusion could be come to about any trends or whether there is matter for concern in a specific area, they have overlooked the larger problems in the judicial system. As said above, the granting of bail in the case which set off the current furore was related to delays caused by prosecutorial error. The public has the impression that this is not an uncommon occurrence, and we have carried several letters in this newspaper about inexperienced prosecutors and police prosecutors being used in difficult cases. The Director of Public Prosecution is only acting, of course, which has obvious difficulties hardly in need of elaboration, while prosecutors’ pay in general does little to induce the best and the brightest to enter the system.
There are other reasons too for the delays in the court system, which can conspire to keep a remand prisoner in jail, sometimes for years. The government has to recognize, therefore, that an accused – who, whatever Mr Rohee might think is entitled to a presumption of innocence until found guilty by a court – should not have to wait unconscionable lengths before being brought to trial. The next time the Minister is overcome by ‘draconian’ instincts, therefore, he should balance them by reciting to himself the old adage, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’
Stabroek News Editorial. Sunday May 25, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14911
On Thursday the Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee was unusually the recipient of a rebuke – by implication – from the Office of the President. In his customary unaffected fashion he said in a press conference on Wednesday that there appeared to be a disjointed criminal justice system, which was granting bail to murder accused. “The judiciary has now become totally unpredictable and case law is now thrown out of the window,” he was quoted as saying.
And that was not all. Mr Rohee went on to tell the media that while the executive was insisting on draconian penalties, among other things, to enhance public security, the judiciary was moving in the other direction and was becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons. “But what about the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatized for life?” he asked rhetorically. The courts no less than the executive and the police should be taking public interest into account, he said.
In a statement the following day the Office of the President had this to say: “Notwithstanding the minister’s concerns that are a reflection of social sentiment, the Office of the President wishes to advise that the executive is unprepared to accept any contention that such a ruling actually constitutes a challenge.” The statement went on to say that the cabinet in its meeting of May 13 had urged Attorney General Doodnauth Singh to continue evaluating the implications of bail being granted in cases of frequent serious offences, bearing in mind that the stability of the society could be affected if the accused then committed further crimes while on bail, or escaped the jurisdiction.
It may be that Mr Rohee thought he was reflecting the tenor of the discussion in the cabinet room; if that is so, then what might have made the OP uneasy could have been the fact that he had homed in on a specific judgement, in this case from Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang. It must be said that the President himself has not been above criticizing the judiciary in general over the matter of granting bail, a recent example being when he addressed the police officers’ conference last month. On that occasion in the presence of Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh, he said there had been almost 60 cases this year where people had received bail for non-bailable offences. The Government Information Agency then went on to quote him as saying: “We have witnessed some element of judicial lawmaking and I hope you will look into that Mr Chancellor so that judges and magistrates abide with the laws of the country.”
In the specific case which seems to have triggered the Minister’s ire, Justice Chang had granted bail to a man who had been in court for eight years awaiting trial for murder. The delays in the case had been occasioned by prosecutorial error, and Justice Chang said the man should not have been made to suffer for it. In his ruling he cited Article 139 of the Constitution of Guyana which provides for bail, and then Article 153 which provides for the discretion to safeguard the fundamental rights of an accused.
Mr Rohee seems to think that the matter of an accused’s rights can be disregarded in the interests of security. He made an appeal to popular emotions by asking whether he was now to understand that if those who committed the atrocities at Lusignan and Bartica were to be arrested and charged, they would be granted bail under Articles 153 and 139 of the constitution. It is a non sequitur, of course, since it doesn’t follow that granting bail in one case inevitably involves granting bail in another which might have different characteristics. Every case would have to be looked at on its merits. As it is, decisions about balancing considerations of public security with the rights of an accused in any given instance, lie not with the Ministry of Home Affairs, but with the judiciary.
For his part Justice Chang pointed out in a statement after the Minister had spoken that “It is the judiciary and not the executive which is the guardian of the Constitution.” Needless to say he is correct. He also observed that some tension between the judiciary and executive was inevitable, and must be accepted as normal in a state structure in which the doctrine of the separation of powers inhered.
While a separation of powers reflects the intent of the constitution, Minister Rohee from his current remarks and the administration in general have shown themselves less than enamoured of the concept, seeking to treat all branches of government as an extension of the executive. Justice Chang, however, expressed the view that the Minister’s comments should reassure the public that the judiciary was not the subservient mistress of the executive. Well in this particular instance, certainly not, but the public would require far more evidence before it would feel confident in accepting the rather general proposition set forth by the acting Chief Justice.
In any case, both the Minister and the President have oversimplified the bail issue. Apart from the fact that the circumstances of each individual case would have to be looked at before a conclusion could be come to about any trends or whether there is matter for concern in a specific area, they have overlooked the larger problems in the judicial system. As said above, the granting of bail in the case which set off the current furore was related to delays caused by prosecutorial error. The public has the impression that this is not an uncommon occurrence, and we have carried several letters in this newspaper about inexperienced prosecutors and police prosecutors being used in difficult cases. The Director of Public Prosecution is only acting, of course, which has obvious difficulties hardly in need of elaboration, while prosecutors’ pay in general does little to induce the best and the brightest to enter the system.
There are other reasons too for the delays in the court system, which can conspire to keep a remand prisoner in jail, sometimes for years. The government has to recognize, therefore, that an accused – who, whatever Mr Rohee might think is entitled to a presumption of innocence until found guilty by a court – should not have to wait unconscionable lengths before being brought to trial. The next time the Minister is overcome by ‘draconian’ instincts, therefore, he should balance them by reciting to himself the old adage, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Gov’t must come clean on Roger Khan - PNCR
Gov’t must come clean on Roger Khan - PNCR
Stabroek News news item. Saturday May 24, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14848
The opposition PNCR is calling on the PPP/C government to come clean about its knowledge of drug accused Guyanese Roger Khan and his activities, stating that the party “could not have been unaware of his extensive narco-related activities”.
Khan’s alleged drug trafficking and crime organization activities have been coming to light in legal arguments as the US government prepares for his trial, scheduled to begin in October.
Reading a prepared statement at its weekly press briefing at Congress Place yesterday, PNCR Central Executive Member Lance Carberry noted that it had been said that “the organization, headed by Roger Khan had not only exported cocaine to that country but was responsible for the deaths of over 200 individuals.”According to the party, it was as a result of the findings that PNCR Leader Robert Corbin reiterated a call for an independent inquiry into “the death squads in Guyana.”
Carberry said the PPP’s response has been to deny all knowledge of Khan and his activities.
The party’s statement also said that when Khan was arrested in Suriname in 2006, that country’s Minister of Justice and Police Chandrika Persad Santokhi had disclosed that the Surinamese government had exchanged information with the Guyana government about Khan.
He quoted Khan’s statement prior to his arrest and detention by the US government that he had worked closely with police and provided them with assistance at his own expense during the crime spree in 2002. Carberry then said that any normal person would ask how it was possible for an individual to carry out major activities with the police force of a country and the government would not know that this was taking place.
He recalled that when Khan was arrested at Good Hope in 2002, one of the men arrested along with him was a serving policeman and the computer in Khan’s possession at the time was one which could only be purchased by a government.
“The evidence is clear that, not only did the Jagdeo administration know of Roger Khan but also aided and abetted his nefarious activities,” the statement said.
Asked for a comment on the PNCR’s statement on details emerging from the case and which the government should have knowledge about, Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira responded with a question.
“How is it expected that any government provide details coming out of a trial taking place in another country when all they have access to, are newspaper reports?” she asked.
Stabroek News tried to make contact with PPP General Secretary Donald Ramotar to elicit a comment on the PNCR’s statement without success.
Stabroek News news item. Saturday May 24, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14848
The opposition PNCR is calling on the PPP/C government to come clean about its knowledge of drug accused Guyanese Roger Khan and his activities, stating that the party “could not have been unaware of his extensive narco-related activities”.
Khan’s alleged drug trafficking and crime organization activities have been coming to light in legal arguments as the US government prepares for his trial, scheduled to begin in October.
Reading a prepared statement at its weekly press briefing at Congress Place yesterday, PNCR Central Executive Member Lance Carberry noted that it had been said that “the organization, headed by Roger Khan had not only exported cocaine to that country but was responsible for the deaths of over 200 individuals.”According to the party, it was as a result of the findings that PNCR Leader Robert Corbin reiterated a call for an independent inquiry into “the death squads in Guyana.”
Carberry said the PPP’s response has been to deny all knowledge of Khan and his activities.
The party’s statement also said that when Khan was arrested in Suriname in 2006, that country’s Minister of Justice and Police Chandrika Persad Santokhi had disclosed that the Surinamese government had exchanged information with the Guyana government about Khan.
He quoted Khan’s statement prior to his arrest and detention by the US government that he had worked closely with police and provided them with assistance at his own expense during the crime spree in 2002. Carberry then said that any normal person would ask how it was possible for an individual to carry out major activities with the police force of a country and the government would not know that this was taking place.
He recalled that when Khan was arrested at Good Hope in 2002, one of the men arrested along with him was a serving policeman and the computer in Khan’s possession at the time was one which could only be purchased by a government.
“The evidence is clear that, not only did the Jagdeo administration know of Roger Khan but also aided and abetted his nefarious activities,” the statement said.
Asked for a comment on the PNCR’s statement on details emerging from the case and which the government should have knowledge about, Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira responded with a question.
“How is it expected that any government provide details coming out of a trial taking place in another country when all they have access to, are newspaper reports?” she asked.
Stabroek News tried to make contact with PPP General Secretary Donald Ramotar to elicit a comment on the PNCR’s statement without success.
Friday, May 23, 2008
PRESS STATEMENT BY The Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties For Their Joint Press Conference at 10:00hrs on Thursday 22 May 2008
PRESS STATEMENT BY The Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties For Their Joint Press Conference at 10:00hrs on Thursday 22 May 2008
In the City Hall, Parliament Building, Georgetown
The Leaders of each of the Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties – Mr. Robert H. O. Corbin, MP, (the People’s National Congress Reform - One Guyana) Mr. Raphael G. Trotman, MP, (the Alliance for Change) and Mr. Paul Hardy (Guyana Action Party/Rise Organise and Rebuild) signed a joint Petition, on Wednesday 21 May 2008, to the CARICOM Heads Of Government
“….inviting CARICOM to make recommendations to the President and Government of Guyana to meaningfully address issues affecting the well-being of the citizens of Guyana….”. The Petition calls on “…the leaders of our sister Caribbean countries to uphold our shared ideals of freedom, peace and justice by furthering the legitimate aspirations of our people for a society free from debilitating conflict, violence and fear of the future.”
