Kaieteur News Editorial, Thursday 18 March 2010. Freedom of information.
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/03/18/freedom-of-information/
March 18, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under Editorial
It is absolutely necessary for the government and people of Guyana to pursue greater freedom of information, within reasonable boundaries, if they hope to achieve true democracy and good governance. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights in democratic nations, and are enshrined in Guyana’s constitution. However, these rights are often trampled by persons who want to keep the public in the dark about matters that ought to be exposed in the public’s interest. The truth is for freedom of speech and freedom of the press to be meaningful they must be complemented with freedom of information.
Those who draw a shroud of secrecy over vital information about public issues for partisan reasons, deny the people of Guyana their right to be fully informed about matters that deeply affect their lives.
This was one of the issues determined by the courts when Vieira Communications moved to the courts to challenge the seizure of its radio transmitting equipment.
The court found that by not granting radio licences the government was denying the rights of the people. When the question of additional radio licences first surfaces, Prime Minister Sam Hinds admitted that to relax the monopoly was to threaten the very existence of the state owned radio station; that the station could not compete.
Since the ruling of the court, no new radio station has emerged. But this is not because people have not made applications for such licences.
Any nation that is in fact on the road to democracy cannot steer clear of enacting and enforcing powerful legislation to guarantee freedom of information, as a catalyst for genuinely free speech and free media.
Unfortunately, persons in Guyana, particularly officials who are involved in activities that affect the public welfare, can easily block or delay access to information about their activities and steep their actions in secrecy and evasion.
Many officials bluntly refuse to reveal information on public issues, even when their refusal clearly compromises the public interest. In many cases, they do so without giving any reason and it is difficult to hold them accountable. That is the reason why there is a move to have a Freedom of Information Act. Not surprisingly, this piece of promised legislation is failing to see the light of day.
The first time it was tabled the government with its parliamentary majority said that it would not support the legislation. It was the same when the parliamentary opposition sought to introduce the Broadcast Legislation. The government said that it was not prepared to support the legislation.
Guyana cannot progress towards democracy without facilitating a flow of public information that enhances democratic rights. This means ensuring that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure informed debate on public issues, exposure of wrongdoings, protection of the public from danger, accountability for public funds, etc.
It is essential that there is reasonable access to information to make certain that the public is not misled, authorities properly discharge their responsibilities, and the Guyanese people are dealt with fairly.
Of course, there must be appropriate grounds for refusing information. Clearly, there cannot be total freedom of information regarding national security matters, certain court proceedings and police activities. Also, there would be restrictions related to information whose disclosure is prohibited by particular laws. Furthermore, citizens must have reasonable rights to privacy and the withholding of personal information, but this exemption should be flexible, particularly with respect to officials acting in official capacities.
It would be practical for exemptions to the public’s right to freedom of information, to be subjected to the public interest test. If disclosure would clearly be beneficial to the public’s interest, then the onus should be on the person or agency seeking secrecy to show why information should not be disclosed. It would be useful to establish a carefully constituted, independent authority with the power to compel disclosure of information in the public’s interest.
Guyana should definitely move towards greater disclosure of information on public issues and progressively enact appropriate legislation to facilitate this.
ENDS
Showing posts with label Freedom of Information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Information. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
NFMU not taking any more radio licence applications
NFMU not taking any more radio licence applications
Posted By Stabroek staff On October 19, 2009 @ 5:11 am In Local News | 13 Comments
The National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU) is no longer receiving applications for radio licences following the Court of Appeal’s announcement last Wednesday that the government has an unlawful monopoly on the airwaves and that the NFMU is not doing its job with respect to considering radio licences.
This announcement was made in a notice carried on page nine in yesterday’s edition of the Guyana Times. It said: “Notice is hereby given that in view of the recent court ruling on radio licenses and the number of applications for radio licenses currently on file, the National Frequency Management Unit will not be accepting any further applications for radio licenses, with effect from October 18, 2009.” The notice seemed to imply that consideration of the licence applications on file will begin shortly.
In a landmark ruling, the Court led by Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and comprising Justices of Appeal B.S. Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards allowed an appeal filed by local television pioneer Anthony Vieira on behalf of VCT ruling that VCT’s fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom to receive and communicate ideas and information was contravened.. Ironically, Vieira has since sold his TV station to the Ramroop Group, publishers of the Guyana Times, and has migrated.
VCT had applied for a radio licence since 1993 and the court said last Wednesday that both the government and the NFMU failed to acknowledge receipt of the application. VCT had asked that the court order the NFMU to issue it with a radio licence forthwith but the Court said there are technicalities involved in making such a decision, noting that it lacks the expertise to make such an evaluation. It said the NFMU is the entity which is well placed to make such an evaluation, and it called on the unit to “do its job”. However, the court did direct the NFMU to consider and determine VCT’s application for a radio broadcast license.
Now days after the Court of Appeal called on NFMU to carry out its duty the body has announced that it will no longer be receiving applications for radio licences. While the NFMU used the number of applications on file to support this decision it did not state for how long this condition will exist.
Chief Executive Officer of NFMU, Valmikki Singh, could not be reached yesterday for a comment.
13 Comments (Open | Close)
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/10/19/nfmu-not-taking-any-more-radio-licence-applications/
Posted By Stabroek staff On October 19, 2009 @ 5:11 am In Local News | 13 Comments
The National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU) is no longer receiving applications for radio licences following the Court of Appeal’s announcement last Wednesday that the government has an unlawful monopoly on the airwaves and that the NFMU is not doing its job with respect to considering radio licences.
This announcement was made in a notice carried on page nine in yesterday’s edition of the Guyana Times. It said: “Notice is hereby given that in view of the recent court ruling on radio licenses and the number of applications for radio licenses currently on file, the National Frequency Management Unit will not be accepting any further applications for radio licenses, with effect from October 18, 2009.” The notice seemed to imply that consideration of the licence applications on file will begin shortly.
In a landmark ruling, the Court led by Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and comprising Justices of Appeal B.S. Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards allowed an appeal filed by local television pioneer Anthony Vieira on behalf of VCT ruling that VCT’s fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom to receive and communicate ideas and information was contravened.. Ironically, Vieira has since sold his TV station to the Ramroop Group, publishers of the Guyana Times, and has migrated.
VCT had applied for a radio licence since 1993 and the court said last Wednesday that both the government and the NFMU failed to acknowledge receipt of the application. VCT had asked that the court order the NFMU to issue it with a radio licence forthwith but the Court said there are technicalities involved in making such a decision, noting that it lacks the expertise to make such an evaluation. It said the NFMU is the entity which is well placed to make such an evaluation, and it called on the unit to “do its job”. However, the court did direct the NFMU to consider and determine VCT’s application for a radio broadcast license.
Now days after the Court of Appeal called on NFMU to carry out its duty the body has announced that it will no longer be receiving applications for radio licences. While the NFMU used the number of applications on file to support this decision it did not state for how long this condition will exist.
Chief Executive Officer of NFMU, Valmikki Singh, could not be reached yesterday for a comment.
13 Comments (Open | Close)
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/10/19/nfmu-not-taking-any-more-radio-licence-applications/
Friday, October 2, 2009
Broadcast, FOI bills to be tabled this month
Stabroek News news item, Friday 02 October 2009 - "Broadcast, FOI bills to be tabled this month" - http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/10/02/broadcast-foi-bills-to-be-tabled-this-month/
-Luncheon
Long-delayed broadcast legislation, expected to facilitate the establishment of a broadcast authority, and Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation are among bills to tabled when the new parliamentary session begins.
Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon said that on Tuesday Cabinet made the decision on the bills, which would be tabled this month in the National Assembly when the annual parliamentary recess ends. The two bills have been the source of much contention over the years as the opposition parties have continued to press government to table the bills, while seeking to iron out concerns about the draft provisions.
In 2001, the Advisory Commission on Broadcasting (ACB) was established based on an agreement between then PNCR leader and President Bharrat Jagdeo, pending the passage of broadcast legislation and the setting up of a broadcast authority.
The ACB was set up with the objective that broadcast legislation would be enacted within a specific timeframe, and to this end, a joint committee on radio monopoly, non-partisan boards and broadcasting legislation was established. The joint committee in its report had laid out the general parameters for the drafting of the legislation and the Attorney General’s Chambers drafting section had used those parameters and studied legislation from other countries in preparing a draft. This draft was published in the daily newspapers and members of the public and other stakeholders were invited to submit suggestions. None was ever received.
The PNCR has claimed that the draft deviated from the joint committee’s report on the general parameters and the President, in seeking to find a consensus, agreed to a government-opposition team discussing the legislation to reconcile differences, however these were unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, PNCR as well as GAP/ROAR have both publicly pledged their support for the FOI legislation and according to Alliance for Change (AFC) leader Raphael Trotman his party has always indicated its willingness to engage the governing party on advancing the legislation. The AFC, which had tabled its own draft FOI Bill, has been publicly reminding the administration about its promise to introduce the legislation.
Another important bill to be tabled is the New Building Society (NBS) Amendment Bill, which would facilitate greater supervision of the Bank of Guyana over the NBS. Dr Luncheon said emphasis would also be placed on furthering the reforms in the financial sector with the tabling of the Electronic Transaction Bill, which would lay the groundwork in establishing the use of the internet to conduct government and private business as it is being done with personal business.
The Credit Reporting Bill, by which credit financial bodies would have legal and legitimate ways of identifying and sharing information about credit behavior, will also be tabled. Also to be tabled are the Business Names Registration Amend-ment Bill, the Companies Amendment Bill and Regulations, the Deeds Registry Amendment Bill, and the Official Gazette Bill, all intended to lay the statutory framework for electronic filing in the registration and the incorporation of businesses in Guyana.
In the security sector, the Maritime Zone Bill would be tabled to replace the existing Boundaries Act, while the Legal Practitioner Amendment Bill and the Juvenile Justice Bill would be introduced to reform the justice sector.
Other key items on the government’s legislative agenda include the Consumer Protection Bill, the Disability Bill, the Rice Factory Assessment Bill and the Livestock Development Authority Bill. “These bills on the priority list will be tabled and will join other bills that have already been tabled and are being discussed at the level of select committee of parliament,” Dr Luncheon said.
-Luncheon
Long-delayed broadcast legislation, expected to facilitate the establishment of a broadcast authority, and Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation are among bills to tabled when the new parliamentary session begins.
Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon said that on Tuesday Cabinet made the decision on the bills, which would be tabled this month in the National Assembly when the annual parliamentary recess ends. The two bills have been the source of much contention over the years as the opposition parties have continued to press government to table the bills, while seeking to iron out concerns about the draft provisions.
In 2001, the Advisory Commission on Broadcasting (ACB) was established based on an agreement between then PNCR leader and President Bharrat Jagdeo, pending the passage of broadcast legislation and the setting up of a broadcast authority.
The ACB was set up with the objective that broadcast legislation would be enacted within a specific timeframe, and to this end, a joint committee on radio monopoly, non-partisan boards and broadcasting legislation was established. The joint committee in its report had laid out the general parameters for the drafting of the legislation and the Attorney General’s Chambers drafting section had used those parameters and studied legislation from other countries in preparing a draft. This draft was published in the daily newspapers and members of the public and other stakeholders were invited to submit suggestions. None was ever received.
The PNCR has claimed that the draft deviated from the joint committee’s report on the general parameters and the President, in seeking to find a consensus, agreed to a government-opposition team discussing the legislation to reconcile differences, however these were unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, PNCR as well as GAP/ROAR have both publicly pledged their support for the FOI legislation and according to Alliance for Change (AFC) leader Raphael Trotman his party has always indicated its willingness to engage the governing party on advancing the legislation. The AFC, which had tabled its own draft FOI Bill, has been publicly reminding the administration about its promise to introduce the legislation.
Another important bill to be tabled is the New Building Society (NBS) Amendment Bill, which would facilitate greater supervision of the Bank of Guyana over the NBS. Dr Luncheon said emphasis would also be placed on furthering the reforms in the financial sector with the tabling of the Electronic Transaction Bill, which would lay the groundwork in establishing the use of the internet to conduct government and private business as it is being done with personal business.
The Credit Reporting Bill, by which credit financial bodies would have legal and legitimate ways of identifying and sharing information about credit behavior, will also be tabled. Also to be tabled are the Business Names Registration Amend-ment Bill, the Companies Amendment Bill and Regulations, the Deeds Registry Amendment Bill, and the Official Gazette Bill, all intended to lay the statutory framework for electronic filing in the registration and the incorporation of businesses in Guyana.
In the security sector, the Maritime Zone Bill would be tabled to replace the existing Boundaries Act, while the Legal Practitioner Amendment Bill and the Juvenile Justice Bill would be introduced to reform the justice sector.
Other key items on the government’s legislative agenda include the Consumer Protection Bill, the Disability Bill, the Rice Factory Assessment Bill and the Livestock Development Authority Bill. “These bills on the priority list will be tabled and will join other bills that have already been tabled and are being discussed at the level of select committee of parliament,” Dr Luncheon said.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Fear today worse than in Burnhamite days - MP Moses Nagamootoo" - … Public Freedom of Information forum
Kaieteur News news item, Thursday 24 September 2009 - "Fear today worse than in Burnhamite days - MP Moses Nagamootoo" - … Public Freedom of Information forum
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/09/24/fear-today-worse-than-in-burnhamite-days-mp-moses-nagamootoo/
Moses Nagamootoo, who worked as a journalist during the days of the regime of Forbes Burnham, when his newspaper was denied newsprint, has described the fear in Guyana today as worse than the “Burnhamite days.”
Enrico Woolford, U.S journalist Herb Frazier, and Moses Nagamootoo, at the public forum
Enrico Woolford, U.S journalist Herb Frazier, and Moses Nagamootoo, at the public forum
Nagamootoo was among the speakers at a U.S. Embassy-sponsored public forum on Freedom of Information legislation. He said that what Guyana needs is a new wave of democracy.
Nagamootoo, a practising attorney, and Member of Parliament for the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP), said that he is seeing in Guyana “large doses of fear” by the media in reporting stories that could be deemed offensive to the administration. He said he is sensing in Guyana an “unease” that has never experienced before.
Nagamootoo, who also once served as Minister of Information, posited that while there are costs that would be associated with the government enacting and implementing Freedom of Information Legislation, it is a cost that is necessary and important for Guyana.
Executive member of the Guyana Press Association and Capitol News Editor-in-chief, Enrico Woolford, bemoaned the fact that the government is yet to table Freedom of Information legislation in Parliament despite President Bharrat Jagdeo’s statement in April that this was being drafted and would be tabled in two months.
It is now five months since Jagdeo made the statement at a press conference held on the hems of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.
In early July, the President said that the Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation would likely be introduced in the National Assembly in October when Parliament comes out of recess.
Late last month, Jagdeo promised that there will be broadcast legislation by next year. Woolford posited that “freedom of information delayed is freedom of information denied.”
The public forum yesterday was one in a series of discussions on responsible journalism and principles of press freedom, with specific attention paid to the U.S. experience and it’s Freedom of Information Act.
The feature presentation was by US journalist Mr. Herb Frazier, whose experience ranged from covering health care and the criminal justice system, to numerous U.S. presidential elections.
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/09/24/fear-today-worse-than-in-burnhamite-days-mp-moses-nagamootoo/
Moses Nagamootoo, who worked as a journalist during the days of the regime of Forbes Burnham, when his newspaper was denied newsprint, has described the fear in Guyana today as worse than the “Burnhamite days.”
Enrico Woolford, U.S journalist Herb Frazier, and Moses Nagamootoo, at the public forum
Enrico Woolford, U.S journalist Herb Frazier, and Moses Nagamootoo, at the public forum
Nagamootoo was among the speakers at a U.S. Embassy-sponsored public forum on Freedom of Information legislation. He said that what Guyana needs is a new wave of democracy.
Nagamootoo, a practising attorney, and Member of Parliament for the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP), said that he is seeing in Guyana “large doses of fear” by the media in reporting stories that could be deemed offensive to the administration. He said he is sensing in Guyana an “unease” that has never experienced before.
Nagamootoo, who also once served as Minister of Information, posited that while there are costs that would be associated with the government enacting and implementing Freedom of Information Legislation, it is a cost that is necessary and important for Guyana.
Executive member of the Guyana Press Association and Capitol News Editor-in-chief, Enrico Woolford, bemoaned the fact that the government is yet to table Freedom of Information legislation in Parliament despite President Bharrat Jagdeo’s statement in April that this was being drafted and would be tabled in two months.
It is now five months since Jagdeo made the statement at a press conference held on the hems of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.
In early July, the President said that the Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation would likely be introduced in the National Assembly in October when Parliament comes out of recess.
Late last month, Jagdeo promised that there will be broadcast legislation by next year. Woolford posited that “freedom of information delayed is freedom of information denied.”
The public forum yesterday was one in a series of discussions on responsible journalism and principles of press freedom, with specific attention paid to the U.S. experience and it’s Freedom of Information Act.
The feature presentation was by US journalist Mr. Herb Frazier, whose experience ranged from covering health care and the criminal justice system, to numerous U.S. presidential elections.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
GOOD MEN AND WOMEN MUST ACT!
Kaieteur News Editorial, Sunday 20 September 2009 - "GOOD MEN AND WOMEN MUST ACT!" - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/09/20/good-men-and-women-must-act/
The State and government both have an obligation in free societies to support the media by allowing access to public officials and information. The availability of this information contributes to an enlightened polity and thus informed choices. The ability to make such choices strengthens democracy and creates conditions whereby citizens feel that their views will not only be known but acted upon, thereby reducing the chasm between politicians and the people and brining the latter closer to the decision-making process. In this regard, the media acts as a conduit between the policymaker and the citizens, allowing a flow of information and feedback.
The media is also the watchdog for citizens, guarding against excesses and incompetence, corruption and ineptitude. The media as a watchdog serves a function that benefits the people, the State and government.
In Guyana today, it would seem as if there is a lack of appreciation by the government for the important role the media plays as a watchdog. The trials and tribulations that this newspaper has been subjected to simply for reporting on matters of public concern has reached the stage whereby it is being forced to defend a slew of libel cases, but even more tragically, is having grave difficulties in obtaining matters which any government ought to have been willing to provide readily to the media.
After this newspaper broke certain stories in the media, one minister actually encouraged the media to continue its work, by asking for the help of the media in monitoring all government contracts falling under his portfolio.
However, despite repeated requests to government officials for information on certain contracts, this newspaper remains empty-handed, thereby making a mockery of that minister’s invitation to the media. This newspaper has also sought additional information concerning contracts in the education sector. We are still waiting.
How then is the public interest served? How can we provide the necessary investigative journalism when there is a virtual embargo against us when it comes to obtaining information on government tendering, something that has been the subject of major controversy in this country?
We shall continue to persevere and keep the nation informed as to our frustrations in obtaining details of government projects. We however remain open to exploring all avenues so as to bring matters of public importance to the people. As such, if the doors of officialdom continue to be slammed shut in our faces, we shall pursue our cause through the international financial institutions that fund public works since all of these institutions and also the donor countries are, we believe, firmly committed to openness and transparency in the award of contracts funded by these countries and international financial institutions.
Not all contracts are, of course, funded by the international financial institutions. As we have seen there is significant work being undertaken using resources obtained from taxpayers. These taxpayers have an obligation to know how every cent of their money is being spent. This newspaper therefore will continue to make efforts to bring to the attention of the public how their monies are being used, regardless of how often we are rebuffed.
There are, of course, other bodies in whose faces doors cannot be shut and who can play an important role, in keeping with their mandates, in ensuring public transparency and accountability. We refer here to the Office of the Auditor General who has powers to investigate whether public funds have found its way into anyone’s bankbook and whether there has been value for money in relation to works executed with the use of public funds.
The Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly is also empowered to demand records and interrogate public officials about the use of public funds. We hope that when the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly is convened, it will as the first order of business summon the requisite parties and demand explanations as to the award of the contracts, particularly those that have in recent weeks been highlighted in this newspaper.
The State and government both have an obligation in free societies to support the media by allowing access to public officials and information. The availability of this information contributes to an enlightened polity and thus informed choices. The ability to make such choices strengthens democracy and creates conditions whereby citizens feel that their views will not only be known but acted upon, thereby reducing the chasm between politicians and the people and brining the latter closer to the decision-making process. In this regard, the media acts as a conduit between the policymaker and the citizens, allowing a flow of information and feedback.
The media is also the watchdog for citizens, guarding against excesses and incompetence, corruption and ineptitude. The media as a watchdog serves a function that benefits the people, the State and government.
In Guyana today, it would seem as if there is a lack of appreciation by the government for the important role the media plays as a watchdog. The trials and tribulations that this newspaper has been subjected to simply for reporting on matters of public concern has reached the stage whereby it is being forced to defend a slew of libel cases, but even more tragically, is having grave difficulties in obtaining matters which any government ought to have been willing to provide readily to the media.
After this newspaper broke certain stories in the media, one minister actually encouraged the media to continue its work, by asking for the help of the media in monitoring all government contracts falling under his portfolio.
However, despite repeated requests to government officials for information on certain contracts, this newspaper remains empty-handed, thereby making a mockery of that minister’s invitation to the media. This newspaper has also sought additional information concerning contracts in the education sector. We are still waiting.
How then is the public interest served? How can we provide the necessary investigative journalism when there is a virtual embargo against us when it comes to obtaining information on government tendering, something that has been the subject of major controversy in this country?
We shall continue to persevere and keep the nation informed as to our frustrations in obtaining details of government projects. We however remain open to exploring all avenues so as to bring matters of public importance to the people. As such, if the doors of officialdom continue to be slammed shut in our faces, we shall pursue our cause through the international financial institutions that fund public works since all of these institutions and also the donor countries are, we believe, firmly committed to openness and transparency in the award of contracts funded by these countries and international financial institutions.
Not all contracts are, of course, funded by the international financial institutions. As we have seen there is significant work being undertaken using resources obtained from taxpayers. These taxpayers have an obligation to know how every cent of their money is being spent. This newspaper therefore will continue to make efforts to bring to the attention of the public how their monies are being used, regardless of how often we are rebuffed.
There are, of course, other bodies in whose faces doors cannot be shut and who can play an important role, in keeping with their mandates, in ensuring public transparency and accountability. We refer here to the Office of the Auditor General who has powers to investigate whether public funds have found its way into anyone’s bankbook and whether there has been value for money in relation to works executed with the use of public funds.
The Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly is also empowered to demand records and interrogate public officials about the use of public funds. We hope that when the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly is convened, it will as the first order of business summon the requisite parties and demand explanations as to the award of the contracts, particularly those that have in recent weeks been highlighted in this newspaper.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Agri Ministry asks Auditor General for more scrutiny of projects
Agri Ministry asks Auditor General for more scrutiny of projects
Posted By Stabroek staff On August 29, 2009 @ 5:19 am In Local News | 5 Comments
The Ministry of Agriculture has requested the assistance of the Office of the Auditor General to carry out additional comprehensive audits of its ongoing projects.
According to an undated letter released by the Ministry of Agriculture yesterday and addressed to the Auditor General Deodat Sharma, Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud stated that the Agriculture Ministry is implementing a series of capital works, all designed to promulgate several new export-led commodity chains.
Persaud stated that it is imperative that full value is obtained from all projects carried out by the Ministry, if the department is to be successful in its thrust in agricultural development and the raising of the quality of life in Guyana.
The move by the ministry comes amid a series of reports in the Kaieteur News questioning whether contractors have been overpaid and whether value for money is being obtained from projects.
Persaud stated that the Agriculture Ministry is seeking the support of the Auditor General in order to obtain the full value of investments made and to ensure that there is continued public confidence and support for the investments made in the sector.
According to the letter, Persaud noted that several weeks ago the Agriculture Ministry had established an internal mechanism to receive feedback from the public on the state of implementation of projects, noting that other projects which were implemented were published in the media while copies of same were shared with the respective shareholders for additional monitoring.
Persaud also stated that two persons, Frederick Flatts, Senior Engineer attached to the Agriculture Sector Development Unit of the Agriculture Ministry and Vishal Budhoo, Field Auditor attached to the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), have been identified as the main liaison officers to provide the requisite information regarding projects being implemented by the Agriculture Ministry.
5 Comments (Open | Close)
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/08/29/agri-ministry-asks-auditor-general-for-more-scrutiny-of-projects/
Posted By Stabroek staff On August 29, 2009 @ 5:19 am In Local News | 5 Comments
The Ministry of Agriculture has requested the assistance of the Office of the Auditor General to carry out additional comprehensive audits of its ongoing projects.
According to an undated letter released by the Ministry of Agriculture yesterday and addressed to the Auditor General Deodat Sharma, Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud stated that the Agriculture Ministry is implementing a series of capital works, all designed to promulgate several new export-led commodity chains.
Persaud stated that it is imperative that full value is obtained from all projects carried out by the Ministry, if the department is to be successful in its thrust in agricultural development and the raising of the quality of life in Guyana.
The move by the ministry comes amid a series of reports in the Kaieteur News questioning whether contractors have been overpaid and whether value for money is being obtained from projects.
Persaud stated that the Agriculture Ministry is seeking the support of the Auditor General in order to obtain the full value of investments made and to ensure that there is continued public confidence and support for the investments made in the sector.
According to the letter, Persaud noted that several weeks ago the Agriculture Ministry had established an internal mechanism to receive feedback from the public on the state of implementation of projects, noting that other projects which were implemented were published in the media while copies of same were shared with the respective shareholders for additional monitoring.
Persaud also stated that two persons, Frederick Flatts, Senior Engineer attached to the Agriculture Sector Development Unit of the Agriculture Ministry and Vishal Budhoo, Field Auditor attached to the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), have been identified as the main liaison officers to provide the requisite information regarding projects being implemented by the Agriculture Ministry.