The Petition would be circulated, in all of the Regions of Guyana, inviting citizens to sign indicating their agreement with the thrust of the Petition.
The Petition brings, “to the attention of CARICOM Heads of Government, for their consideration, the following matters of concern to citizens of Guyana:
a. The unilateral and arbitrary decision by the President of Guyana, in his capacity as Minister responsible for administering the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the law, to suspend, by a procedure that was manifestly unfair and contrary to natural justice, the licence of CNS TV Channel 6, a private local television station, for four months.
This action by the Government is but one example of its continual contumelious and contumacious behaviour, since 2001. There have been:
- threats to, and closure of, HBTV Channel 9;
- threats to, and the undermining of, the economic interests of VCT Channel 28, by forcing the removal of a Lottery Broadcast contract from that station to the state-owned Channel 11 and, later, the cancellation of the TBN religious broadcasts in Guyana which were managed by VCT Channel 28;
- vilification and physical abuse of C.N. Sharma, the owner of CNS TV Channel 6, by the Governing Party’s activists with no redress in the courts; and
- removal of advertisements, by Government, from the privately owned Stabroek News, for more than seventeen (17) months.
The action of the President, in the above-mentioned capacity, is made more objectionable by his total disregard for the Memorandum of Understanding that he had signed, as President, with the late Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H D Hoyte, that established an Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB), the main purpose of which was to ensure that the Minister responsible would act only in accordance with its advice and that that body would be independent and autonomous. There has been no advice, tendered by the ACB, recommending the suspension of CNS TV Channel 6.
b. Prolonged inaction or outright refusal to enact Broadcast Legislation and establish an Independent National Broadcasting Authority, based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation. The Report and recommendations of the Committee were adopted by the President and the late Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. D. Hoyte, in December 2001. The objective was to ensure that political control over media in Guyana was completely removed.
The effect of the inaction, described above, was compounded further by the breach of a renewed commitment, in the Communiqué of 6 May 2003, signed by President Bharrat Jagdeo and Mr. Robert Corbin, Leader of the Opposition, committing the Government to introduce Broadcasting legislation within four months of that date. Regrettably, approximately five years later, this remains yet another unfulfilled commitment by President Jagdeo.
c. The unlawful appointment of the Integrity Commission by the President, in breach of Section 3 of the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997. All attempts to have this matter determined by the Courts, over the last four years, have proved futile. The Integrity Commission was established to promote probity in public life.
d. The extension of the life of an improperly constituted Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), in 2006, by the President, in violation of Article 212 B of the Guyana Constitution. The ERC has its origins in the St Lucia Statement and is one of the mechanisms designed to promote better relations among the various ethnic groups in Guyana.
e. The contempt displayed by the Administration for the fundamental rights of citizens, as illustrated by:
· The arrest and detention of, and the subsequent laying of unsustainable charges of sedition against, Oliver Hinckson, retired Lieutenant of the Guyana Defence Force, (GDF).who has been refused bail while his case has been repeatedly adjourned at the behest of lawyers for the prosecution.
· The arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens on various pretexts – the common practice being to detain persons late on Friday so that they remain in custody for the weekend and are then released on Monday without any charge being brought.
· The use of brutal torture, by the Security Forces, against citizens, including Victor Jones, Patrick Sumner and David Zammett, in contravention of the International Convention Against Torture ratified by the Government.
· The unlawful destruction of property by the security forces, particularly at Buxton where the sanctity of homes has been violated with impunity, personal property wantonly destroyed and farms irreparably damaged.
· The unlawful killings of citizens by the security forces and the disappearance of others without a trace. The most recent examples of unlawful killing are those of Tyrone Pollard of Lot 81 Buxton Sideline Dam and Donna Herod.
f. The reluctance of the Government to commit to the enactment of Freedom of Information Legislation.
g. The domination of the state-owned television and of the monopoly radio station by the ruling Party, excluding all others, and the refusal of the Government to issue licenses for the establishment of private radio stations.
h. The failure of the Administration to provide any concrete measures for
genuine relief to Guyanese workers who are experiencing severe hardship, caused by the spiralling cost of living, with an inflation rate of 34% in 2007 and the increase in wages of only 9%, while the Administration expends limited financial resources for social extravaganza of lesser import. We believe that the VAT could be significantly reduced as a short term relief measure.
i. The refusal of the Government to proceed with consultations on Inclusive Governance, notwithstanding their commitment to do so, as expressed in the Communiqué, signed on 6 May 2003, and their acceptance of the National Development Strategy (NDS) of 2000 which emphasized good governance as a prerequisite for national development.
j. The apparent reluctance by the Government to pursue the implementation of the Guyana Security Reform Plan in a holistic manner which includes, inter alia:
i. “Linking Police Reform with actions in other areas of the security sector;
ii. “Strong linkages in particular with the ongoing programmes in Justice Reform and Citizen Security;
iii. “A need to address the root causes of criminal and political violence: poverty and unemployment..”
The Petition, therefore, is calling on the Heads of Government of CARICOM “…. to consider the matters therein carefully in the light of the stated CARICOM objectives for the Region and for Member States, and, in accordance with those considerations, to:
A. MAKE recommendations to the President and Government of Guyana to address meaningfully the issues, including:
§ the removal of the suspension of the license of CNS TV Channel 6, owned by C N Sharma;
§ the withdrawal of sedition charges against Oliver Hinckson and his immediate release from custody;
§ the urgent enactment of Broadcast Legislation, based on the recommendations, contained in the Final Report of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation, submitted, on 7 December 2001, and adopted by President Jagdeo the late Leader of the Opposition, Mr H.D. Hoyte;
§ the licensing of private radio stations;
§ equitable access, by Parliamentary Parties, to the state-owned media;
§ the re-constitution of the Integrity Commission in accordance with the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997;
§ an immediate end to the denial of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Guyana as illustrated herein; and
§ the immediate enactment of the Freedom of Information Legislation.
B. Generally, use CARICOM’s collective influence in relation to Guyana’s affairs to facilitate the creation of an environment of peace and social stability, particularly as it relates to the advancement of the issue of Inclusive Governance/Shared Governance in Guyana, as a necessary prerequisite for progress, development and the security of Guyana and its citizens.”
The Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties urges all Guyanese to support this Petition which represents, yet another opportunity for the Government of Guyana to respond positively to the legitimate demands of the People of Guyana for a peaceful resolution of the problems which, unless resolved, represent barriers to the achievement of peace, justice, security, progress and development.
Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties
Georgetown.
Thursday 21 May 2008
In the City Hall, Parliament Building, Georgetown
The Leaders of each of the Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties – Mr. Robert H. O. Corbin, MP, (the People’s National Congress Reform - One Guyana) Mr. Raphael G. Trotman, MP, (the Alliance for Change) and Mr. Paul Hardy (Guyana Action Party/Rise Organise and Rebuild) signed a joint Petition, on Wednesday 21 May 2008, to the CARICOM Heads Of Government
“….inviting CARICOM to make recommendations to the President and Government of Guyana to meaningfully address issues affecting the well-being of the citizens of Guyana….”. The Petition calls on “…the leaders of our sister Caribbean countries to uphold our shared ideals of freedom, peace and justice by furthering the legitimate aspirations of our people for a society free from debilitating conflict, violence and fear of the future.”
The Petition would be circulated, in all of the Regions of Guyana, inviting citizens to sign indicating their agreement with the thrust of the Petition.
The Petition brings, “to the attention of CARICOM Heads of Government, for their consideration, the following matters of concern to citizens of Guyana:
a. The unilateral and arbitrary decision by the President of Guyana, in his capacity as Minister responsible for administering the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the law, to suspend, by a procedure that was manifestly unfair and contrary to natural justice, the licence of CNS TV Channel 6, a private local television station, for four months.
This action by the Government is but one example of its continual contumelious and contumacious behaviour, since 2001. There have been:
- threats to, and closure of, HBTV Channel 9;
- threats to, and the undermining of, the economic interests of VCT Channel 28, by forcing the removal of a Lottery Broadcast contract from that station to the state-owned Channel 11 and, later, the cancellation of the TBN religious broadcasts in Guyana which were managed by VCT Channel 28;
- vilification and physical abuse of C.N. Sharma, the owner of CNS TV Channel 6, by the Governing Party’s activists with no redress in the courts; and
- removal of advertisements, by Government, from the privately owned Stabroek News, for more than seventeen (17) months.
The action of the President, in the above-mentioned capacity, is made more objectionable by his total disregard for the Memorandum of Understanding that he had signed, as President, with the late Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H D Hoyte, that established an Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB), the main purpose of which was to ensure that the Minister responsible would act only in accordance with its advice and that that body would be independent and autonomous. There has been no advice, tendered by the ACB, recommending the suspension of CNS TV Channel 6.
b. Prolonged inaction or outright refusal to enact Broadcast Legislation and establish an Independent National Broadcasting Authority, based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation. The Report and recommendations of the Committee were adopted by the President and the late Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. D. Hoyte, in December 2001. The objective was to ensure that political control over media in Guyana was completely removed.
The effect of the inaction, described above, was compounded further by the breach of a renewed commitment, in the Communiqué of 6 May 2003, signed by President Bharrat Jagdeo and Mr. Robert Corbin, Leader of the Opposition, committing the Government to introduce Broadcasting legislation within four months of that date. Regrettably, approximately five years later, this remains yet another unfulfilled commitment by President Jagdeo.
c. The unlawful appointment of the Integrity Commission by the President, in breach of Section 3 of the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997. All attempts to have this matter determined by the Courts, over the last four years, have proved futile. The Integrity Commission was established to promote probity in public life.
d. The extension of the life of an improperly constituted Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), in 2006, by the President, in violation of Article 212 B of the Guyana Constitution. The ERC has its origins in the St Lucia Statement and is one of the mechanisms designed to promote better relations among the various ethnic groups in Guyana.
e. The contempt displayed by the Administration for the fundamental rights of citizens, as illustrated by:
· The arrest and detention of, and the subsequent laying of unsustainable charges of sedition against, Oliver Hinckson, retired Lieutenant of the Guyana Defence Force, (GDF).who has been refused bail while his case has been repeatedly adjourned at the behest of lawyers for the prosecution.