5 Comments (Open | Close)
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/08/29/agri-ministry-asks-auditor-general-for-more-scrutiny-of-projects/
Why no Office of the Ombudsman
Kaieteur News Editorial, Saturday 29 August 2009 - "Why no Office of the Ombudsman" - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/08/29/why-no-office-of-the-ombudsman/
The Office of the Ombudsman has not been filled for years. This is one of the constitutional offices in the country and it is often held by a retired judge or someone of equal qualification.
The job of the Ombudsman is to adjudicate in cases that are brought by members of the public against Government officials suspected of wrongdoing. He is independent of any obstruction and his ruling is equal to that of a court. There could be legal challenges to these rulings, often to the court.
Eusi Kwayana is one of the people in not so recent memory —nearly 40 years ago—who went before the Ombudsman against two Government Ministers in the wake of complaints that they were involved in wrongdoing. The two were then Works Minister Hamilton Green and the then Housing Minister, the late David Singh.
The complaints against both men were that they were using their offices to procure material owned by the government for their personal gain. Hamilton Green was accused of using metal sheets on his home at D’Urban Backlands having allegedly procured these unfairly and in a manner not befitting a leader of the people. A similar accusation was leveled against David Singh.
In those days independence meant just that. There was no intervention by any leader. The then Prime Minister, Forbes Burnham, was the head of the country and although much has been said about his dictatorial ways, there is no one who could say that he meddled with things legal. He never intervened in the legal process, and in his book, it was let the chips fall where they may.
The Ombudsman found David Singh guilty and this Minister was forced to resign. He died soon after.
Hamilton Green was cleared but the Ombudsman noted that there might have been some aberrations.
In the face of the current allegations that contracts are padded and that there are constant irregularities, one of which, as one columnist noted, involved the signing of a number of remigrant declarations, all of which were fraudulently obtained, the public has no recourse to the Office of the Ombudsman.
President Bharrat Jagdeo has been asked repeatedly about appointing an Ombudsman but he has failed to do so for reasons best known to himself. And it cannot be that there is a shortage of candidates. Guyana has many retired judges who had performed with distinction and whose mental acuity is still there.
Some retired recently while others might have been off the bench for a relatively long time, but these people are available to the state.
Every society needs checks and balances; every society needs a forum to which people could channel their complaints because far too often when they go to the political directorate with complaints against officials their complaints are either ignored or are shelved to a date that never seems to approach.
Today, in the wake of revelations about a pump station at Stanleytown, West Bank Demerara; bridges at various locations in the country; river defence structures and certain road constructions, there seems to be no forum to which people could turn for explanations and if necessary, corrective action.
This is not to say that the Head of State is not keen to have an Ombudsman appointed, but he must be made to explain his reason for this obvious flaw in national life. He must be made to realize that there must be systems to ensure the smooth running of the country.
Guyana is not a playground for the rich and famous, nor is it the milch cow for people in Government office. People elected to high office must be accountable, and in cases where there is no public forum to guarantee accountability, people with complaints are often frustrated.
The response by the Finance Minister to complaints about the contracts was an insult to the intelligence of the people of Guyana and something that clearly supported what some feel was legalised dishonesty.
There was the story of the lowly clerk who bought a house for $60 million. The Commissioner of the Guyana Revenue Authority has promised an investigation, but he has no compunction to either conduct such an investigation or to report the findings to the nation.
The Ombudsman would have held public hearings and the various answers to the queries would have been in the public domain.
The Head of State is immune from investigation by the Ombudsman, but surely he would be operating in the best interest of the country if he allows his Ministers to justify their actions to the public if there is a perception of wrongdoing.
The Office of the Ombudsman has not been filled for years. This is one of the constitutional offices in the country and it is often held by a retired judge or someone of equal qualification.
The job of the Ombudsman is to adjudicate in cases that are brought by members of the public against Government officials suspected of wrongdoing. He is independent of any obstruction and his ruling is equal to that of a court. There could be legal challenges to these rulings, often to the court.
Eusi Kwayana is one of the people in not so recent memory —nearly 40 years ago—who went before the Ombudsman against two Government Ministers in the wake of complaints that they were involved in wrongdoing. The two were then Works Minister Hamilton Green and the then Housing Minister, the late David Singh.
The complaints against both men were that they were using their offices to procure material owned by the government for their personal gain. Hamilton Green was accused of using metal sheets on his home at D’Urban Backlands having allegedly procured these unfairly and in a manner not befitting a leader of the people. A similar accusation was leveled against David Singh.
In those days independence meant just that. There was no intervention by any leader. The then Prime Minister, Forbes Burnham, was the head of the country and although much has been said about his dictatorial ways, there is no one who could say that he meddled with things legal. He never intervened in the legal process, and in his book, it was let the chips fall where they may.
The Ombudsman found David Singh guilty and this Minister was forced to resign. He died soon after.
Hamilton Green was cleared but the Ombudsman noted that there might have been some aberrations.
In the face of the current allegations that contracts are padded and that there are constant irregularities, one of which, as one columnist noted, involved the signing of a number of remigrant declarations, all of which were fraudulently obtained, the public has no recourse to the Office of the Ombudsman.
President Bharrat Jagdeo has been asked repeatedly about appointing an Ombudsman but he has failed to do so for reasons best known to himself. And it cannot be that there is a shortage of candidates. Guyana has many retired judges who had performed with distinction and whose mental acuity is still there.
Some retired recently while others might have been off the bench for a relatively long time, but these people are available to the state.
Every society needs checks and balances; every society needs a forum to which people could channel their complaints because far too often when they go to the political directorate with complaints against officials their complaints are either ignored or are shelved to a date that never seems to approach.
Today, in the wake of revelations about a pump station at Stanleytown, West Bank Demerara; bridges at various locations in the country; river defence structures and certain road constructions, there seems to be no forum to which people could turn for explanations and if necessary, corrective action.
This is not to say that the Head of State is not keen to have an Ombudsman appointed, but he must be made to explain his reason for this obvious flaw in national life. He must be made to realize that there must be systems to ensure the smooth running of the country.
Guyana is not a playground for the rich and famous, nor is it the milch cow for people in Government office. People elected to high office must be accountable, and in cases where there is no public forum to guarantee accountability, people with complaints are often frustrated.
The response by the Finance Minister to complaints about the contracts was an insult to the intelligence of the people of Guyana and something that clearly supported what some feel was legalised dishonesty.
There was the story of the lowly clerk who bought a house for $60 million. The Commissioner of the Guyana Revenue Authority has promised an investigation, but he has no compunction to either conduct such an investigation or to report the findings to the nation.
The Ombudsman would have held public hearings and the various answers to the queries would have been in the public domain.
The Head of State is immune from investigation by the Ombudsman, but surely he would be operating in the best interest of the country if he allows his Ministers to justify their actions to the public if there is a perception of wrongdoing.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Due diligence, Government of Guyana-style, as detailed by ghostwriter
Tendering is procedural open to all contracting services
PLEASE permit me to respond to a letter titled: ‘Why are there so many sole bids?’ in the Wednesday August 26 issue of the Kaieteur News.
Letter writer Dexter Fordyce stated that he noted recently that there have been many single bids. ‘It is as though there is a game going on in the tendering circle’, he asserted. Mr. Fordyce ranted about the apparent monopoly certain contracting firms have on certain projects; raved about how different things seem now from the time he was resident in Guyana; and asked what the functions of the procurement board are, in an effort to intimate that Government has been demonstrating nepotism in its award of contracts.
My immediate response to Mr. Fordyce’s missive is thus: When Government needs to contract out projects it does so by publishing invitations for bids. All contracting firms have equal access to invitations, and consequently, the right to respond accordingly. The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) considers the bids procedurally and awards the contract based on set criteria. If only a few contracting firms, or even ONE, would register interest in bidding for projects, it is no fault of NPTAB or the Government. Perhaps, appreciating their capabilities or lack thereof, certain contracting firms would enter the bidding process, or by the same token, abstain.
Additionally, while from an impulsive perspective, one may conclude that government has ‘relinquished’ the procurement of certain equipment; government actually procures equipment and machinery to execute certain projects which can be handled by people within its employ with the relevant expertise. A case in point is the move by the Ministry of Agriculture, through the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), to execute earthen works as a preparatory phase of massive civil works currently executed in Regions Three, Four and Six. The drainage and irrigation works are executed by the NDIA at a cost of $200M. Had the project been contracted out, it would have depleted the national treasury by an additional $500M. The government does not have the capacity or expertise to undertake every project it wants executed; it certainly does not decide what the contract cost of a project would be. That is the right of the firm offering the service.
Is Mr. Fordyce a contractor? Did he ever respond to invitations for bids? Does he have proof that there is nepotism on the part of NPTAB or the government? Is he aware of NPTAB’s tendering procedures? The answers to these questions may in turn answer his questions.
GUY SCHOLARI
PLEASE permit me to respond to a letter titled: ‘Why are there so many sole bids?’ in the Wednesday August 26 issue of the Kaieteur News.
Letter writer Dexter Fordyce stated that he noted recently that there have been many single bids. ‘It is as though there is a game going on in the tendering circle’, he asserted. Mr. Fordyce ranted about the apparent monopoly certain contracting firms have on certain projects; raved about how different things seem now from the time he was resident in Guyana; and asked what the functions of the procurement board are, in an effort to intimate that Government has been demonstrating nepotism in its award of contracts.
My immediate response to Mr. Fordyce’s missive is thus: When Government needs to contract out projects it does so by publishing invitations for bids. All contracting firms have equal access to invitations, and consequently, the right to respond accordingly. The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) considers the bids procedurally and awards the contract based on set criteria. If only a few contracting firms, or even ONE, would register interest in bidding for projects, it is no fault of NPTAB or the Government. Perhaps, appreciating their capabilities or lack thereof, certain contracting firms would enter the bidding process, or by the same token, abstain.
Additionally, while from an impulsive perspective, one may conclude that government has ‘relinquished’ the procurement of certain equipment; government actually procures equipment and machinery to execute certain projects which can be handled by people within its employ with the relevant expertise. A case in point is the move by the Ministry of Agriculture, through the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), to execute earthen works as a preparatory phase of massive civil works currently executed in Regions Three, Four and Six. The drainage and irrigation works are executed by the NDIA at a cost of $200M. Had the project been contracted out, it would have depleted the national treasury by an additional $500M. The government does not have the capacity or expertise to undertake every project it wants executed; it certainly does not decide what the contract cost of a project would be. That is the right of the firm offering the service.
Is Mr. Fordyce a contractor? Did he ever respond to invitations for bids? Does he have proof that there is nepotism on the part of NPTAB or the government? Is he aware of NPTAB’s tendering procedures? The answers to these questions may in turn answer his questions.
GUY SCHOLARI
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Arbitrary polygraph testing…
Unfolding situation is indeed a very serious one
August 26, 2009 | By KNews | Filed Under News
- GPSU
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/08/26/unfolding-situation-is-indeed-a-very-serious-one/
Arbitrary polygraph testing…
The Government is still ignoring the suggestion that it should lead by example, said President of Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU), Patrick Yarde, when he commented recently about government’s response to the union’s take on the use of polygraph tests.
Yarde at a press conference had highlighted the notion that the manner in which polygraph tests are imposed in this country, clearly exemplifies the pursuit of narrow political objectives, and therefore cannot be perceived as in the national interest. As a result he had disclosed that the union has advised public servants not to take any polygraph tests.
However, Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon, at his most recent press briefing told media operatives that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
GPSU President, Patrick Yarde
GPSU President, Patrick Yarde
According to Dr Luncheon, although Yarde has the free will to tell the workers not to take the test, the administration would advise them to conform. “Why don’t you await - if it does occur - a resolution of these conflicting instructions from Patrick Yarde there… I suppose is their putative boss, or from the administration.
“We are talking here specifically about screening polygraphy. I think the gentleman might be somewhat confused about screening polygraphy and investigating polygraphy. We don’t need polygraphy to investigate…We have good people to investigate…for example the arson at the Ministry of Health.”
However, Dr Luncheon did note that it would be mandatory that persons entering the system be subjected to screening polygraphy in order for them to continue providing the service for which they were employed.
But according to Yarde, the response was only forthcoming sometime after the union’s pronouncement. According to him, “people had to go back to the drawing board. I know they would have had problems responding to us.”
Further, Yarde said that he has noticed that the response from the government side completely ignores the fact that they should lead by example. “They aren’t touching that. They seem to feel that they should not lead by example. They seem to believe they are above the law and can do anything and not be accountable.”
As such, the Union President noted that the government’s action suggests that there are different classes and privileges in the society.
Commenting on the recently concluded Robert Simels case, Yarde emphasised the fact that neither those who gave evidence or were convicted were forced to undertake polygraph tests. For this reason, he said that he will continue to be bothered by the fact that demands for the use of the polygraph test is mandated here.
The Union President had expressed his belief that there seems to be a conspiracy and even deliberate act by government to find ways and means to dismiss people randomly. Added to this state-of-affairs, Yarde had disclosed that it has been recognised that there is a double standard which must be analysed as it relates to the use of the test.
Citing specific cases, he highlighted that the GPSU has observed Government’s intent to arbitrarily use polygraph testing on those who are employed in the operational arm of the state as well as government agencies. And this unfolding situation is indeed a very serious one, he added.
As part of the new initiative, Yarde underscored that government has blatantly and immorally exempted holders of important public offices and policy makers, including government ministers and permanent secretaries from such tests. The exempted persons, the GPSU president said are required by oath to lawfully and faithfully discharge their functions with outstanding and unquestionable integrity.
Moreover, the GPSU President questioned why such individuals should not be required to be tested equally, given the fact that the regime holds the polygraph testing process and mechanism in high regard.
According to him given that there are many questions about the conduct of public office holders their innocence should also be determined by the tests.
August 26, 2009 | By KNews | Filed Under News
- GPSU
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/08/26/unfolding-situation-is-indeed-a-very-serious-one/
Arbitrary polygraph testing…
The Government is still ignoring the suggestion that it should lead by example, said President of Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU), Patrick Yarde, when he commented recently about government’s response to the union’s take on the use of polygraph tests.
Yarde at a press conference had highlighted the notion that the manner in which polygraph tests are imposed in this country, clearly exemplifies the pursuit of narrow political objectives, and therefore cannot be perceived as in the national interest. As a result he had disclosed that the union has advised public servants not to take any polygraph tests.
However, Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon, at his most recent press briefing told media operatives that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
GPSU President, Patrick Yarde
GPSU President, Patrick Yarde
According to Dr Luncheon, although Yarde has the free will to tell the workers not to take the test, the administration would advise them to conform. “Why don’t you await - if it does occur - a resolution of these conflicting instructions from Patrick Yarde there… I suppose is their putative boss, or from the administration.
“We are talking here specifically about screening polygraphy. I think the gentleman might be somewhat confused about screening polygraphy and investigating polygraphy. We don’t need polygraphy to investigate…We have good people to investigate…for example the arson at the Ministry of Health.”
However, Dr Luncheon did note that it would be mandatory that persons entering the system be subjected to screening polygraphy in order for them to continue providing the service for which they were employed.
But according to Yarde, the response was only forthcoming sometime after the union’s pronouncement. According to him, “people had to go back to the drawing board. I know they would have had problems responding to us.”
Further, Yarde said that he has noticed that the response from the government side completely ignores the fact that they should lead by example. “They aren’t touching that. They seem to feel that they should not lead by example. They seem to believe they are above the law and can do anything and not be accountable.”
As such, the Union President noted that the government’s action suggests that there are different classes and privileges in the society.
Commenting on the recently concluded Robert Simels case, Yarde emphasised the fact that neither those who gave evidence or were convicted were forced to undertake polygraph tests. For this reason, he said that he will continue to be bothered by the fact that demands for the use of the polygraph test is mandated here.
The Union President had expressed his belief that there seems to be a conspiracy and even deliberate act by government to find ways and means to dismiss people randomly. Added to this state-of-affairs, Yarde had disclosed that it has been recognised that there is a double standard which must be analysed as it relates to the use of the test.
Citing specific cases, he highlighted that the GPSU has observed Government’s intent to arbitrarily use polygraph testing on those who are employed in the operational arm of the state as well as government agencies. And this unfolding situation is indeed a very serious one, he added.
As part of the new initiative, Yarde underscored that government has blatantly and immorally exempted holders of important public offices and policy makers, including government ministers and permanent secretaries from such tests. The exempted persons, the GPSU president said are required by oath to lawfully and faithfully discharge their functions with outstanding and unquestionable integrity.
Moreover, the GPSU President questioned why such individuals should not be required to be tested equally, given the fact that the regime holds the polygraph testing process and mechanism in high regard.
According to him given that there are many questions about the conduct of public office holders their innocence should also be determined by the tests.
Why are there so many sole bids?
Kaieteur News Letter to the Editor, Wednesday 26 August 2009 - "Why are there so many sole bids?" - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/08/26/why-are-there-so-many-sole-bids/
Dear Editor,
I note with amazement that quite recently, there have been a lot of single bids. It is as though there is a game going on in the tendering circle. It is as if the various contractors have marked off their territory.
I do not want to believe that things have reached the stage where Guyana has been partitioned into lots with various contractors having exclusive rights to certain tenders.
I do not want to believe that one contractor will have exclusive rights to sea defence works, another for road works, another for bridges, another for kokers, another for schools repairs, one for the construction of new schools, and one for hospitals. But this seems to be the case. If a contract pops for something they all seem to know that they should not compete against the other.
If this is the case then in some areas many have failed although given a free reign. The construction of the new Ministry on High Street is just an example. One got the job and cannot complete it. Perhaps this is why the contracts are so high so as to allow contractors a lot of latitude.
I say this because I noticed for some time that there is a single contractor for the roads programme. In the past there would be BK International and Courtney Benn Contracting Services. BK, with more equipment would do the major roads and Benn appeared to have the monopoly on the smaller roads like some in the city.
BK International also seems to have a monopoly on the sea defence projects these days although not so long ago there were others making a bid for such projects. But this could be understood since large projects demand a certain level of sophistication in equipment.
As an engineer I know and I have been coming to Guyana from time to time. I have visited projects and I have seen what happens, sometimes with sadness in my heart.
However, my major concern is about those projects that have to do with procurement. At one time the government would have done its own procurement and at a cheaper cost than to involve a middle man.
In every case, be it procurement for pump stations, public transport as we knew it then, equipment for the medical institutions and pharmaceuticals, the government kept a tight rein on these things. It sourced these things using the people in its employ. I lived in Guyana during those days.
The government procured generators for Guyana Power and Light as recently as a few months ago when it started its expansion programme. The new Kinston Power Station is just one case in point. The generators, when the nation was experiencing a serious generation shortfall, came in as a direct result of President Bharrat Jagdeo’s intervention. I follow these issues online.
I now wonder at the shift that allows a solitary bidder to import drainage components on behalf of the government. Only one person bids for those contracts - Harrychand Tulsie. Is it that he is the only person with access to the suppliers of drainage pumps?
Your newspaper was also able to access the suppliers, and Sir I hasten to say that I have been able to do the same with a query of my own. In these days of computers, the simple Google search engine affords anyone a chance to access suppliers in any part of the world.
As a friend jokingly told me, there must be only one pumper in Guyana. The government must explain why it relinquished procurement of such equipment. There is a procurement board. What are its functions?
Sadly, the government does not answer questions, but these are simple questions that should be answered.
Dexter Fordyce
Engineer and Guyanese
Belmont, Wisconsin
Dear Editor,
I note with amazement that quite recently, there have been a lot of single bids. It is as though there is a game going on in the tendering circle. It is as if the various contractors have marked off their territory.
I do not want to believe that things have reached the stage where Guyana has been partitioned into lots with various contractors having exclusive rights to certain tenders.
I do not want to believe that one contractor will have exclusive rights to sea defence works, another for road works, another for bridges, another for kokers, another for schools repairs, one for the construction of new schools, and one for hospitals. But this seems to be the case. If a contract pops for something they all seem to know that they should not compete against the other.
If this is the case then in some areas many have failed although given a free reign. The construction of the new Ministry on High Street is just an example. One got the job and cannot complete it. Perhaps this is why the contracts are so high so as to allow contractors a lot of latitude.
I say this because I noticed for some time that there is a single contractor for the roads programme. In the past there would be BK International and Courtney Benn Contracting Services. BK, with more equipment would do the major roads and Benn appeared to have the monopoly on the smaller roads like some in the city.
BK International also seems to have a monopoly on the sea defence projects these days although not so long ago there were others making a bid for such projects. But this could be understood since large projects demand a certain level of sophistication in equipment.
As an engineer I know and I have been coming to Guyana from time to time. I have visited projects and I have seen what happens, sometimes with sadness in my heart.
However, my major concern is about those projects that have to do with procurement. At one time the government would have done its own procurement and at a cheaper cost than to involve a middle man.
In every case, be it procurement for pump stations, public transport as we knew it then, equipment for the medical institutions and pharmaceuticals, the government kept a tight rein on these things. It sourced these things using the people in its employ. I lived in Guyana during those days.
The government procured generators for Guyana Power and Light as recently as a few months ago when it started its expansion programme. The new Kinston Power Station is just one case in point. The generators, when the nation was experiencing a serious generation shortfall, came in as a direct result of President Bharrat Jagdeo’s intervention. I follow these issues online.
I now wonder at the shift that allows a solitary bidder to import drainage components on behalf of the government. Only one person bids for those contracts - Harrychand Tulsie. Is it that he is the only person with access to the suppliers of drainage pumps?
Your newspaper was also able to access the suppliers, and Sir I hasten to say that I have been able to do the same with a query of my own. In these days of computers, the simple Google search engine affords anyone a chance to access suppliers in any part of the world.
As a friend jokingly told me, there must be only one pumper in Guyana. The government must explain why it relinquished procurement of such equipment. There is a procurement board. What are its functions?
Sadly, the government does not answer questions, but these are simple questions that should be answered.
Dexter Fordyce
Engineer and Guyanese
Belmont, Wisconsin
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
KNews given ‘run around’
KNews given ‘run around’
August 25, 2009 | By KNews | Filed Under News
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/08/25/knews-given-%e2%80%98run-around%e2%80%99/
The Ministry of Agriculture responded promptly to the front page photograph carried in our August 24 issue.
Kaieteur News commends the prompt response, said its management.
Noting this, though, the management is in puzzlement as to why the Agriculture Ministry has not seen it fit to respond in like manner to requests for a financial breakdown on all contracts being executed by the ministry, through the Agriculture Sector Development Unit (ASDU) and the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA).
For more than a month, according to its editor, this publication has simply asked the Chief Executive Officer of the NDIA, Lionel Wordsworth via email, for a breakdown of these multi-million dollar contracts.
Yet, to date, details of only two projects have been released—namely the $78.2 M Stanleytown Pump Station and the $154 million De Willem Sluice.
In the documents supplied to this newspaper by the NDIA for the De Willem Sluice, the Ministry did not release the engineer’s estimate of the project, but rather referred the reporter to the National Procurement and Tender Board for the engineer’s estimate.
The Tender Board has since told this newspaper that all documents relating to contracts are returned to the Ministry of Agriculture. Kaieteur News therefore is still awaiting the engineer’s estimate of that project.
Also on the list of which a breakdown has been requested for by this newspaper are the details of the Liliendaal Pumps that are being repaired at a cost of $76.2 million.
When this publication visited the site approximately one month ago, it was observed that one of the two pumps was in mint condition and was operational while the other with weathering, rust and gaping holes, was an eyesore.
When this newspaper spoke to a man at that site, he confirmed that the works were incomplete.
He said that some works had started and after the completion of the number two pump the works came to a halt to allow for the CARICOM Heads meeting.
As watchdogs for the taxpayers, the editor said, the newspaper awaits the financial breakdown of the works and costing for the pump.
It is also awaiting the workmanship costs as well. This is being done in the interest of ensuring value for money received, the editor said.
“Is that too much to ask of Mr. Minister and other officials?” the editor queried.
August 25, 2009 | By KNews | Filed Under News
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/08/25/knews-given-%e2%80%98run-around%e2%80%99/
The Ministry of Agriculture responded promptly to the front page photograph carried in our August 24 issue.
Kaieteur News commends the prompt response, said its management.
Noting this, though, the management is in puzzlement as to why the Agriculture Ministry has not seen it fit to respond in like manner to requests for a financial breakdown on all contracts being executed by the ministry, through the Agriculture Sector Development Unit (ASDU) and the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA).
For more than a month, according to its editor, this publication has simply asked the Chief Executive Officer of the NDIA, Lionel Wordsworth via email, for a breakdown of these multi-million dollar contracts.
Yet, to date, details of only two projects have been released—namely the $78.2 M Stanleytown Pump Station and the $154 million De Willem Sluice.
In the documents supplied to this newspaper by the NDIA for the De Willem Sluice, the Ministry did not release the engineer’s estimate of the project, but rather referred the reporter to the National Procurement and Tender Board for the engineer’s estimate.
The Tender Board has since told this newspaper that all documents relating to contracts are returned to the Ministry of Agriculture. Kaieteur News therefore is still awaiting the engineer’s estimate of that project.
Also on the list of which a breakdown has been requested for by this newspaper are the details of the Liliendaal Pumps that are being repaired at a cost of $76.2 million.
When this publication visited the site approximately one month ago, it was observed that one of the two pumps was in mint condition and was operational while the other with weathering, rust and gaping holes, was an eyesore.
When this newspaper spoke to a man at that site, he confirmed that the works were incomplete.
He said that some works had started and after the completion of the number two pump the works came to a halt to allow for the CARICOM Heads meeting.
As watchdogs for the taxpayers, the editor said, the newspaper awaits the financial breakdown of the works and costing for the pump.
It is also awaiting the workmanship costs as well. This is being done in the interest of ensuring value for money received, the editor said.
“Is that too much to ask of Mr. Minister and other officials?” the editor queried.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Parties join forces for gov’t accountability –to compile dossier on rights abuses
Simels trial revelations
Posted By Mark McGowan On August 8, 2009 @ 5:20 am In Local News | 22 Comments
Parties join forces for gov’t accountability –to compile dossier on rights abuses
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/08/08/simels-trial-revelations/
Recent revelations in a US court claiming links between members of the government and drug trafficker Shaheed Roger Khan have seen six political parties joining forces to sensitize international organizations on the matter and force greater accountability from the government.