· The arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens on various pretexts – the common practice being to detain persons late on Friday so that they remain in custody for the weekend and are then released on Monday without any charge being brought.
· The use of brutal torture, by the Security Forces, against citizens, including Victor Jones, Patrick Sumner and David Zammett, in contravention of the International Convention Against Torture ratified by the Government.
· The unlawful destruction of property by the security forces, particularly at Buxton where the sanctity of homes has been violated with impunity, personal property wantonly destroyed and farms irreparably damaged.
· The unlawful killings of citizens by the security forces and the disappearance of others without a trace. The most recent examples of unlawful killing are those of Tyrone Pollard of Lot 81 Buxton Sideline Dam and Donna Herod.
f. The reluctance of the Government to commit to the enactment of Freedom of Information Legislation.
g. The domination of the state-owned television and of the monopoly radio station by the ruling Party, excluding all others, and the refusal of the Government to issue licenses for the establishment of private radio stations.
h. The failure of the Administration to provide any concrete measures for
genuine relief to Guyanese workers who are experiencing severe hardship, caused by the spiralling cost of living, with an inflation rate of 34% in 2007 and the increase in wages of only 9%, while the Administration expends limited financial resources for social extravaganza of lesser import. We believe that the VAT could be significantly reduced as a short term relief measure.
i. The refusal of the Government to proceed with consultations on Inclusive Governance, notwithstanding their commitment to do so, as expressed in the Communiqué, signed on 6 May 2003, and their acceptance of the National Development Strategy (NDS) of 2000 which emphasized good governance as a prerequisite for national development.
j. The apparent reluctance by the Government to pursue the implementation of the Guyana Security Reform Plan in a holistic manner which includes, inter alia:
i. “Linking Police Reform with actions in other areas of the security sector;
ii. “Strong linkages in particular with the ongoing programmes in Justice Reform and Citizen Security;
iii. “A need to address the root causes of criminal and political violence: poverty and unemployment..”
The Petition, therefore, is calling on the Heads of Government of CARICOM “…. to consider the matters therein carefully in the light of the stated CARICOM objectives for the Region and for Member States, and, in accordance with those considerations, to:
A. MAKE recommendations to the President and Government of Guyana to address meaningfully the issues, including:
§ the removal of the suspension of the license of CNS TV Channel 6, owned by C N Sharma;
§ the withdrawal of sedition charges against Oliver Hinckson and his immediate release from custody;
§ the urgent enactment of Broadcast Legislation, based on the recommendations, contained in the Final Report of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation, submitted, on 7 December 2001, and adopted by President Jagdeo the late Leader of the Opposition, Mr H.D. Hoyte;
§ the licensing of private radio stations;
§ equitable access, by Parliamentary Parties, to the state-owned media;
§ the re-constitution of the Integrity Commission in accordance with the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997;
§ an immediate end to the denial of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Guyana as illustrated herein; and
§ the immediate enactment of the Freedom of Information Legislation.
B. Generally, use CARICOM’s collective influence in relation to Guyana’s affairs to facilitate the creation of an environment of peace and social stability, particularly as it relates to the advancement of the issue of Inclusive Governance/Shared Governance in Guyana, as a necessary prerequisite for progress, development and the security of Guyana and its citizens.”
The Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties urges all Guyanese to support this Petition which represents, yet another opportunity for the Government of Guyana to respond positively to the legitimate demands of the People of Guyana for a peaceful resolution of the problems which, unless resolved, represent barriers to the achievement of peace, justice, security, progress and development.
Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties
Georgetown.
Thursday 21 May 2008
OP distances self from Rohee’s comment on the judiciary
OP distances self from Rohee’s comment on the judiciary
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 23 May 2008
“It is the judiciary and not the executive which is
the guardian of the Constitution” - Acting Chief Justice
The Office of the President says that the executive arm of Government does not see that the ruling of Justice Ian Chang to grant bail to a man accused of murder actually constitutes a challenge.
The Office of the President was referring to statements by Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee on Wednesday at a press conference that a challenge has arisen from the judiciary to the administration’s request to ensure that the public’s interest is safeguarded by law.
In a press release issued yesterday, the Office of the President said that it has noted the concerns publicly expressed by the Minister of Home Affairs, about the implications of the most recent decision of the High Court to grant bail to a murder accused.
However, the Office of the President said that notwithstanding the Minister’s concerns that are a reflection of social sentiment, it is unprepared to accept any contention that such a ruling actually constitutes a challenge.
Furthermore, the statement added that Cabinet at its meeting on May 13, 2008 discussed the issue of granting bail.
Attorney-General, Doodnauth Singh was urged to continue the evaluation of the implications of bail being granted for serious and frequently occurring crimes, bearing in mind that doing so could impact on the stability of society by allowing for repeated offences by persons on bail or for their escape from the jurisdiction of the court.
Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang noted that Minister Rohee’s statements ought to be viewed as public assurance of re-assurance that the judiciary is not the subservient mistress of the executive.
He said that in a democratic state, the executive and the judiciary cannot live cosily together in unhealthy concubinage. Such a relationship, he said, is democratically unhealthy.
“Some tension between the judiciary and the executive is inevitable and must be accepted as not abnormal. It was meant to be so in the political structure of the state in which the doctrine of separation of powers inheres,” Justice Chang said.
He added that it is the judiciary and not the executive that is the guardian of the Constitution.
Minister Rohee had stated that, on the one hand, while the executive authority is insisting on draconian penalties to support other measures in the context of a holistic approach to enhance public safety and security, the judiciary seems unconvinced and is increasingly becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons.
“But what about the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatised for life?” Rohee asked.
After eight years of legal hurdles, a Mahaica man facing two counts of murder for the death of a father and son was released on bail in a historic ruling by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
Persaud was charged with Rohan Singh for the April 2000 murder of James Sancharran and six-year-old Afraz Khan.
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 23 May 2008
“It is the judiciary and not the executive which is
the guardian of the Constitution” - Acting Chief Justice
The Office of the President says that the executive arm of Government does not see that the ruling of Justice Ian Chang to grant bail to a man accused of murder actually constitutes a challenge.
The Office of the President was referring to statements by Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee on Wednesday at a press conference that a challenge has arisen from the judiciary to the administration’s request to ensure that the public’s interest is safeguarded by law.
In a press release issued yesterday, the Office of the President said that it has noted the concerns publicly expressed by the Minister of Home Affairs, about the implications of the most recent decision of the High Court to grant bail to a murder accused.
However, the Office of the President said that notwithstanding the Minister’s concerns that are a reflection of social sentiment, it is unprepared to accept any contention that such a ruling actually constitutes a challenge.
Furthermore, the statement added that Cabinet at its meeting on May 13, 2008 discussed the issue of granting bail.
Attorney-General, Doodnauth Singh was urged to continue the evaluation of the implications of bail being granted for serious and frequently occurring crimes, bearing in mind that doing so could impact on the stability of society by allowing for repeated offences by persons on bail or for their escape from the jurisdiction of the court.
Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang noted that Minister Rohee’s statements ought to be viewed as public assurance of re-assurance that the judiciary is not the subservient mistress of the executive.
He said that in a democratic state, the executive and the judiciary cannot live cosily together in unhealthy concubinage. Such a relationship, he said, is democratically unhealthy.
“Some tension between the judiciary and the executive is inevitable and must be accepted as not abnormal. It was meant to be so in the political structure of the state in which the doctrine of separation of powers inheres,” Justice Chang said.
He added that it is the judiciary and not the executive that is the guardian of the Constitution.
Minister Rohee had stated that, on the one hand, while the executive authority is insisting on draconian penalties to support other measures in the context of a holistic approach to enhance public safety and security, the judiciary seems unconvinced and is increasingly becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons.
“But what about the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatised for life?” Rohee asked.
After eight years of legal hurdles, a Mahaica man facing two counts of murder for the death of a father and son was released on bail in a historic ruling by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
Persaud was charged with Rohan Singh for the April 2000 murder of James Sancharran and six-year-old Afraz Khan.
Opposition parties call for revival of death squad probe
Opposition parties call for revival of death squad probe
...“We have to get to the truth, whatever it takes”
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 23 May 2008
The opposition parliamentary parties, with the exception of the Rise Organise and Rebuild (ROAR) Party, yesterday issued a call for the immediate re-opening of the investigations into the killings of several persons, allegedly at the hands of a ‘Phantom Killing Squad.’
The call came during a joint press conference at which the Alliance for Change (AFC), the People's National Congress Reform and the Guyana Action Party (GAP) were each represented by their leaders, namely Raphael Trotman, Robert Corbin and Paul Hardy.
According to the party representatives, the call was made in light of the revelations coming out of the US court case involving Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan.
Khan has long been speculated to be the driving force behind the Phantom Squad along with former Minister of Home Affairs, Ronald Gajraj, who has since resigned from that post and is currently Guyana’s High Commissioner to India.
Drawing reference to the revelations of the court case, the party leaders noted the full page advertisements placed in the daily newspapers wherein Khan claimed that he was working in the interest of the government.
Corbin also reminisced on the times when the government vehemently opposed such an investigation to be approved by the National Assembly.
Trotman, who voiced his support for the investigation, said that not only must the investigating body be reinstituted but its scope must be expanded.
“We have to get to the truth whatever it takes,” said Paul Hardy, who added his support for the investigation.
Corbin noted that what was also alarming was the fact that the US Government did not choose to share the information being disclosed in the US court with Guyana.
He noted that such a move clearly illustrated a lack of confidence in the confidentiality aspect of the Guyana Government.
Corbin added that the fact that the US chose to hold the trial before an anonymous jury shows how dangerous a man Roger Khan is.