The parties involved in this action are the Alliance for Change (AFC), Guyana Action Party (GAP), National Front Alliance (NFA), People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Unity Party and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA).
Robert Simels [1]
Robert Simels
At a press conference held yesterday at the Cara Lodge, the AFC was represented by its Leader Raphael Trotman, Party Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan and Executive Member Clayton Hall, GAP by Everall Franklin and the NFA by its Leader Keith Scott. Opposition Leader Robert Corbin represented the PNCR, while the WPA was represented by Executive Member Desmond Trotman and Co-Leader Dr Rupert Roopnaraine.
During the press conference, Trotman of the WPA said members of the political parties had met on Monday “to discuss the unfolding revelations in the Robert Simels trial in the federal court of New York, USA and the grave implications that such revelations may have for national security and good governance in Guyana.” At that meeting “it was agreed that a unified approach be activated to realize greater accountability, justice, res-pect for and observance of the rule of law and, generally, the establishment of good governance practices.”
Reading from a prepared statement, he said “the parties, have, accordingly agreed to compile a comprehensive dossier cataloguing the government’s human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings, torture and complicity with known organised crime gangs and narco traffickers and the resulting corruption in high office.” He said “the dossier upon completion will be submitted to local, regional and international bodies, including the courts with the appropriate jurisdiction and released to the media and the public.”
Trotman also said that “arrangements are also being put in place for the mounting of a robust public education campaign to alert our citizens of the lawlessness of the PPP/C government, since that is considered the single major obstacle to national cohesion, the development, peace and security in Guyana.”
And according to the statement, the campaign will be always conducted “on the basis of consensus and in accordance with the laws and the Constitution of Guyana.”
Raphael Trotman [2]
Raphael Trotman
Khemraj Ramjattan [3]
Khemraj Ramjattan
The statement also indicated the commitment of the parties to meetings with civil society organizations, including trade unions, professional associations, religious bodies and private sector organisations in this campaign.
In explaining the joint initiative, Roopnaraine said that it was a campaign that represented the belief that the combined energies of efforts of the parties would have a greater impact as opposed to single party operations.
Corbin said that he was prepared to work with all parties on this matter which was one of “national concern” since it affected all Guy-anese.
Fear and smear
Ramjattan stated that the reply of the government to these allegations was one of “fear and smear” and he opined that the combination of resources could produce a better counter to this campaign.
When the question about the purpose of sending the dossier to international agencies was raised, there were differing views as to what this would achieve. Raphael Trotman opined that while Guyanese need to solve the problems themselves, international bodies needed to be sensitized about the matter and made aware that there was a united effort being made by the opposition parties. He, however, emphasized that it was in no way begging the international organizations to come and fix the country’s problems.
Franklin opined that the problem needed to be solved with the present government’s involvement and he said that the government needed to be engaged.
But Corbin opined that there is limited hope that the government would facilitate an inquiry and the citizens of the country need to stand up and force the administration to accountability. He further stated that based on the administration’s behaviour, if the government conducted an independent inquiry by itself questions about its credibility will arise. Corbin said this was why the PNCR was calling for an international body like Interpol to conduct an investigation, although he said that this body may have its own limitations in how far it could intervene in such a matter. He argued that there were other human rights bodies and the International Criminal Court which could be explored. Corbin said he hoped that if the parties accumulated the right evidence, they could trigger some international body to carry out the investigations, as he pointed out that this had happened elsewhere.
Roopnaraine argued that the extent to which international bodies respond is dependent on the level of indignation that is demonstrated locally. He said that is why the parties will be teaming up to launch an aggressive education campaign, which he identified as being crucial until the requisite level of national indignation is achieved. The WPA leader said this campaign could include public meetings and civil society marches among other activities.
When asked specifically about the apparent shift in attitude regarding marches, Roopnaraine said the government has worked hard and overtime to criminalize street protests. This, he opined, was the case in 2001 and 2006 and he stated that the government kept linking protests with violence. He, however, emphasized that this initiative is one in the interest of peace.
Meanwhile, when quizzed about the legitimacy of the evidence, should Simels be acquitted by the US Court of the charges, the political leaders were adamant that the evidence would still be relevant.
The AFC’s Trotman said the evidence given was sworn testimony which only confirmed what persons locally already had some information about, a fact which Corbin supported.
Ramjattan contended that both the prosecution and defence have come up with evidence linking the Guyana government to Khan’s activities.
Trotman also opined that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have requested to see the files on certain matters and given advice for prosecution to be done here. He said that Khan’s decision to plead guilty had its own implications about what sort of activities went on locally adding that the will to prosecute is simply not here.
Surveillance equipment
The ‘spy machine’ yesterday at Police HQ, Eve Leary. In background, Top Cop Henry Greene is returning to his office. [4]
The ‘spy machine’
The leaders were also asked about their attempts to ascertain, firstly from the US government whether it gave permission for the shipment of the surveillance equipment and secondly from Smith Myers as to whom from the Guyana Government had given permission for this transaction.
In response, Raphael Trotman said that back in 2002, when he was a member of the PNCR, he was aware that the then PNCR Leader Desmond Hoyte had written to both the US government and Smith Myers requesting information but it was not provided. He said that Smith Myers acknowledged the request but said that it could not be answered for national security reasons.
However, he said the joint opposition will now make a fresh attempt to find this out from the relevant authorities.
Meanwhile, Ramjattan disclosed that the parties are currently trying to get from the Commissioner of Police information about Charles Chapman, who allegedly travelled to Guyana to train persons in the use of surveillance equipment. He said that they want to ascertain when he came to Guyana and how long he spent in the country. Ramjattan pointed out that immigration documentation should be able to supply this sort of information. Observers have noted that Chapman’s testimony could expose the entire conspiracy if he revealed who had handled his travel arrangements, who he had met while here and who he trained.
22 Comments (Open | Close)
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/08/08/simels-trial-revelations/
Posted By Mark McGowan On August 8, 2009 @ 5:20 am In Local News | 22 Comments
Parties join forces for gov’t accountability –to compile dossier on rights abuses
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/08/08/simels-trial-revelations/
Recent revelations in a US court claiming links between members of the government and drug trafficker Shaheed Roger Khan have seen six political parties joining forces to sensitize international organizations on the matter and force greater accountability from the government.
The parties involved in this action are the Alliance for Change (AFC), Guyana Action Party (GAP), National Front Alliance (NFA), People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Unity Party and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA).
Robert Simels [1]
Robert Simels
At a press conference held yesterday at the Cara Lodge, the AFC was represented by its Leader Raphael Trotman, Party Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan and Executive Member Clayton Hall, GAP by Everall Franklin and the NFA by its Leader Keith Scott. Opposition Leader Robert Corbin represented the PNCR, while the WPA was represented by Executive Member Desmond Trotman and Co-Leader Dr Rupert Roopnaraine.
During the press conference, Trotman of the WPA said members of the political parties had met on Monday “to discuss the unfolding revelations in the Robert Simels trial in the federal court of New York, USA and the grave implications that such revelations may have for national security and good governance in Guyana.” At that meeting “it was agreed that a unified approach be activated to realize greater accountability, justice, res-pect for and observance of the rule of law and, generally, the establishment of good governance practices.”
Reading from a prepared statement, he said “the parties, have, accordingly agreed to compile a comprehensive dossier cataloguing the government’s human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings, torture and complicity with known organised crime gangs and narco traffickers and the resulting corruption in high office.” He said “the dossier upon completion will be submitted to local, regional and international bodies, including the courts with the appropriate jurisdiction and released to the media and the public.”
Trotman also said that “arrangements are also being put in place for the mounting of a robust public education campaign to alert our citizens of the lawlessness of the PPP/C government, since that is considered the single major obstacle to national cohesion, the development, peace and security in Guyana.”
And according to the statement, the campaign will be always conducted “on the basis of consensus and in accordance with the laws and the Constitution of Guyana.”
Raphael Trotman [2]
Raphael Trotman
Khemraj Ramjattan [3]
Khemraj Ramjattan
The statement also indicated the commitment of the parties to meetings with civil society organizations, including trade unions, professional associations, religious bodies and private sector organisations in this campaign.
In explaining the joint initiative, Roopnaraine said that it was a campaign that represented the belief that the combined energies of efforts of the parties would have a greater impact as opposed to single party operations.
Corbin said that he was prepared to work with all parties on this matter which was one of “national concern” since it affected all Guy-anese.
Fear and smear
Ramjattan stated that the reply of the government to these allegations was one of “fear and smear” and he opined that the combination of resources could produce a better counter to this campaign.
When the question about the purpose of sending the dossier to international agencies was raised, there were differing views as to what this would achieve. Raphael Trotman opined that while Guyanese need to solve the problems themselves, international bodies needed to be sensitized about the matter and made aware that there was a united effort being made by the opposition parties. He, however, emphasized that it was in no way begging the international organizations to come and fix the country’s problems.
Franklin opined that the problem needed to be solved with the present government’s involvement and he said that the government needed to be engaged.
But Corbin opined that there is limited hope that the government would facilitate an inquiry and the citizens of the country need to stand up and force the administration to accountability. He further stated that based on the administration’s behaviour, if the government conducted an independent inquiry by itself questions about its credibility will arise. Corbin said this was why the PNCR was calling for an international body like Interpol to conduct an investigation, although he said that this body may have its own limitations in how far it could intervene in such a matter. He argued that there were other human rights bodies and the International Criminal Court which could be explored. Corbin said he hoped that if the parties accumulated the right evidence, they could trigger some international body to carry out the investigations, as he pointed out that this had happened elsewhere.
Roopnaraine argued that the extent to which international bodies respond is dependent on the level of indignation that is demonstrated locally. He said that is why the parties will be teaming up to launch an aggressive education campaign, which he identified as being crucial until the requisite level of national indignation is achieved. The WPA leader said this campaign could include public meetings and civil society marches among other activities.
When asked specifically about the apparent shift in attitude regarding marches, Roopnaraine said the government has worked hard and overtime to criminalize street protests. This, he opined, was the case in 2001 and 2006 and he stated that the government kept linking protests with violence. He, however, emphasized that this initiative is one in the interest of peace.
Meanwhile, when quizzed about the legitimacy of the evidence, should Simels be acquitted by the US Court of the charges, the political leaders were adamant that the evidence would still be relevant.
The AFC’s Trotman said the evidence given was sworn testimony which only confirmed what persons locally already had some information about, a fact which Corbin supported.
Ramjattan contended that both the prosecution and defence have come up with evidence linking the Guyana government to Khan’s activities.
Trotman also opined that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have requested to see the files on certain matters and given advice for prosecution to be done here. He said that Khan’s decision to plead guilty had its own implications about what sort of activities went on locally adding that the will to prosecute is simply not here.
Surveillance equipment
The ‘spy machine’ yesterday at Police HQ, Eve Leary. In background, Top Cop Henry Greene is returning to his office. [4]
The ‘spy machine’
The leaders were also asked about their attempts to ascertain, firstly from the US government whether it gave permission for the shipment of the surveillance equipment and secondly from Smith Myers as to whom from the Guyana Government had given permission for this transaction.
In response, Raphael Trotman said that back in 2002, when he was a member of the PNCR, he was aware that the then PNCR Leader Desmond Hoyte had written to both the US government and Smith Myers requesting information but it was not provided. He said that Smith Myers acknowledged the request but said that it could not be answered for national security reasons.
However, he said the joint opposition will now make a fresh attempt to find this out from the relevant authorities.
Meanwhile, Ramjattan disclosed that the parties are currently trying to get from the Commissioner of Police information about Charles Chapman, who allegedly travelled to Guyana to train persons in the use of surveillance equipment. He said that they want to ascertain when he came to Guyana and how long he spent in the country. Ramjattan pointed out that immigration documentation should be able to supply this sort of information. Observers have noted that Chapman’s testimony could expose the entire conspiracy if he revealed who had handled his travel arrangements, who he had met while here and who he trained.
22 Comments (Open | Close)
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/08/08/simels-trial-revelations/
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Wesley Kirton writes US AG on Simels trial disclosures
Wesley Kirton writes US AG on Simels trial disclosures
Posted By Stabroek staff On August 5, 2009 @ 5:12 am In Local News | 8 Comments
US-based journalist and public relations practitioner Wesley Kirton and other Guyanese Americans have written to US Attorney General Eric Holder outlining concerns about “several aspects of the link between the US and Guyana, regarding the drug trafficking activities and subsequent investigations of confessed Guyana drug lord, Shaheed Roger Khan.”
According to the signatories, this action was undertaken in the pursuit of truth and is based on an unyielding commitment to a non-partisan approach to criminal justice that is beyond politics, race and ideology.
Among the objectives was to invite Holder to take “whatever action you think is warranted to determine whether the claims by the Guyana Government are valid, thereby necessitating some corrective action regarding the methodologies engaged by US law enforcement in pursuing drug traffickers, or alternatively, exposing the deliberate distortion of the truth on the part of the Government of Guyana.”
According to the signatories, the claims by the Guyana Government challenge the credibility of “US law enforcement agencies and have the potential of undermining broad public confidence in, and support for, international cooperation in the fight against the traffic in illegal drugs and money laundering.”
In the letter, the issue of the “sophisticated surveillance equipment” was raised. “The issue which brings the credibility of US law enforcement into greater question is the claim by the Government of Guyana that it has this equipment in its possession, having seized it some years ago from the confessed drug lord.”
“The question of possession of the equipment is important since this will help to determine whether the Guyana Government handed the equipment back to the drug lord after having seized it, whether there was more than one of this particular equipment, and if so, whether these sales were authorized by the US government” , the letter added.
The signatories said that “we know of no effort, nor would we be part of any activities designed to undermine and ultimately remove the Government of Guyana. The Government of Guyana is the legitimately elected government of the country and any change must come either through the ballot box, or the government’s own recognition of its lack of the moral authority to lead and its consequent resignation.”
The other signatories of the letter were George Lyking, Mike Singh, James Deosarran, Margaret Buckmire, Faye July, Gary Lam, John De Caires, M.A Gordon, Leslie Prince, D. Mitchell and Bertie Jadharry.
8 Comments (Open | Close)
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/08/05/wesley-kirton-writes-us-ag-on-simels-trial-disclosures/
Posted By Stabroek staff On August 5, 2009 @ 5:12 am In Local News | 8 Comments
US-based journalist and public relations practitioner Wesley Kirton and other Guyanese Americans have written to US Attorney General Eric Holder outlining concerns about “several aspects of the link between the US and Guyana, regarding the drug trafficking activities and subsequent investigations of confessed Guyana drug lord, Shaheed Roger Khan.”
According to the signatories, this action was undertaken in the pursuit of truth and is based on an unyielding commitment to a non-partisan approach to criminal justice that is beyond politics, race and ideology.
Among the objectives was to invite Holder to take “whatever action you think is warranted to determine whether the claims by the Guyana Government are valid, thereby necessitating some corrective action regarding the methodologies engaged by US law enforcement in pursuing drug traffickers, or alternatively, exposing the deliberate distortion of the truth on the part of the Government of Guyana.”
According to the signatories, the claims by the Guyana Government challenge the credibility of “US law enforcement agencies and have the potential of undermining broad public confidence in, and support for, international cooperation in the fight against the traffic in illegal drugs and money laundering.”
In the letter, the issue of the “sophisticated surveillance equipment” was raised. “The issue which brings the credibility of US law enforcement into greater question is the claim by the Government of Guyana that it has this equipment in its possession, having seized it some years ago from the confessed drug lord.”
“The question of possession of the equipment is important since this will help to determine whether the Guyana Government handed the equipment back to the drug lord after having seized it, whether there was more than one of this particular equipment, and if so, whether these sales were authorized by the US government” , the letter added.
The signatories said that “we know of no effort, nor would we be part of any activities designed to undermine and ultimately remove the Government of Guyana. The Government of Guyana is the legitimately elected government of the country and any change must come either through the ballot box, or the government’s own recognition of its lack of the moral authority to lead and its consequent resignation.”
The other signatories of the letter were George Lyking, Mike Singh, James Deosarran, Margaret Buckmire, Faye July, Gary Lam, John De Caires, M.A Gordon, Leslie Prince, D. Mitchell and Bertie Jadharry.
8 Comments (Open | Close)
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/08/05/wesley-kirton-writes-us-ag-on-simels-trial-disclosures/
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
It is never ‘okay’ for governments to act illegally
It is never ‘okay’ for governments to act illegally
Posted By Stabroek staff On August 4, 2009 @ 5:08 am In Letters | 9 Comments
Dear Editor,
The Minister of Health has accused certain sections of the media of sensationalizing the revelations made by Selwyn Vaughn during his recent testimony in a New York court. He is obviously incapable of recognizing a sensational story when he sees one. This is not something that the media made up. This is a case where a witness in a court of law is describing, under oath, details of actual murders committed in our country allegedly ordered by a local drug lord.
The Minister shows his contempt for the Guyanese people by suggesting to local journalists that this is not a story they should be pursuing. What he really means is that the Guyanese public should be denied the details of Vaughn’s testimony and the local media should not attempt to determine its accuracy. He would do well in North Korea.
The President has also been speaking his mind, claiming not to lose any sleep when rival criminal gangs execute each other’s members with no innocent loss of life. Neither do I. However, I do lose sleep when the authorities just sit back and allow this to take place. I lose even more sleep when I realize that this might be their master-plan.
There are increasing indications that certain senior Government officials went a step further and collaborated with criminal gangs. For those who feel this was okay I wish to draw a comparison with those who, by an equally convoluted logic, felt it was okay for the government to rig elections back in the seventies. It is never ‘okay’ for governments to act illegally.
A government that does so forfeits the moral authority necessary to maintain law and order, resulting in lawlessness at all levels within the society and its national institutions. This is already clear to see in Guyana.
Finally, in response to the testimony emerging from the Simels trial, the AFC decided it would not attend parliament last Thursday. Former minister Ms Gail Texeira during a lop-sided panel discussion aired on NCN TV over the weekend remarked that the AFC is an outgrowth of the PNC. This was immediately followed by an accusation from Dr Roger Luncheon that the AFC is attempting to provoke violent demonstrations by engaging in “extra-parliamentary” activities.
This was a desperate attempt to discredit the AFC by using the threat of violence and linking it to that violence. The fact is that the AFC has succeeded in drawing moderate supporters from both the PNC and PPP.
The bulk of AFC membership and support, however, come from Guyanese not affiliated with either of these two parties but sufficiently disgusted with the way in which they have allowed their political rivalry to take precedence over national development.
Both the PPP and the PNC have engaged in and been associated with acts of violence in the past. The AFC has not.
Yours faithfully,
Dominic Gaskin
9 Comments (Open | Close)
9 Comments To "It is never ‘okay’ for governments to act illegally"
#1 Comment By gap1 On August 4, 2009 @ 7:12 am
AFC attracts bright, independent-minded Guyanese who have the ability to use their own minds and draw their own conclusions, who are guided by qa sense of fairness and justice and who love their country, enough to even be critical of the AFC as indeed they have been when criticism was merited.
PPP and PNC gets the party hacks who it seems forever, would have to keep defending their party’s wrong-doings which has been getting more and more difficult to do while maintaining any semblance of decency and credibility.
Good luck for Guyana, more and more Guyanese are getting tired of the same of old party-line. The future of Guyana lies with the AFC.
#2 Comment By bull$%^& detector On August 4, 2009 @ 7:50 am
It was a civil war …the police and army could not be trusted. A legitimately elected government was under siege by a politically backed force of criminals calling themselves freedom fighters. They had no other choice. Maybe some innocent people died on both sides but that is what happens in wars. Maybe the wrong kinds of people were hired to do the killings on both sides. There are no innocent parties here.
Now everyone get over it. This is not a part of Guyana’s history anyone can be proud of but I don’t feel putting this government on trial for this is helpful.
#3 Comment By Reddy in Barabdos On August 4, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Let’s get real here. The AFC didn’t garner votes from the PNC in last election ? Who are we trying to fool here, Mr. Gaskin ?
The “Witness” in the so called revelations ? Wasn’t he chaged with fraud in Guyana and will now live his days happilly ever at the expense of the US taxpayers for turncoat “singing” at the hearing ?
#4 Comment By coolieman On August 4, 2009 @ 10:22 am
The AFC Trotman was with the PNC during the crime wave and there were allegations that the PNC were supporting the FREE-DUMB fighters, being that Trotman is the leader of the AFC it is not fair to disassociate the AFC from acts of violence.
#5 Comment By amen-ra [jackass seh de world na level] On August 4, 2009 @ 10:51 am
what civil war you talking about, it was the criminal fighting for their drug turf, and the govt got in and helped the criminals by giving them free range to do whatever they wanted to do.
#6 Comment By gap1 On August 4, 2009 @ 11:42 am
You left out Ramjattan from the PPP and Holder from the WPA. Seems like the rest of us, just plain ol’ fed up with racial politics…
#7 Comment By bull$%^& detector On August 4, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
19 policemen shot dead…in hit jobs…an attempt to assassinate the cabinet after the PPP meeting in Berbice. The video of the Freedom Fighter addressing the nation like Osama bin Laden…the attacks on neighboring villages to Buxton killing people randomly only because they were Indian. Need i go on? This was a civil war and the government engaged a drug dealer to fight for them because they could not trust the police and army. Was it right? War ain’t pretty. And i think we just need to leave it alone. Lets go after the government for other things -corruption, incompetence etc – but not
for this.
#8 Comment By Gerhard On August 4, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Labelling by association – how puerile. Trotman while in the PNC called for the PNC to apologise for the past in an effort toward healing and reconciliation. How conveniently you forget this coolieman.
While I was still active in the PPP Raph never ‘passed me straight’, nor did he ever have an unkind word to say. For us, younger politicians, we have time on our side to prove that we have remained true to our principles regardless of where we came from.
The AFC has unequivocally condemned ALL the killings in Guyana. Here is how we would have done things differently: [1]
For those of us with short memories, Ramjattan while in the PPP, called for deep and urgent reform of the disciplined forces and for this (which he had put in writing) he was censured by Freedom House in 1993. His prophetic words fell on deaf ears.
The AFC is keenly aware of the security issues in Guyana and is the only party with a plan.
Who, coolieman, was the party in power for 17 years that has done little to ameliorate the security situation in Guyana? You mean the PNC is still to blame for this? Isn’t it a convenient truth to those in power that when there is violence inflicted on their supporters that they emotionally come running to the Cup? Who continues to exploit this?!
#9 Comment By pepie On August 4, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Coolieman why know mention of where Ramjattan was during the the crime period before the AFC was formed. Moderate do you see the coded post. This is what has Guyana in this position. So much can be say about the top three position in the AFC but coolieman choose only to attacked Raphael. This is the same reason why Roger took advantage of our divided society.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/08/04/it-is-never-%e2%80%98okay%e2%80%99-for-governments-to-act-illegally/
Posted By Stabroek staff On August 4, 2009 @ 5:08 am In Letters | 9 Comments
Dear Editor,
The Minister of Health has accused certain sections of the media of sensationalizing the revelations made by Selwyn Vaughn during his recent testimony in a New York court. He is obviously incapable of recognizing a sensational story when he sees one. This is not something that the media made up. This is a case where a witness in a court of law is describing, under oath, details of actual murders committed in our country allegedly ordered by a local drug lord.
The Minister shows his contempt for the Guyanese people by suggesting to local journalists that this is not a story they should be pursuing. What he really means is that the Guyanese public should be denied the details of Vaughn’s testimony and the local media should not attempt to determine its accuracy. He would do well in North Korea.
The President has also been speaking his mind, claiming not to lose any sleep when rival criminal gangs execute each other’s members with no innocent loss of life. Neither do I. However, I do lose sleep when the authorities just sit back and allow this to take place. I lose even more sleep when I realize that this might be their master-plan.
There are increasing indications that certain senior Government officials went a step further and collaborated with criminal gangs. For those who feel this was okay I wish to draw a comparison with those who, by an equally convoluted logic, felt it was okay for the government to rig elections back in the seventies. It is never ‘okay’ for governments to act illegally.
A government that does so forfeits the moral authority necessary to maintain law and order, resulting in lawlessness at all levels within the society and its national institutions. This is already clear to see in Guyana.
Finally, in response to the testimony emerging from the Simels trial, the AFC decided it would not attend parliament last Thursday. Former minister Ms Gail Texeira during a lop-sided panel discussion aired on NCN TV over the weekend remarked that the AFC is an outgrowth of the PNC. This was immediately followed by an accusation from Dr Roger Luncheon that the AFC is attempting to provoke violent demonstrations by engaging in “extra-parliamentary” activities.
This was a desperate attempt to discredit the AFC by using the threat of violence and linking it to that violence. The fact is that the AFC has succeeded in drawing moderate supporters from both the PNC and PPP.
The bulk of AFC membership and support, however, come from Guyanese not affiliated with either of these two parties but sufficiently disgusted with the way in which they have allowed their political rivalry to take precedence over national development.
Both the PPP and the PNC have engaged in and been associated with acts of violence in the past. The AFC has not.
Yours faithfully,
Dominic Gaskin
9 Comments (Open | Close)
9 Comments To "It is never ‘okay’ for governments to act illegally"
#1 Comment By gap1 On August 4, 2009 @ 7:12 am
AFC attracts bright, independent-minded Guyanese who have the ability to use their own minds and draw their own conclusions, who are guided by qa sense of fairness and justice and who love their country, enough to even be critical of the AFC as indeed they have been when criticism was merited.
PPP and PNC gets the party hacks who it seems forever, would have to keep defending their party’s wrong-doings which has been getting more and more difficult to do while maintaining any semblance of decency and credibility.
Good luck for Guyana, more and more Guyanese are getting tired of the same of old party-line. The future of Guyana lies with the AFC.