According to the main opposition leader, it should not have been the US Government assisting Guyana with its investigation (referring to the police request for information on the killings alleged to have been committed by or ordered by Khan). Rather, it should have been the Guyana Government assisting the US.
Regarding the speediness with which the information may be presented to Guyana, Corbin expressed his optimism but noted that the US may not want to present the information to Guyana until after the investigations.
Between 2002 and 2006, several persons were executed in and around Georgetown and these killings were suspected to have been ordered or conducted by a notorious Phantom Killing Squad.
Killings of this nature occurred mainly in central and Greater Georgetown, and on the East Bank of Demerara.
Among some of the more renowned murders were those of television personality Ronald Waddell, who was riddled with bullets just as he was about to drive from his Subryanville home; taxi driver Christopher St. Hill, called ‘Ninety’, who was found lying in his car just off the Turkeyen Public Road, East Coast Demerara; Devon Cambridge, an 18-year-old from Mc Doom, East Bank Demerara, who was found in a trench in D’Urban Backlands with his hands bound behind his back and his body having sustained several gunshot wounds; and S.A. Nabi and Sons Managing Director, Ashim Sheer Mohamed, who was also shot dead by a group of men in a car while sitting in his pickup which was parked in the North Ruimveldt Multilateral School compound.
During the crime wave that began with the February 2002 escape of five dangerous inmates from the Georgetown Prisons, several people suspected to be linked to criminal activities began to turn up dead.
For instance, on November 23, 2003, 21-year-old Kwesi Williams of Buxton was gunned down on the National Cultural Centre tarmac.
Williams had escaped from a car after being abducted by gunmen. He had bolted into the National Cultural Centre with the gunmen in hot pursuit.
The gunmen had then dragged Williams from the building and executed him on the tarmac.
The following day, labourers working at the back of the Botanical Gardens unearthed a human skeleton. The remains were identified as those of Adrian Etienna, a Sophia resident who was abducted the previous month.
Another man who was abducted along with Etienna had lived to tell the tale.
Also in 2003, six people who were traveling in a car were gunned down in one night in Georgetown.
Questioned about this case, one senior police rank had hinted that “unorthodox methods” were being used to combat the criminals behind the wave of terror that had gripped the country.
One person fingered as a member of the notorious squad was Axel Williams, after Shafeek Bacchus, a businessman from Princes Street, Lodge, was gunned down outside his home.
Following Bacchus’s death, his brother George Bacchus had alleged that the gunmen had actually meant to kill him, but had slain his sibling by mistake.
George Bacchus claimed that he had provided information on the whereabouts of these criminals to Axel Williams and other members of the ‘killing squad’.
Bacchus also alleged that the death squad provided information to the then Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj.
Telephone records would later confirm that Minister Gajraj had been in regular contact with Axel Williams and others who were said to be members of the alleged death squad.
The records revealed that Williams and the other alleged members had contacted Gajraj at his office, his home and also on his cellular phone.
The records further showed that Williams and Gajraj had spoken with Williams a few days before the alleged hit man was gunned down in Bel Air.
The Home Affairs Minister would later confirm that he was in telephone contact with Axel Williams, but claimed that Williams only provided information.
On June 24, 2004, George Bacchus was shot dead while sleeping in an apartment in his brother’s property.
...“We have to get to the truth, whatever it takes”
Kaieteur News news item. Friday 23 May 2008
The opposition parliamentary parties, with the exception of the Rise Organise and Rebuild (ROAR) Party, yesterday issued a call for the immediate re-opening of the investigations into the killings of several persons, allegedly at the hands of a ‘Phantom Killing Squad.’
The call came during a joint press conference at which the Alliance for Change (AFC), the People's National Congress Reform and the Guyana Action Party (GAP) were each represented by their leaders, namely Raphael Trotman, Robert Corbin and Paul Hardy.
According to the party representatives, the call was made in light of the revelations coming out of the US court case involving Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan.
Khan has long been speculated to be the driving force behind the Phantom Squad along with former Minister of Home Affairs, Ronald Gajraj, who has since resigned from that post and is currently Guyana’s High Commissioner to India.
Drawing reference to the revelations of the court case, the party leaders noted the full page advertisements placed in the daily newspapers wherein Khan claimed that he was working in the interest of the government.
Corbin also reminisced on the times when the government vehemently opposed such an investigation to be approved by the National Assembly.
Trotman, who voiced his support for the investigation, said that not only must the investigating body be reinstituted but its scope must be expanded.
“We have to get to the truth whatever it takes,” said Paul Hardy, who added his support for the investigation.
Corbin noted that what was also alarming was the fact that the US Government did not choose to share the information being disclosed in the US court with Guyana.
He noted that such a move clearly illustrated a lack of confidence in the confidentiality aspect of the Guyana Government.
Corbin added that the fact that the US chose to hold the trial before an anonymous jury shows how dangerous a man Roger Khan is.
According to the main opposition leader, it should not have been the US Government assisting Guyana with its investigation (referring to the police request for information on the killings alleged to have been committed by or ordered by Khan). Rather, it should have been the Guyana Government assisting the US.
Regarding the speediness with which the information may be presented to Guyana, Corbin expressed his optimism but noted that the US may not want to present the information to Guyana until after the investigations.
Between 2002 and 2006, several persons were executed in and around Georgetown and these killings were suspected to have been ordered or conducted by a notorious Phantom Killing Squad.
Killings of this nature occurred mainly in central and Greater Georgetown, and on the East Bank of Demerara.
Among some of the more renowned murders were those of television personality Ronald Waddell, who was riddled with bullets just as he was about to drive from his Subryanville home; taxi driver Christopher St. Hill, called ‘Ninety’, who was found lying in his car just off the Turkeyen Public Road, East Coast Demerara; Devon Cambridge, an 18-year-old from Mc Doom, East Bank Demerara, who was found in a trench in D’Urban Backlands with his hands bound behind his back and his body having sustained several gunshot wounds; and S.A. Nabi and Sons Managing Director, Ashim Sheer Mohamed, who was also shot dead by a group of men in a car while sitting in his pickup which was parked in the North Ruimveldt Multilateral School compound.
During the crime wave that began with the February 2002 escape of five dangerous inmates from the Georgetown Prisons, several people suspected to be linked to criminal activities began to turn up dead.
For instance, on November 23, 2003, 21-year-old Kwesi Williams of Buxton was gunned down on the National Cultural Centre tarmac.
Williams had escaped from a car after being abducted by gunmen. He had bolted into the National Cultural Centre with the gunmen in hot pursuit.
The gunmen had then dragged Williams from the building and executed him on the tarmac.
The following day, labourers working at the back of the Botanical Gardens unearthed a human skeleton. The remains were identified as those of Adrian Etienna, a Sophia resident who was abducted the previous month.
Another man who was abducted along with Etienna had lived to tell the tale.
Also in 2003, six people who were traveling in a car were gunned down in one night in Georgetown.
Questioned about this case, one senior police rank had hinted that “unorthodox methods” were being used to combat the criminals behind the wave of terror that had gripped the country.
One person fingered as a member of the notorious squad was Axel Williams, after Shafeek Bacchus, a businessman from Princes Street, Lodge, was gunned down outside his home.
Following Bacchus’s death, his brother George Bacchus had alleged that the gunmen had actually meant to kill him, but had slain his sibling by mistake.
George Bacchus claimed that he had provided information on the whereabouts of these criminals to Axel Williams and other members of the ‘killing squad’.
Bacchus also alleged that the death squad provided information to the then Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj.
Telephone records would later confirm that Minister Gajraj had been in regular contact with Axel Williams and others who were said to be members of the alleged death squad.
The records revealed that Williams and the other alleged members had contacted Gajraj at his office, his home and also on his cellular phone.
The records further showed that Williams and Gajraj had spoken with Williams a few days before the alleged hit man was gunned down in Bel Air.
The Home Affairs Minister would later confirm that he was in telephone contact with Axel Williams, but claimed that Williams only provided information.
On June 24, 2004, George Bacchus was shot dead while sleeping in an apartment in his brother’s property.
DPP has sole discretion over special prosecutor appointment
DPP has sole discretion over special prosecutor appointment--will one be named for Sacred Heart case?
Stabroek News Courts Section. Monday May 19, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14569
By Iana Seales
The Director of Public Prosecutions has the sole discretion over the appointment of special prosecutors and months have now elapsed since one was requested for the GuyFlag US$2M insurance scam case without any answer.
In the interim, the case has crawled on, routinely being hit by delays most recently over whether the appointment would be made by the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack.
The Sacred Heart Church, which is at the centre of the fraud case, is on record as requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor as it is at liberty to do, and the appointment will come at no reported cost to the state but to date, the DPP has not replied to several letters about the request. Stabroek News contacted the chambers of the DPP on several occasions on this issue to no avail and attempts to speak with the DPP have proved futile.
Over the years special prosecutors have been appointed swiftly in several high profile cases notably the Mark Benschop treason trial; the Yohance Douglas murder trial; the New Building Society fraud case; the Buddy’s fuel trial; Guyana Revenue Authority and Fidelity Investment Limited polar beer scam case and more recently the Oliver Hinckson sedition/terrorism case, in addition to a few other criminal matters.
The appointment in the Hinckson case came long after the requests in the Sacred Heart trial, and is believed that the DPP made the appointment after questions were raised about the competence of the police officer who was acting in the capacity of prosecutor. Based on reports similar observations have been made in the GuyFlag case with persons close to the church saying that the case cries out for a special prosecutor.
Prosecutions at the level of the Magistrate’s Court are routinely handled by police ranks from the level of Corporal and above. There are instances when the DPP assigns a state counsel to act in the capacity of prosecutor but issues of staffing and in some instances, seniority do not permit this resulting in the DPP appointing an attorney outside of the chambers – a special prosecutor - to steer the case.
Criminal prosecutions are solely within the jurisdiction of the DPP, which means that the acting DPP is the sole individual entrusted with the power to prosecute or not, and to make appointments of special prosecutors. The constitution recognizes her as having sole judgment.