#2 Comment By bull$%^& detector On August 4, 2009 @ 7:50 am
It was a civil war …the police and army could not be trusted. A legitimately elected government was under siege by a politically backed force of criminals calling themselves freedom fighters. They had no other choice. Maybe some innocent people died on both sides but that is what happens in wars. Maybe the wrong kinds of people were hired to do the killings on both sides. There are no innocent parties here.
Now everyone get over it. This is not a part of Guyana’s history anyone can be proud of but I don’t feel putting this government on trial for this is helpful.
#3 Comment By Reddy in Barabdos On August 4, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Let’s get real here. The AFC didn’t garner votes from the PNC in last election ? Who are we trying to fool here, Mr. Gaskin ?
The “Witness” in the so called revelations ? Wasn’t he chaged with fraud in Guyana and will now live his days happilly ever at the expense of the US taxpayers for turncoat “singing” at the hearing ?
#4 Comment By coolieman On August 4, 2009 @ 10:22 am
The AFC Trotman was with the PNC during the crime wave and there were allegations that the PNC were supporting the FREE-DUMB fighters, being that Trotman is the leader of the AFC it is not fair to disassociate the AFC from acts of violence.
#5 Comment By amen-ra [jackass seh de world na level] On August 4, 2009 @ 10:51 am
what civil war you talking about, it was the criminal fighting for their drug turf, and the govt got in and helped the criminals by giving them free range to do whatever they wanted to do.
#6 Comment By gap1 On August 4, 2009 @ 11:42 am
You left out Ramjattan from the PPP and Holder from the WPA. Seems like the rest of us, just plain ol’ fed up with racial politics…
#7 Comment By bull$%^& detector On August 4, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
19 policemen shot dead…in hit jobs…an attempt to assassinate the cabinet after the PPP meeting in Berbice. The video of the Freedom Fighter addressing the nation like Osama bin Laden…the attacks on neighboring villages to Buxton killing people randomly only because they were Indian. Need i go on? This was a civil war and the government engaged a drug dealer to fight for them because they could not trust the police and army. Was it right? War ain’t pretty. And i think we just need to leave it alone. Lets go after the government for other things -corruption, incompetence etc – but not
for this.
#8 Comment By Gerhard On August 4, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Labelling by association – how puerile. Trotman while in the PNC called for the PNC to apologise for the past in an effort toward healing and reconciliation. How conveniently you forget this coolieman.
While I was still active in the PPP Raph never ‘passed me straight’, nor did he ever have an unkind word to say. For us, younger politicians, we have time on our side to prove that we have remained true to our principles regardless of where we came from.
The AFC has unequivocally condemned ALL the killings in Guyana. Here is how we would have done things differently: [1]
For those of us with short memories, Ramjattan while in the PPP, called for deep and urgent reform of the disciplined forces and for this (which he had put in writing) he was censured by Freedom House in 1993. His prophetic words fell on deaf ears.
The AFC is keenly aware of the security issues in Guyana and is the only party with a plan.
Who, coolieman, was the party in power for 17 years that has done little to ameliorate the security situation in Guyana? You mean the PNC is still to blame for this? Isn’t it a convenient truth to those in power that when there is violence inflicted on their supporters that they emotionally come running to the Cup? Who continues to exploit this?!
#9 Comment By pepie On August 4, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Coolieman why know mention of where Ramjattan was during the the crime period before the AFC was formed. Moderate do you see the coded post. This is what has Guyana in this position. So much can be say about the top three position in the AFC but coolieman choose only to attacked Raphael. This is the same reason why Roger took advantage of our divided society.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/08/04/it-is-never-%e2%80%98okay%e2%80%99-for-governments-to-act-illegally/
Monday, July 27, 2009
Full-time MPs needed for parliament oversight - Carberry
Stabroek News news item, Monday 27 July 2009 - "Full-time MPs needed for parliament oversight - Carberry" - http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/07/27/full-time-mps-needed-for-parliament-oversight-carberry/
Full-time MPs are needed for effective parliamentary oversight, Opposition Chief Whip Lance Carberry says.
Addressing a working session of the 34th Annual Regional Conference of the Caribbean, the Americas and the Atlantic Region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), at the Guyana Inter-national Conference Centre, recently, Carberry said the evolution of a vibrant committee system in Guyana has demonstrated the need for Members of Parliament to function almost on a full-time basis. “The reality is that the establishment of the committee system has proven to be very challenging, since like in most Caribbean territories they operate on a part-time basis,” he explained. “This is obviously a matter which must be confronted if the system is to allow the National Assembly to exercise an effective oversight function.” Full-time MPs had been previously called for by Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran.
In a presentation on “Strengthening Parliaments within the Region,” Carberry emphasised the importance of strengthening institutional capacity, systems and procedures which “promote effective oversight” of the executive and “ensure their accountability” to the people. He said the ultimate objective is good governance, underpinned by the observation of the rule of law. He recalled US President’s Barack Obama’s recent address to the Ghanaian parliament, where it was noted that “capable, reliable and transparent” institutions are the key to success, including strong parliaments, honest police forces, independent judges, an independent press, a vibrant private sector and a civil society.
In this regard, Carberry noted that constitutional reforms have strengthened Guyana’s parliamentary system, particularly in the area of the promotion of good governance. He noted the constitutional reforms ushered in by the Herdmanston Accord and the St. Lucia Agreement, and in particular the advent of Article 13, which speaks to the establishment of an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the state. “This is of tremendous importance,” Carberry added, “And a major challenge for the delivery of governance in Guyana.”
But he added that evaluating the success of the reforms would depend on the expeditious implementation of the constitutional changes, paying particular attention to the spirit and intention of the reforms. He pointed out that it is not enough to establish committees that are “not endowed with the resources and institutional support” to enable them to discharge their mandates effectively.
Carberry added that it is “inconsistent” with the idea of “separation of powers” for any legislature to be a “budget agency” under the executive. “The legislature ought to be independent and therefore… ought to make decisions which in fact promote the development of the legislative system,” he added, “And because the legislative system has the responsibility for oversight, and ensuring that governments are accountable, it is very important that they are independent of the executive, I don’t think there is any arguing about that.”
‘Filibuster’
A number of issues related to the autonomy of the parliament, including its staffing and its budget, are still before a select committee reviewing the major recommendations of the Sir Michael Davies needs assessment and the World Bank-funded Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project report for implementation. The Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project Final Framework and Guidelines Report had recommended that the Parliament employ its own staff and that the Speaker should appoint the Clerk after consultations with all parties. A similar recommendation for the Parliament to have control of its staffing had also been made in the assessment by Sir Michael Davies. Both studies were conducted during the seventh and eighth parliaments and major reforms were adopted by the National Assembly.
The committee, which has an extended deadline of August this year, is currently examining the mechanism through which the Parliament Office would begin to employ its own staff. The special select committee was also charged by the Assembly with examining the current constitutional arrangement for the appointment of the Clerk and advising whether there is need for a change and what it should be. The committee was appointed by a resolution of the Assembly, dated January 11, 2007.
The delay in completing the committee’s work has prompted criticism that the government is filibustering. PNCR-1G MP Winston Murray said in a recent interview that the committee meets infrequently and the government members have said “unofficially” that they are not prepared to give up control. “What they want to do is to reopen the issue,” he explained, saying that the committee has no such mandate since the National Assembly has already adopted the recommendation and agreed to implementation. “We are past that mandate, we are past that point, we are [there] to decide how we may achieve that objective and what recommendations we want to put to the National Assembly and also to recommend any constitutional changes that may be necessary,” Murray added.
A senior government official whom this newspaper approached emphasised that the committee work takes time and that costs were also a concern of the administration that needed to be addressed. Also, officially the government has said while it agrees to the recommendation that the Parliament be in control of its own budget, it is concerned that “control by the parliament does not threaten the integrity of the Government’s established mechanisms for ensuring responsible fiscal management.”
Sir Michael had found that the Assembly has no power to appoint, dismiss or promote the staff that works for it; rather, it is the function of the Public Service Commission. Sir Michael called it “astonishing,” saying it could lead to “undesirable consequences.” He noted that some staff had not had their appointments confirmed after several years in the post, despite several letters from the Clerk asking for their appointment to be confirmed. Additionally, he had found that half the staff had been employed on a temporary basis.
The Government has identified improvement of Fiduciary Oversight as an important aspect of its work on development of good governance. Thirty recommendations for improving fiduciary oversight through strengthening of the National Assembly, the Financial Sector and the Integrity Commission were adopted by stakeholders for implementation.
As a result, the reforms aimed to strengthen the National Assembly as a Fiduciary Oversight body, through capacity building for special committees, including the Public Accounts and Economic Service Commit-tees and the Management Committee of Parliament.
Full-time MPs are needed for effective parliamentary oversight, Opposition Chief Whip Lance Carberry says.
Addressing a working session of the 34th Annual Regional Conference of the Caribbean, the Americas and the Atlantic Region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), at the Guyana Inter-national Conference Centre, recently, Carberry said the evolution of a vibrant committee system in Guyana has demonstrated the need for Members of Parliament to function almost on a full-time basis. “The reality is that the establishment of the committee system has proven to be very challenging, since like in most Caribbean territories they operate on a part-time basis,” he explained. “This is obviously a matter which must be confronted if the system is to allow the National Assembly to exercise an effective oversight function.” Full-time MPs had been previously called for by Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran.
In a presentation on “Strengthening Parliaments within the Region,” Carberry emphasised the importance of strengthening institutional capacity, systems and procedures which “promote effective oversight” of the executive and “ensure their accountability” to the people. He said the ultimate objective is good governance, underpinned by the observation of the rule of law. He recalled US President’s Barack Obama’s recent address to the Ghanaian parliament, where it was noted that “capable, reliable and transparent” institutions are the key to success, including strong parliaments, honest police forces, independent judges, an independent press, a vibrant private sector and a civil society.
In this regard, Carberry noted that constitutional reforms have strengthened Guyana’s parliamentary system, particularly in the area of the promotion of good governance. He noted the constitutional reforms ushered in by the Herdmanston Accord and the St. Lucia Agreement, and in particular the advent of Article 13, which speaks to the establishment of an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the state. “This is of tremendous importance,” Carberry added, “And a major challenge for the delivery of governance in Guyana.”
But he added that evaluating the success of the reforms would depend on the expeditious implementation of the constitutional changes, paying particular attention to the spirit and intention of the reforms. He pointed out that it is not enough to establish committees that are “not endowed with the resources and institutional support” to enable them to discharge their mandates effectively.
Carberry added that it is “inconsistent” with the idea of “separation of powers” for any legislature to be a “budget agency” under the executive. “The legislature ought to be independent and therefore… ought to make decisions which in fact promote the development of the legislative system,” he added, “And because the legislative system has the responsibility for oversight, and ensuring that governments are accountable, it is very important that they are independent of the executive, I don’t think there is any arguing about that.”
‘Filibuster’
A number of issues related to the autonomy of the parliament, including its staffing and its budget, are still before a select committee reviewing the major recommendations of the Sir Michael Davies needs assessment and the World Bank-funded Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project report for implementation. The Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project Final Framework and Guidelines Report had recommended that the Parliament employ its own staff and that the Speaker should appoint the Clerk after consultations with all parties. A similar recommendation for the Parliament to have control of its staffing had also been made in the assessment by Sir Michael Davies. Both studies were conducted during the seventh and eighth parliaments and major reforms were adopted by the National Assembly.
The committee, which has an extended deadline of August this year, is currently examining the mechanism through which the Parliament Office would begin to employ its own staff. The special select committee was also charged by the Assembly with examining the current constitutional arrangement for the appointment of the Clerk and advising whether there is need for a change and what it should be. The committee was appointed by a resolution of the Assembly, dated January 11, 2007.
The delay in completing the committee’s work has prompted criticism that the government is filibustering. PNCR-1G MP Winston Murray said in a recent interview that the committee meets infrequently and the government members have said “unofficially” that they are not prepared to give up control. “What they want to do is to reopen the issue,” he explained, saying that the committee has no such mandate since the National Assembly has already adopted the recommendation and agreed to implementation. “We are past that mandate, we are past that point, we are [there] to decide how we may achieve that objective and what recommendations we want to put to the National Assembly and also to recommend any constitutional changes that may be necessary,” Murray added.
A senior government official whom this newspaper approached emphasised that the committee work takes time and that costs were also a concern of the administration that needed to be addressed. Also, officially the government has said while it agrees to the recommendation that the Parliament be in control of its own budget, it is concerned that “control by the parliament does not threaten the integrity of the Government’s established mechanisms for ensuring responsible fiscal management.”
Sir Michael had found that the Assembly has no power to appoint, dismiss or promote the staff that works for it; rather, it is the function of the Public Service Commission. Sir Michael called it “astonishing,” saying it could lead to “undesirable consequences.” He noted that some staff had not had their appointments confirmed after several years in the post, despite several letters from the Clerk asking for their appointment to be confirmed. Additionally, he had found that half the staff had been employed on a temporary basis.
The Government has identified improvement of Fiduciary Oversight as an important aspect of its work on development of good governance. Thirty recommendations for improving fiduciary oversight through strengthening of the National Assembly, the Financial Sector and the Integrity Commission were adopted by stakeholders for implementation.