Article 187 (1) of the Constitution states that the DPP has power in any case in which she considers it desirable to so do. Sub-sections under this section point to her being empowered to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person, for her to take over and continue any criminal proceeding and likewise, discontinue at any stage such proceedings before judgment is delivered. The article makes no specific mention of the appointment of special prosecutors in matters before the court but the authority falls within the powers entrusted with the office.
Fiat
As to what the clear procedure is, a legal luminary told Stabroek News that, the injured party in a case would have to request in writing to the DPP for the officer to issue a fiat granting permission for a special prosecutor to be appointed. Often a lawyer/s is identified as willing to prosecute and since it is the injured party that is requesting it is usually of no cost to the state.
He explained that the state would make the appointment without any request being made if it has an interest in the case noting that requests made by injured parties are usually weighed on the basis of whether the state has the resources to appoint a special prosecutor. However, in instances when the injured party has undertaken to take responsibility for any costs incurred as a result of the appointment, he added that the DPP often grants the appointment.
Legal sources have observed that the DPP may not grant an appointment in a particular case if she has no faith in the attorneys being named to prosecute the particular case, and also if it is in the interest of the state to retain control of the prosecution. They point to the fact that a special prosecutor though working for the state can make certain judgment calls without first consulting the DPP.
“If it is a case where the DPP wishes to hold onto the prosecution then a special prosecutor is not likely to be appointed or it could be a case where the DPP does not find the attorneys being named to prosecute objective enough”, an attorney who requested anonymity stated.
He said that if the Sacred Heart church feels the prosecution needs to be strengthened and therefore substituted then it should write the DPP and request that a state counsel be assigned to the case.
Stabroek News was reliably informed that attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes and Gino Persaud, who are currently looking into the interest of the Sacred Heart church in the GuyFlag case, have agreed to prosecute the matter pro bono.
Member of Parliament and attorney-at-law, Anil Nandlall speaking on the issue of how special prosecutors are appointed told this newspaper that indictable matters are instituted on behalf of DPP by the police and that it is felt that a special prosecutor is required in certain cases as complex issues would come up during the course of the matter.
“This means that with the police not being trained lawyers, it is sometimes felt that a lawyer is needed to prosecute the matter”, he said adding that the DPP is the sole authority vested with the power over all criminal prosecutions.
Nandlall, who has been appointed special prosecutor in several high profile matters, pointed out that whenever criminal proceedings are filed in Guyana it is theoretically filed under the name of the DPP and as such it is up to the office to appoint a special prosecutor if the need arises or a request is made.
He affirmed the procedure as the request first being made in writing to the DPP for the fiat and then permission being granted. He noted that the DPP also has the power to retain a lawyer outside of its chambers and can grant that lawyer a fiat to prosecute any given case as was the position with the trial of treason accused Mark Benschop.
Nandlall explained that on many occasions requests are made for special prosecutors when a case is stalled or moving along sluggishly or when there is not much confidence in the prosecution. He pointed out that cost is a factor which the DPP considers when appointing prosecutors, adding that it really is left up to the DPP to decide if they want to appoint a special prosecutor.
“It could be any lawyer who is named for to prosecute but there have been cases where persons named were refused by the DPP…It all depends on the nature of the case and with whom the virtual complainant feels comfortable with”, Nandlall said.
Meanwhile, another lawyer who has some experience with being a special prosecutor told this newspaper that there is another avenue that can be taken in cases where the DPP is not responding to a request for a special prosecutor. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he said that in the Sacred Heart Church, those representing the church can approach the High Court saying that it is unreasonable for a special prosecutor not to be appointed by the DPP.
In the GuyFlag case it is alleged that on December 29, 2004, Fred Sukhdeo, with intent to defraud forged a document purporting to be a GuyFlag fire and perils claim for US$2 million ($400 million) for the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church. He is also accused of trying to obtain the said sum of money by virtue of a forged fire and perils claim form. According to the facts of the case, GuyFlag submitted a bogus claim for payment to its reinsurance agent AON Re and Sukhdeo, who was the head of the sister operation, the National Cooperative Credit Union Limited, was presented as a representative of the church dealing with the fire. It was when GuyFlag/ Sukhdeo allegedly approached a claims adjuster here that the alleged scam was discovered.
The alleged mastermind was arrested on November 17, 2005 and placed on $50,000 station bail.
He was charged in March of the following year with forgery and endeavouring to obtain upon a forged document and he appeared at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on March 21. He was released on $75,000 bail on that occasion.
The matter is now set to continue on July 22.
Stabroek News Courts Section. Monday May 19, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14569
By Iana Seales
The Director of Public Prosecutions has the sole discretion over the appointment of special prosecutors and months have now elapsed since one was requested for the GuyFlag US$2M insurance scam case without any answer.
In the interim, the case has crawled on, routinely being hit by delays most recently over whether the appointment would be made by the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack.
The Sacred Heart Church, which is at the centre of the fraud case, is on record as requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor as it is at liberty to do, and the appointment will come at no reported cost to the state but to date, the DPP has not replied to several letters about the request. Stabroek News contacted the chambers of the DPP on several occasions on this issue to no avail and attempts to speak with the DPP have proved futile.
Over the years special prosecutors have been appointed swiftly in several high profile cases notably the Mark Benschop treason trial; the Yohance Douglas murder trial; the New Building Society fraud case; the Buddy’s fuel trial; Guyana Revenue Authority and Fidelity Investment Limited polar beer scam case and more recently the Oliver Hinckson sedition/terrorism case, in addition to a few other criminal matters.
The appointment in the Hinckson case came long after the requests in the Sacred Heart trial, and is believed that the DPP made the appointment after questions were raised about the competence of the police officer who was acting in the capacity of prosecutor. Based on reports similar observations have been made in the GuyFlag case with persons close to the church saying that the case cries out for a special prosecutor.
Prosecutions at the level of the Magistrate’s Court are routinely handled by police ranks from the level of Corporal and above. There are instances when the DPP assigns a state counsel to act in the capacity of prosecutor but issues of staffing and in some instances, seniority do not permit this resulting in the DPP appointing an attorney outside of the chambers – a special prosecutor - to steer the case.
Criminal prosecutions are solely within the jurisdiction of the DPP, which means that the acting DPP is the sole individual entrusted with the power to prosecute or not, and to make appointments of special prosecutors. The constitution recognizes her as having sole judgment.
Article 187 (1) of the Constitution states that the DPP has power in any case in which she considers it desirable to so do. Sub-sections under this section point to her being empowered to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person, for her to take over and continue any criminal proceeding and likewise, discontinue at any stage such proceedings before judgment is delivered. The article makes no specific mention of the appointment of special prosecutors in matters before the court but the authority falls within the powers entrusted with the office.
Fiat
As to what the clear procedure is, a legal luminary told Stabroek News that, the injured party in a case would have to request in writing to the DPP for the officer to issue a fiat granting permission for a special prosecutor to be appointed. Often a lawyer/s is identified as willing to prosecute and since it is the injured party that is requesting it is usually of no cost to the state.
He explained that the state would make the appointment without any request being made if it has an interest in the case noting that requests made by injured parties are usually weighed on the basis of whether the state has the resources to appoint a special prosecutor. However, in instances when the injured party has undertaken to take responsibility for any costs incurred as a result of the appointment, he added that the DPP often grants the appointment.
Legal sources have observed that the DPP may not grant an appointment in a particular case if she has no faith in the attorneys being named to prosecute the particular case, and also if it is in the interest of the state to retain control of the prosecution. They point to the fact that a special prosecutor though working for the state can make certain judgment calls without first consulting the DPP.
“If it is a case where the DPP wishes to hold onto the prosecution then a special prosecutor is not likely to be appointed or it could be a case where the DPP does not find the attorneys being named to prosecute objective enough”, an attorney who requested anonymity stated.
He said that if the Sacred Heart church feels the prosecution needs to be strengthened and therefore substituted then it should write the DPP and request that a state counsel be assigned to the case.
Stabroek News was reliably informed that attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes and Gino Persaud, who are currently looking into the interest of the Sacred Heart church in the GuyFlag case, have agreed to prosecute the matter pro bono.
Member of Parliament and attorney-at-law, Anil Nandlall speaking on the issue of how special prosecutors are appointed told this newspaper that indictable matters are instituted on behalf of DPP by the police and that it is felt that a special prosecutor is required in certain cases as complex issues would come up during the course of the matter.
“This means that with the police not being trained lawyers, it is sometimes felt that a lawyer is needed to prosecute the matter”, he said adding that the DPP is the sole authority vested with the power over all criminal prosecutions.
Nandlall, who has been appointed special prosecutor in several high profile matters, pointed out that whenever criminal proceedings are filed in Guyana it is theoretically filed under the name of the DPP and as such it is up to the office to appoint a special prosecutor if the need arises or a request is made.
He affirmed the procedure as the request first being made in writing to the DPP for the fiat and then permission being granted. He noted that the DPP also has the power to retain a lawyer outside of its chambers and can grant that lawyer a fiat to prosecute any given case as was the position with the trial of treason accused Mark Benschop.
Nandlall explained that on many occasions requests are made for special prosecutors when a case is stalled or moving along sluggishly or when there is not much confidence in the prosecution. He pointed out that cost is a factor which the DPP considers when appointing prosecutors, adding that it really is left up to the DPP to decide if they want to appoint a special prosecutor.
“It could be any lawyer who is named for to prosecute but there have been cases where persons named were refused by the DPP…It all depends on the nature of the case and with whom the virtual complainant feels comfortable with”, Nandlall said.
Meanwhile, another lawyer who has some experience with being a special prosecutor told this newspaper that there is another avenue that can be taken in cases where the DPP is not responding to a request for a special prosecutor. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he said that in the Sacred Heart Church, those representing the church can approach the High Court saying that it is unreasonable for a special prosecutor not to be appointed by the DPP.
In the GuyFlag case it is alleged that on December 29, 2004, Fred Sukhdeo, with intent to defraud forged a document purporting to be a GuyFlag fire and perils claim for US$2 million ($400 million) for the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church. He is also accused of trying to obtain the said sum of money by virtue of a forged fire and perils claim form. According to the facts of the case, GuyFlag submitted a bogus claim for payment to its reinsurance agent AON Re and Sukhdeo, who was the head of the sister operation, the National Cooperative Credit Union Limited, was presented as a representative of the church dealing with the fire. It was when GuyFlag/ Sukhdeo allegedly approached a claims adjuster here that the alleged scam was discovered.
The alleged mastermind was arrested on November 17, 2005 and placed on $50,000 station bail.
He was charged in March of the following year with forgery and endeavouring to obtain upon a forged document and he appeared at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on March 21. He was released on $75,000 bail on that occasion.
The matter is now set to continue on July 22.
The position of Auditor General should be advertised with a view to filling it
The position of Auditor General should be advertised with a view to filling it
Stabroek News letter. Friday May 23, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14742
Dear Editor,
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the Guyana Parliament (PAC). It will be recorded in the Hansard of that committee that I have never been satisfied with the work of acting Auditor General Sharma. In fact, an examination of his 2004 audit when compared to the highly respected Goolsarran audit of 2003 shows a country which has miraculously recovered from numerous procedural, administrative and financial improprieties in the various government departments.
I have made this known to the committee in Mr Sharma’s presence on numerous occasions, and on one occasion he even walked out of a Public Accounts Com-mittee meeting in objection to my accusations, and Ms Bibi Shadick, MP, a member of the PAC had to go outside and persuade him to return.
Mr Sharma is acting, and that in my view prejudices his autonomy considerably. It is my belief that we should advertise and seek to fill the position of Auditor General.
Mr Editor, the business of the Guyana Parliament is not only conducted when we meet for the ceremonial proceedings, a large portion of the business of the parliament happens when we meet in the trenches at committee level. I believe that the media can support us much more effectively by paying attention to what goes on at the committee level in parliament, especially the PAC and the Economics Services Commit-tees to see which MPs are working and which are not. It would also afford an opportunity to garner public support for the work of parliament at a stage where it may be possible to change things, however little. In the National Assembly of Guyana when we assemble to pass the laws, the 35 PPP parliamentarians along with their permanent appendix, the TUF, will vote the way they were told to vote by the PPP’s executive branch of the Guyana government. If Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, the greatest orator and parliamentarian who ever lived, were to stand before this group of 36 men and women in the Guyana parliament on the government side and deliver the most persuasive speech he ever delivered in his life, he would not be able to change one vote. That makes a mockery and a farce of our entire legislative system.
The people of Guyana must understand that the members who represent them in this parliament can do nothing for them under such a system, and any further perversions of it must be comprehensively criticised or we will sink even further into the morass of lawlessness. People must understand that their representatives in parliament are only as effective as their (the public’s) capacity to support them with their ongoing militancy; just putting them there every 5 years is not enough, the people have to support them militantly and continually for there to be any real change to their situation.
Which is why the upcoming Commonwealth Parlia-mentarian Association’s three-day Guyana workshop on ‘Parliament and the Media’ is in my opinion an important event, and I urge all media houses in Guyana send a representative/s, since through your coverage of what goes on in the parliament, the public will be kept informed about what is happening and register the necessary protests early before it becomes ‘cast in stone’ as law.
I am glad that the question of the conflicting nature of the Minister of Finance’s wife Sita, who is employed at the audit office has come up. She is a highly qualified young lady and frankly I have asked the Finance Minister, Mr Ashni Singh, to consider moving her to some position in a government department, since she is very competent and this country needs skilled people badly.
But now that it is in the open, I will record that I am not comfortable with her being in the audit office as one letter writer in your columns pointed out. Since this is Guyana, however, where conflict of interest is not a preoccupation of our people, as evidenced by so much of it existing in almost all levels of public life without comment or criticism, I thought that we would seek to move her quietly. The fact is that she was there when Ashni became Minister in 2006 which compromised her, and we have to bear that in mind. She was not sneaked in there afterwards. Frankly, she was on pregnancy leave when we discovered all of this early in 2007 and she was not on the job. Somehow it does not seem fair that a wife should have to leave a job she loves because her husband got promoted, but the bottom line is that her husband is the Minister of Finance now, and that puts her in a conflict of interest position, so your letter writer is correct. On mentioning this to a very close friend of mine, Sir Fenton Ramsahoye, to solicit his advice, he gave me this example: up to three years ago Sir David Simmons was the Attorney General of Barbados and his wife was a sitting judge in the high court.
Three years ago Sir David was made Chief Justice of Barbados and the next day after his appointment his wife Lady Simmons resigned as a judge because she perceived that she was suddenly placed in a conflict of interest position. It is a good lesson. It is also one of the reasons why Barbados can still boast an exchange rate of two Barbadian dollars to one US, instead of 200 to one.
For all of the above reasons, Mr Editor, as I announced in an interview with the Evening News in April, I have asked Mr Robert Corbin – for whom I have the greatest of respect – in writing dated March 28, 2008, to relieve me of the onerous and pointless (as I see it) duty of being a member of the Guyana Parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Vieira, MS MP
Stabroek News letter. Friday May 23, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14742
Dear Editor,
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the Guyana Parliament (PAC). It will be recorded in the Hansard of that committee that I have never been satisfied with the work of acting Auditor General Sharma. In fact, an examination of his 2004 audit when compared to the highly respected Goolsarran audit of 2003 shows a country which has miraculously recovered from numerous procedural, administrative and financial improprieties in the various government departments.
I have made this known to the committee in Mr Sharma’s presence on numerous occasions, and on one occasion he even walked out of a Public Accounts Com-mittee meeting in objection to my accusations, and Ms Bibi Shadick, MP, a member of the PAC had to go outside and persuade him to return.
Mr Sharma is acting, and that in my view prejudices his autonomy considerably. It is my belief that we should advertise and seek to fill the position of Auditor General.
Mr Editor, the business of the Guyana Parliament is not only conducted when we meet for the ceremonial proceedings, a large portion of the business of the parliament happens when we meet in the trenches at committee level. I believe that the media can support us much more effectively by paying attention to what goes on at the committee level in parliament, especially the PAC and the Economics Services Commit-tees to see which MPs are working and which are not. It would also afford an opportunity to garner public support for the work of parliament at a stage where it may be possible to change things, however little. In the National Assembly of Guyana when we assemble to pass the laws, the 35 PPP parliamentarians along with their permanent appendix, the TUF, will vote the way they were told to vote by the PPP’s executive branch of the Guyana government. If Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, the greatest orator and parliamentarian who ever lived, were to stand before this group of 36 men and women in the Guyana parliament on the government side and deliver the most persuasive speech he ever delivered in his life, he would not be able to change one vote. That makes a mockery and a farce of our entire legislative system.
The people of Guyana must understand that the members who represent them in this parliament can do nothing for them under such a system, and any further perversions of it must be comprehensively criticised or we will sink even further into the morass of lawlessness. People must understand that their representatives in parliament are only as effective as their (the public’s) capacity to support them with their ongoing militancy; just putting them there every 5 years is not enough, the people have to support them militantly and continually for there to be any real change to their situation.
Which is why the upcoming Commonwealth Parlia-mentarian Association’s three-day Guyana workshop on ‘Parliament and the Media’ is in my opinion an important event, and I urge all media houses in Guyana send a representative/s, since through your coverage of what goes on in the parliament, the public will be kept informed about what is happening and register the necessary protests early before it becomes ‘cast in stone’ as law.
I am glad that the question of the conflicting nature of the Minister of Finance’s wife Sita, who is employed at the audit office has come up. She is a highly qualified young lady and frankly I have asked the Finance Minister, Mr Ashni Singh, to consider moving her to some position in a government department, since she is very competent and this country needs skilled people badly.
But now that it is in the open, I will record that I am not comfortable with her being in the audit office as one letter writer in your columns pointed out. Since this is Guyana, however, where conflict of interest is not a preoccupation of our people, as evidenced by so much of it existing in almost all levels of public life without comment or criticism, I thought that we would seek to move her quietly. The fact is that she was there when Ashni became Minister in 2006 which compromised her, and we have to bear that in mind. She was not sneaked in there afterwards. Frankly, she was on pregnancy leave when we discovered all of this early in 2007 and she was not on the job. Somehow it does not seem fair that a wife should have to leave a job she loves because her husband got promoted, but the bottom line is that her husband is the Minister of Finance now, and that puts her in a conflict of interest position, so your letter writer is correct. On mentioning this to a very close friend of mine, Sir Fenton Ramsahoye, to solicit his advice, he gave me this example: up to three years ago Sir David Simmons was the Attorney General of Barbados and his wife was a sitting judge in the high court.
Three years ago Sir David was made Chief Justice of Barbados and the next day after his appointment his wife Lady Simmons resigned as a judge because she perceived that she was suddenly placed in a conflict of interest position. It is a good lesson. It is also one of the reasons why Barbados can still boast an exchange rate of two Barbadian dollars to one US, instead of 200 to one.
For all of the above reasons, Mr Editor, as I announced in an interview with the Evening News in April, I have asked Mr Robert Corbin – for whom I have the greatest of respect – in writing dated March 28, 2008, to relieve me of the onerous and pointless (as I see it) duty of being a member of the Guyana Parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Vieira, MS MP
Opposition to petition Caricom on governance issues
Opposition to petition Caricom on governance issues
Stabroek News news item. Friday May 23, 2008
By Miranda La Rose
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14780
The three parliamentary opposition parties have signed a petition seeking Caricom intervention on a raft of governance issues including the Channel Six suspension and thousands of signatures are to be sought before the submission of the document next month prior to a heads of government confab.
Taking their campaign to a new level, the PNCR-1G, AFC and GAP-ROAR launched the petition - for which they are seeking countrywide support – at a press briefing held at City Hall yesterday. The PNCR also made it clear at the briefing that it will continue with its protests which were started several weeks ago.
Among those present at the launching were PNCR-1G Leader Robert Corbin, AFC Leader Raphael Trotman and GAP Leader Paul Hardy. The three had previously agreed to and signed the joint petition on Wednesday last.
Asked for a response to the opposition move, Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira told Stabroek News last evening that there was no immediate comment except that the parties had raised a lot of old issues. She said she assumed that there would be an official response at the appropriate time.
Reading from a prepared statement, Corbin said the petition would call on the Heads of Government of Caricom to consider the matters outlined in view of Caricom objectives and to make recommendations to President Bharrat Jagdeo and his administration to address the issues meaningfully.
The petition highlighted the four-month suspension of CNS Channel Six, the sedition charge against Oliver Hinckson, the radio monopoly and equitable access by parliamentary parties to the state-owned media. It also homed in on the reconstitution of the Integrity Commission in accordance with the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997, the need for an immediate end to the denial of fundamental rights of the citizens of Guyana; and the immediate enactment of Freedom of Information legislation.
The petition, according to Corbin, would also call on the Heads to use Caricom’s collective influence to facilitate the creation of an environment of peace and social stability, particularly as it relates to the advancement of the issue of inclusive/shared governance, a prerequisite for progress, development and the security of Guyana and its citizens.
Corbin said the petition would be circulated in the administrative regions and it is expected that the signing would be completed by mid-June for submission to the heads ahead of the Caricom annual heads of government summit to be held in Antigua and Barbuda in early July.
Corbin along with Trotman and Hardy also said that they might take some form of protest action to the Caricom summit and they did not rule out the idea of also engaging the support of the Guyanese diaspora in the USA for the upcoming Conference of the Caribbean to be held in New York next month.
Unilateral
On the issue of the four-month suspension of the Channel 6 television station licence, the petition pointed to the unilateral and arbitrary decision by the President, in his capacity as minister responsible for administering the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, as being inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the law. The suspension of the licence for four months, the petition said, was “manifestly unfair and contrary to natural justice.”
It said the suspension was but one example of the Jagdeo administration’s “continual contumelious and contumacious behaviour, since 2001”.
Over that period, it added, there have been threats to, and closure of, HBTV Channel 9; threats to, and the undermining of the economic interests of VCT Channel 28 by forcing the removal of a lottery broadcast contract from the station to the state-owned Channel 11. Later, it said, there was the cancellation of the TBN religious broadcasts in Guyana, which were managed by VCT Channel 28. It also referred to the government’s removal of advertisements from the privately owned Stabroek News, for more than 17 months. The ads were restored last month.
The actions against Channel Six, the petition stated, were made more objectionable by the disregard for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Jagdeo signed as President, with late PNCR leader Desmond Hoyte, which paved the way for the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB). The main purpose of the MOU was to ensure that the minister responsible would act only in accordance with its advice and that the ACB would be independent and autonomous. There was no advice, tendered by the ACB, recommending the suspension of CNS TV Channel 6.
The petition said there was inaction or outright refusal to enact broadcast legislation and establish an independent national broadcasting authority, based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation. The recommendations adopted by Jagdeo and Hoyte in December 2001, were to ensure that political control over the media in Guyana was completely removed.
The effect of the inaction, the petition said, was compounded further by the breach of a renewed commitment, in the May 6, 2003 communiqué signed by Jagdeo and Corbin, committing the government to introducing broadcasting legislation within four months of that date.
With regard to the Integrity Commission, the petition noted the unlawful appointment of commissioners by the President in breach of Section 3 of the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997. Attempts to have this matter determined by the courts, over the last four years, have proved futile.
The petition also noted that the extension of the life of an improperly constituted Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), in 2006 by the President was in violation of Article 212 B of the Guyana Constitution.
The opposition said the petition illustrated the administration’s contempt for the fundamental rights of citizens, noting the arrest and detention of, and the subsequent laying of charges of sedition against Hinckson.
Hinckson has been refused bail and his case has been repeatedly adjourned at the behest of lawyers for the prosecution.
Pretexts
The petition also highlighted the arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens on various pretexts – the common practice being to detain persons late on Friday so that they remain in custody for the weekend and are released on Monday without charge. It pointed to the use of brutal torture by the security forces, against citizens, including Victor Jones, Patrick Sumner and David Zammett, in contravention of the Convention Against Torture, which the government has ratified.
The unlawful destruction of property by the security forces, particularly at Buxton where the sanctity of homes has been violated with impunity, personal property destroyed and farms irreparably damaged were also referred to.
The unlawful killings of citizens by the security forces and the disappearance of others without a trace with the most recent being the killings of Tyrone Pollard and Donna Herod of Buxton were also mentioned.
The petition also noted the reluctance of the government to commit to the enactment of Freedom of Information legislation; the domination of the state-owned television and the monopoly radio station by the ruling party, excluding all others, as well as the refusal of the government to issue licences for the establishment of private radio stations.
It also noted the failure of the government to provide any concrete measures for genuine relief to Guyanese workers who are experiencing severe hardship, caused by the spiralling cost of living, with an inflation rate of 34% in 2007 and the increase in wages of only 9%, while the administration expends limited financial resources for social extravaganza of lesser import.
The parliamentary opposition also believes that the Value Added Tax (VAT) could be significantly reduced as a short-term relief measure.
The petition referred to government’s refusal to proceed with consultations on inclusive governance in keeping with the May 6, 2003 communiqué and government’s acceptance of the National Development Strategy (NDS) of 2000, which emphasized good governance as a prerequisite for national development. It highlighted, too, government’s reluctance to pursue the implementation of the Guyana Security Reform Plan in a holistic manner which includes, linking police reform with actions in other areas; strong linkages with the ongoing programmes in justice reform and citizen security; and a need to address the root causes of criminal and political violence, poverty and unemployment.
The parliamentary parties have repeatedly said that the government has made no effort to move on these issues and that when Parliament deliberates on them there is no mature compromise by the ruling party.
The parties had also pointed out last year that the promise of dialogue by President Jagdeo with the opposition parties had fallen by the wayside.
In December, 2007 the PNCR, AFC and GAP-ROAR had expressed dissatisfaction with the level of dialogue with the government after they were led to believe that the post-2006 elections period signalled an improved political climate and a maturing of the political process in Guyana.
This belief, Trotman, Corbin and GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin had said was conveyed by the President himself who had invited the joint opposition to dialogue within an enhanced framework he outlined at the opening of the Ninth Parliament in 2006.
The dialogue with the joint opposition was limited to a single meeting in November 2006.
Stabroek News news item. Friday May 23, 2008
By Miranda La Rose
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14780
The three parliamentary opposition parties have signed a petition seeking Caricom intervention on a raft of governance issues including the Channel Six suspension and thousands of signatures are to be sought before the submission of the document next month prior to a heads of government confab.
Taking their campaign to a new level, the PNCR-1G, AFC and GAP-ROAR launched the petition - for which they are seeking countrywide support – at a press briefing held at City Hall yesterday. The PNCR also made it clear at the briefing that it will continue with its protests which were started several weeks ago.
Among those present at the launching were PNCR-1G Leader Robert Corbin, AFC Leader Raphael Trotman and GAP Leader Paul Hardy. The three had previously agreed to and signed the joint petition on Wednesday last.
Asked for a response to the opposition move, Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira told Stabroek News last evening that there was no immediate comment except that the parties had raised a lot of old issues. She said she assumed that there would be an official response at the appropriate time.
Reading from a prepared statement, Corbin said the petition would call on the Heads of Government of Caricom to consider the matters outlined in view of Caricom objectives and to make recommendations to President Bharrat Jagdeo and his administration to address the issues meaningfully.
The petition highlighted the four-month suspension of CNS Channel Six, the sedition charge against Oliver Hinckson, the radio monopoly and equitable access by parliamentary parties to the state-owned media. It also homed in on the reconstitution of the Integrity Commission in accordance with the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997, the need for an immediate end to the denial of fundamental rights of the citizens of Guyana; and the immediate enactment of Freedom of Information legislation.
The petition, according to Corbin, would also call on the Heads to use Caricom’s collective influence to facilitate the creation of an environment of peace and social stability, particularly as it relates to the advancement of the issue of inclusive/shared governance, a prerequisite for progress, development and the security of Guyana and its citizens.
Corbin said the petition would be circulated in the administrative regions and it is expected that the signing would be completed by mid-June for submission to the heads ahead of the Caricom annual heads of government summit to be held in Antigua and Barbuda in early July.
Corbin along with Trotman and Hardy also said that they might take some form of protest action to the Caricom summit and they did not rule out the idea of also engaging the support of the Guyanese diaspora in the USA for the upcoming Conference of the Caribbean to be held in New York next month.
Unilateral
On the issue of the four-month suspension of the Channel 6 television station licence, the petition pointed to the unilateral and arbitrary decision by the President, in his capacity as minister responsible for administering the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, as being inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the law. The suspension of the licence for four months, the petition said, was “manifestly unfair and contrary to natural justice.”
It said the suspension was but one example of the Jagdeo administration’s “continual contumelious and contumacious behaviour, since 2001”.
Over that period, it added, there have been threats to, and closure of, HBTV Channel 9; threats to, and the undermining of the economic interests of VCT Channel 28 by forcing the removal of a lottery broadcast contract from the station to the state-owned Channel 11. Later, it said, there was the cancellation of the TBN religious broadcasts in Guyana, which were managed by VCT Channel 28. It also referred to the government’s removal of advertisements from the privately owned Stabroek News, for more than 17 months. The ads were restored last month.
The actions against Channel Six, the petition stated, were made more objectionable by the disregard for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Jagdeo signed as President, with late PNCR leader Desmond Hoyte, which paved the way for the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB). The main purpose of the MOU was to ensure that the minister responsible would act only in accordance with its advice and that the ACB would be independent and autonomous. There was no advice, tendered by the ACB, recommending the suspension of CNS TV Channel 6.
The petition said there was inaction or outright refusal to enact broadcast legislation and establish an independent national broadcasting authority, based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation. The recommendations adopted by Jagdeo and Hoyte in December 2001, were to ensure that political control over the media in Guyana was completely removed.
The effect of the inaction, the petition said, was compounded further by the breach of a renewed commitment, in the May 6, 2003 communiqué signed by Jagdeo and Corbin, committing the government to introducing broadcasting legislation within four months of that date.
With regard to the Integrity Commission, the petition noted the unlawful appointment of commissioners by the President in breach of Section 3 of the Integrity Commission Act No. 20 of 1997. Attempts to have this matter determined by the courts, over the last four years, have proved futile.
The petition also noted that the extension of the life of an improperly constituted Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), in 2006 by the President was in violation of Article 212 B of the Guyana Constitution.
The opposition said the petition illustrated the administration’s contempt for the fundamental rights of citizens, noting the arrest and detention of, and the subsequent laying of charges of sedition against Hinckson.
Hinckson has been refused bail and his case has been repeatedly adjourned at the behest of lawyers for the prosecution.
Pretexts
The petition also highlighted the arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens on various pretexts – the common practice being to detain persons late on Friday so that they remain in custody for the weekend and are released on Monday without charge. It pointed to the use of brutal torture by the security forces, against citizens, including Victor Jones, Patrick Sumner and David Zammett, in contravention of the Convention Against Torture, which the government has ratified.
The unlawful destruction of property by the security forces, particularly at Buxton where the sanctity of homes has been violated with impunity, personal property destroyed and farms irreparably damaged were also referred to.
The unlawful killings of citizens by the security forces and the disappearance of others without a trace with the most recent being the killings of Tyrone Pollard and Donna Herod of Buxton were also mentioned.
The petition also noted the reluctance of the government to commit to the enactment of Freedom of Information legislation; the domination of the state-owned television and the monopoly radio station by the ruling party, excluding all others, as well as the refusal of the government to issue licences for the establishment of private radio stations.
It also noted the failure of the government to provide any concrete measures for genuine relief to Guyanese workers who are experiencing severe hardship, caused by the spiralling cost of living, with an inflation rate of 34% in 2007 and the increase in wages of only 9%, while the administration expends limited financial resources for social extravaganza of lesser import.
The parliamentary opposition also believes that the Value Added Tax (VAT) could be significantly reduced as a short-term relief measure.
The petition referred to government’s refusal to proceed with consultations on inclusive governance in keeping with the May 6, 2003 communiqué and government’s acceptance of the National Development Strategy (NDS) of 2000, which emphasized good governance as a prerequisite for national development. It highlighted, too, government’s reluctance to pursue the implementation of the Guyana Security Reform Plan in a holistic manner which includes, linking police reform with actions in other areas; strong linkages with the ongoing programmes in justice reform and citizen security; and a need to address the root causes of criminal and political violence, poverty and unemployment.
The parliamentary parties have repeatedly said that the government has made no effort to move on these issues and that when Parliament deliberates on them there is no mature compromise by the ruling party.
The parties had also pointed out last year that the promise of dialogue by President Jagdeo with the opposition parties had fallen by the wayside.
In December, 2007 the PNCR, AFC and GAP-ROAR had expressed dissatisfaction with the level of dialogue with the government after they were led to believe that the post-2006 elections period signalled an improved political climate and a maturing of the political process in Guyana.
This belief, Trotman, Corbin and GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin had said was conveyed by the President himself who had invited the joint opposition to dialogue within an enhanced framework he outlined at the opening of the Ninth Parliament in 2006.
The dialogue with the joint opposition was limited to a single meeting in November 2006.
OP differs with Rohee on criticism of Chief Justice
OP differs with Rohee on criticism of Chief Justice
Stabroek News news item. Friday May 23, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14799
The Office of the President (OP) yesterday distanced itself from statements made by Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, on Wednesday criticizing the recent releasing of a murder accused on bail by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
Justice Chang also weighed in on Rohee’s comments saying that the minister’s statement ought to be viewed as a public reassurance that the judiciary was not the subservient mistress of the executive.
Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Rohee said there appeared to be a disjointed criminal justice system, which was granting bail to murder accused. “We now have bail applications being granted to murder accused. The judiciary has now become totally unpredictable and case law is now thrown out of the window,” Rohee charged. He was referring to last week’s freeing on bail of a man who had been charged on two counts of murder by Justice Chang.
In a statement yesterday, OP said it had noted the concerns publicly expressed by the minister on the matter. “Notwithstanding the minister’s concerns that are a reflection of social sentiment, the Office of the President wishes to advise that the executive is unprepared to accept any contention that such a ruling actually constitutes a challenge.”
Furthermore, the OP statement said, Cabinet at its meeting on May 13 discussed the issue of granting bail. It said Attorney General Doodnauth Singh was urged to continue evaluation of the implications of bail being granted for serious and frequently occurring crimes, bearing in mind that doing so could affect the stability of society by allowing for repeated offences by persons on bail or their escape from jurisdiction of the court.
Last week, Justice Chang granted bail to a Mahaica, East Coast Demerara man who had been in court for eight years waiting trial for two counts of murder. The motion to release the man, Hemchand Persaud, was filed by attorney-at-law, Sandil Kissoon.
Persaud and Rohan Singh had been charged with the April 2000 murder of James Sancharran and six-year-old Afraz Khan. In his ruling, Justice Chang had noted that the delay in the man’s case was an error on the prosecution’s part and Persaud should not have been made to suffer for it. He pointed out that Article 139 of the Constitution provides for bail and extends such pre-trial liberties even to persons facing murder charges.
According to Justice Chang, Article 153 provided him with the discretion to safeguard the fundamental rights of an accused and as such, he was granting the man bail.
However, Rohee told reporters on Wednesday that, on the one hand, while the executive authority was insisting on draconian penalties to support other measures in the context of a holistic approach to enhance public safety and security, the judiciary seemed unconvinced and was increasingly becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons. “But what about the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatised for life?” Rohee queried.
He asked rhetorically whether he was to understand that if the gang members who committed the atrocities at Lusignan and Bartica were to be found, arrested, charged and taken before the courts, the magistrate or judge, under Articles 153 and 139 of the Constitution, would grant them bail to safeguard their constitutional rights.
Rohee noted that the interests of the public should also be taken into account in the dispensation of justice, adding that his understanding as a layperson was that the police considered the public interest when they arrested a person for a serious criminal offence. Similarly, he said, the court was expected to do the same when considering bail applications.
The minister argued that the executive, for its part, considered the public interest when determining policy and legislation for passage in the Parliament. “In other words, all should take public interest into account, particularly when it has to do with loss of property, life and limb as a result of the perpetration of a serious crime,” Rohee declared.
Justice Chang, in his statement, said that in a democratic state, the executive and the judiciary could not live cozily together as this was democratically unhealthy.
He added that some tension between the judiciary and executive was inevitable and must be accepted as normal, noting that it was meant to be so in the political structure of the state in which the doctrine of the separation of power inhered. “Such tension,” Justice Chang said, was a good sign of a democratically healthy state.
“It is the judiciary and not the executive which is the guardian of the Constitution,” Justice Chang declared.
Over recent months both President Bharrat Jagdeo and Rohee have been critical of certain decision made by the courts, particularly with regard to the granting of bail to suspects.
Stabroek News news item. Friday May 23, 2008
http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14799
The Office of the President (OP) yesterday distanced itself from statements made by Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, on Wednesday criticizing the recent releasing of a murder accused on bail by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
Justice Chang also weighed in on Rohee’s comments saying that the minister’s statement ought to be viewed as a public reassurance that the judiciary was not the subservient mistress of the executive.
Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Rohee said there appeared to be a disjointed criminal justice system, which was granting bail to murder accused. “We now have bail applications being granted to murder accused. The judiciary has now become totally unpredictable and case law is now thrown out of the window,” Rohee charged. He was referring to last week’s freeing on bail of a man who had been charged on two counts of murder by Justice Chang.
In a statement yesterday, OP said it had noted the concerns publicly expressed by the minister on the matter. “Notwithstanding the minister’s concerns that are a reflection of social sentiment, the Office of the President wishes to advise that the executive is unprepared to accept any contention that such a ruling actually constitutes a challenge.”
Furthermore, the OP statement said, Cabinet at its meeting on May 13 discussed the issue of granting bail. It said Attorney General Doodnauth Singh was urged to continue evaluation of the implications of bail being granted for serious and frequently occurring crimes, bearing in mind that doing so could affect the stability of society by allowing for repeated offences by persons on bail or their escape from jurisdiction of the court.
Last week, Justice Chang granted bail to a Mahaica, East Coast Demerara man who had been in court for eight years waiting trial for two counts of murder. The motion to release the man, Hemchand Persaud, was filed by attorney-at-law, Sandil Kissoon.
Persaud and Rohan Singh had been charged with the April 2000 murder of James Sancharran and six-year-old Afraz Khan. In his ruling, Justice Chang had noted that the delay in the man’s case was an error on the prosecution’s part and Persaud should not have been made to suffer for it. He pointed out that Article 139 of the Constitution provides for bail and extends such pre-trial liberties even to persons facing murder charges.
According to Justice Chang, Article 153 provided him with the discretion to safeguard the fundamental rights of an accused and as such, he was granting the man bail.
However, Rohee told reporters on Wednesday that, on the one hand, while the executive authority was insisting on draconian penalties to support other measures in the context of a holistic approach to enhance public safety and security, the judiciary seemed unconvinced and was increasingly becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons. “But what about the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatised for life?” Rohee queried.
He asked rhetorically whether he was to understand that if the gang members who committed the atrocities at Lusignan and Bartica were to be found, arrested, charged and taken before the courts, the magistrate or judge, under Articles 153 and 139 of the Constitution, would grant them bail to safeguard their constitutional rights.
Rohee noted that the interests of the public should also be taken into account in the dispensation of justice, adding that his understanding as a layperson was that the police considered the public interest when they arrested a person for a serious criminal offence. Similarly, he said, the court was expected to do the same when considering bail applications.
The minister argued that the executive, for its part, considered the public interest when determining policy and legislation for passage in the Parliament. “In other words, all should take public interest into account, particularly when it has to do with loss of property, life and limb as a result of the perpetration of a serious crime,” Rohee declared.
Justice Chang, in his statement, said that in a democratic state, the executive and the judiciary could not live cozily together as this was democratically unhealthy.
He added that some tension between the judiciary and executive was inevitable and must be accepted as normal, noting that it was meant to be so in the political structure of the state in which the doctrine of the separation of power inhered. “Such tension,” Justice Chang said, was a good sign of a democratically healthy state.
“It is the judiciary and not the executive which is the guardian of the Constitution,” Justice Chang declared.
Over recent months both President Bharrat Jagdeo and Rohee have been critical of certain decision made by the courts, particularly with regard to the granting of bail to suspects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)