As a result, the reforms aimed to strengthen the National Assembly as a Fiduciary Oversight body, through capacity building for special committees, including the Public Accounts and Economic Service Commit-tees and the Management Committee of Parliament.
Hypocrisy?
Hypocrisy?
Posted By Stabroek staff On July 26, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 11 Comments
Events in the Co-operative Republic are taking a sinister turn. If it wasn’t bad enough that the Ministry of Health was destroyed by arsonists, we now have the mysterious death of David Leander, called ‘Biscuit’ in a public hospital, and the torture of Mr Troy Small by a group of persons unknown, one of whom he alleges, was in GDF uniform. And this, it has been reported, was because the torturers seemed to think that Mr Small was in some way connected to the Ministry of Health fire. From the video footage shown on the local newscasts, his injuries looked horrendous, and even the most uninformed citizen would have no difficulty in concluding that he should have been admitted to hospital. But at this point Mr Small won’t go to the Georgetown Public Hospital for treatment because, this newspaper was told, he is afraid. And why shouldn’t he be, considering what has happened to him and given that there are unanswered questions surrounding Mr Leander’s death – and, it might be added, the earlier one of phantom squad member, Mr Mark Thomas, also in the GPH.
In fact, Mr Small is even nervous about seeking in-patient treatment at a private hospital. That too is understandable, since which institution public or private could guarantee his safety in these times? He has now reached the stage where he is afraid to speak further to the media, and what this newspaper learned had to be gleaned from a relative. It is testimony to the extent of the decline in the rule of law that those charged with protecting us not only lack the capacity to do so, but harbour some among their ranks who themselves constitute a real danger to citizens’ safety.
In this particular instance, the police have said they had nothing to do with dragging Mr Small while he was half out of a vehicle, and beating him in an attempt to extract a ‘confession.’ The finger, it seems, has again been pointed at the army. If the GDF was indeed in any way connected with this torture, it would not be the first time, since there have been allegations previously involving the torture of their own ranks as well as of civilians.
The first thing, therefore, that the government has to clarify is exactly who was involved in the torture of Mr Small. Was it only members of the army, and if so, how come they took it upon themselves to arrest a citizen in the course of an investigation when they have no powers to do so? If only one (or some) member (or members) of the army was present, then who were the other men dressed in mufti? Were they plain clothes ranks from the police force? If they were, it would legitimize the apprehension of Mr Small, but certainly not his treatment. And if there were persons there who were not from the military or the police, just who were they? Are we back to private forces operating outside the law? The identity of Mr Small’s torturers, among other things, is a matter of immediate concern to the citizenry, and if the government seeks to restore any of its credibility, it needs to ensure that the public receives answers and that appropriate action is taken thereafter.
The identity of the torturers should also be a matter of immediate concern to the hierarchy of the GDF, since it is hard to imagine that the senior officer corps could possibly condone torture committed by any of their personnel. If they do not, but it turns out that in defiance of orders there are men under their command who are guilty of it, then it suggests they might not be fully in control of the force. If they are fully in control, then they should investigate these allegations right away. If, however, there are persons at work inside the military who are answering to elements outside the military, then Commander Best and his team have a problem, and so does the public in general. A fragmented army is one which ultimately will not be subject to central control, with all that that implies. And an army which becomes associated with torture at the very least will lose respect, will suffer a decline in morale and will be ill-equipped to do the job it is supposed to do.
Unfortunately the government has a very poor record in terms of addressing the nation’s questions about gross violations of this kind. The President routinely at press conferences when this subject is raised harangues the independent media on their obsession with the rights of criminals, rather than the rights of victims. Never mind that his remarks leave him open to a charge of disinterest in how suspects are treated by law enforcement, which could be misinterpreted by some members of the agencies concerned to mean an implicit sanction for maltreatment.
And the matter has not been handled any better by other ministers. In instances where both army personnel and civilians were the victims of torture at the hands of the GDF, government spokesmen have simply refused to acknowledge that the cases had substance. Minister Robert Persaud on the strength of an internal defence force report on the army ranks who were tortured in the course of an investigation into missing weapons, got up in Parliament and talked glibly about ‘roughing up,’ not torture. It was a disgraceful performance for a minister in a democratic state, not to mention the fact that no one satisfactorily explained to the public what the Minister of Agriculture was doing speaking for the government on security matters. Exactly when was his agriculture portfolio, one might ask, expanded to encompass the Guyana Defence Force?
The government has given the impression – perhaps unintentionally – that they believe thorough investigations may have to involve extra-legal interrogation methods. If they do not, now is the time to make their position clear. Human rights issues aside, it is acknowledged by experts in the Western world that torture is a most ineffective method of obtaining accurate information, and if that is true everywhere else, why on earth is the administration appearing to hang on to outdated assumptions? The Ministry of Health fire must be thoroughly investigated, but if the only method of inquiry law enforcement has at its disposal is torture, then the likelihood of the arson being solved is remote. Furthermore, it would just indicate that there is little willingness on the part of the authorities to do what is necessary to make law enforcement truly effective in confronting crime.
Needless to say, there has been no official investigation into the earlier civilian cases involving torture, including that of Mr Leander himself, who was beaten so badly – allegedly by the police in that instance – that he could not walk into court. The least that can be said is that it is extraordinary that the party now in office, which came through the Burnham years, seems not to have a grasp of what constitutes a violation of human rights, what constitutes torture, and what is required of a government in a democracy. How is it possible that things which were unacceptable to the PPP under the PNC, are perfectly acceptable now that they are in office? Just what is going on?
It is not as if they have not been voluble on the topic of mistreatment and torture in other places. Go through the back issues of the Mirror and there will be endless column inches on the Pinochet regime and its torturing ways in Chile as well as those of right-wing military governments elsewhere, and even more recently, on US treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo. This latter example, it might be noted, was given space in the late Mrs Jagan’s weekly columns on more than one occasion. So here we have a total disconnect requiring some kind of psychological explanation: why can the governing party recognize torture when it occurs outside our borders, but cannot recognize it within? Is this a case of some strange dissociative disease, or is it something more familiar? Is it, after all, just old-fashioned hypocrisy?
11 Comments (Open | Close)
11 Comments To "Hypocrisy?"
URLs in this post:
[1] : http://www.stabroeknews.com/2008/letters/01/20/twelve-arguments-against-torture/
Posted By Stabroek staff On July 26, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 11 Comments
Events in the Co-operative Republic are taking a sinister turn. If it wasn’t bad enough that the Ministry of Health was destroyed by arsonists, we now have the mysterious death of David Leander, called ‘Biscuit’ in a public hospital, and the torture of Mr Troy Small by a group of persons unknown, one of whom he alleges, was in GDF uniform. And this, it has been reported, was because the torturers seemed to think that Mr Small was in some way connected to the Ministry of Health fire. From the video footage shown on the local newscasts, his injuries looked horrendous, and even the most uninformed citizen would have no difficulty in concluding that he should have been admitted to hospital. But at this point Mr Small won’t go to the Georgetown Public Hospital for treatment because, this newspaper was told, he is afraid. And why shouldn’t he be, considering what has happened to him and given that there are unanswered questions surrounding Mr Leander’s death – and, it might be added, the earlier one of phantom squad member, Mr Mark Thomas, also in the GPH.
In fact, Mr Small is even nervous about seeking in-patient treatment at a private hospital. That too is understandable, since which institution public or private could guarantee his safety in these times? He has now reached the stage where he is afraid to speak further to the media, and what this newspaper learned had to be gleaned from a relative. It is testimony to the extent of the decline in the rule of law that those charged with protecting us not only lack the capacity to do so, but harbour some among their ranks who themselves constitute a real danger to citizens’ safety.
In this particular instance, the police have said they had nothing to do with dragging Mr Small while he was half out of a vehicle, and beating him in an attempt to extract a ‘confession.’ The finger, it seems, has again been pointed at the army. If the GDF was indeed in any way connected with this torture, it would not be the first time, since there have been allegations previously involving the torture of their own ranks as well as of civilians.
The first thing, therefore, that the government has to clarify is exactly who was involved in the torture of Mr Small. Was it only members of the army, and if so, how come they took it upon themselves to arrest a citizen in the course of an investigation when they have no powers to do so? If only one (or some) member (or members) of the army was present, then who were the other men dressed in mufti? Were they plain clothes ranks from the police force? If they were, it would legitimize the apprehension of Mr Small, but certainly not his treatment. And if there were persons there who were not from the military or the police, just who were they? Are we back to private forces operating outside the law? The identity of Mr Small’s torturers, among other things, is a matter of immediate concern to the citizenry, and if the government seeks to restore any of its credibility, it needs to ensure that the public receives answers and that appropriate action is taken thereafter.
The identity of the torturers should also be a matter of immediate concern to the hierarchy of the GDF, since it is hard to imagine that the senior officer corps could possibly condone torture committed by any of their personnel. If they do not, but it turns out that in defiance of orders there are men under their command who are guilty of it, then it suggests they might not be fully in control of the force. If they are fully in control, then they should investigate these allegations right away. If, however, there are persons at work inside the military who are answering to elements outside the military, then Commander Best and his team have a problem, and so does the public in general. A fragmented army is one which ultimately will not be subject to central control, with all that that implies. And an army which becomes associated with torture at the very least will lose respect, will suffer a decline in morale and will be ill-equipped to do the job it is supposed to do.
Unfortunately the government has a very poor record in terms of addressing the nation’s questions about gross violations of this kind. The President routinely at press conferences when this subject is raised harangues the independent media on their obsession with the rights of criminals, rather than the rights of victims. Never mind that his remarks leave him open to a charge of disinterest in how suspects are treated by law enforcement, which could be misinterpreted by some members of the agencies concerned to mean an implicit sanction for maltreatment.
And the matter has not been handled any better by other ministers. In instances where both army personnel and civilians were the victims of torture at the hands of the GDF, government spokesmen have simply refused to acknowledge that the cases had substance. Minister Robert Persaud on the strength of an internal defence force report on the army ranks who were tortured in the course of an investigation into missing weapons, got up in Parliament and talked glibly about ‘roughing up,’ not torture. It was a disgraceful performance for a minister in a democratic state, not to mention the fact that no one satisfactorily explained to the public what the Minister of Agriculture was doing speaking for the government on security matters. Exactly when was his agriculture portfolio, one might ask, expanded to encompass the Guyana Defence Force?
The government has given the impression – perhaps unintentionally – that they believe thorough investigations may have to involve extra-legal interrogation methods. If they do not, now is the time to make their position clear. Human rights issues aside, it is acknowledged by experts in the Western world that torture is a most ineffective method of obtaining accurate information, and if that is true everywhere else, why on earth is the administration appearing to hang on to outdated assumptions? The Ministry of Health fire must be thoroughly investigated, but if the only method of inquiry law enforcement has at its disposal is torture, then the likelihood of the arson being solved is remote. Furthermore, it would just indicate that there is little willingness on the part of the authorities to do what is necessary to make law enforcement truly effective in confronting crime.
Needless to say, there has been no official investigation into the earlier civilian cases involving torture, including that of Mr Leander himself, who was beaten so badly – allegedly by the police in that instance – that he could not walk into court. The least that can be said is that it is extraordinary that the party now in office, which came through the Burnham years, seems not to have a grasp of what constitutes a violation of human rights, what constitutes torture, and what is required of a government in a democracy. How is it possible that things which were unacceptable to the PPP under the PNC, are perfectly acceptable now that they are in office? Just what is going on?
It is not as if they have not been voluble on the topic of mistreatment and torture in other places. Go through the back issues of the Mirror and there will be endless column inches on the Pinochet regime and its torturing ways in Chile as well as those of right-wing military governments elsewhere, and even more recently, on US treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo. This latter example, it might be noted, was given space in the late Mrs Jagan’s weekly columns on more than one occasion. So here we have a total disconnect requiring some kind of psychological explanation: why can the governing party recognize torture when it occurs outside our borders, but cannot recognize it within? Is this a case of some strange dissociative disease, or is it something more familiar? Is it, after all, just old-fashioned hypocrisy?
11 Comments (Open | Close)
11 Comments To "Hypocrisy?"
URLs in this post:
[1] : http://www.stabroeknews.com/2008/letters/01/20/twelve-arguments-against-torture/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Ultimately accountable
Stabroek News Editorial, Tuesday 30 June 2009 – http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/06/29/ultimately-accountable/
Ultimately accountable
By Stabroek staff | June 29, 2009 in Editorial
http://a.stabroeknews.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=3&campaignid=1&zoneid=6&loc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stabroeknews.com%2F2009%2Feditorial%2F06%2F29%2Fultimately-accountable%2F&cb=56ebed962e
With each passing day, the questions about whether this administration is committed to transparency and accountability grow more sonorous and with good reason. At his press conference on Friday President Jagdeo was given the opportunity to clear the air on several controversial areas which posed questions about the administration’s probity.
The first had to do with Minister Ramsammy and the claim by the former lawyer for Mr Roger Khan that he had been in contact with the Minister on certain matters. The President’s response was disappointingly dismissive. He would not, he said, launch an investigation just on any allegation otherwise there would have to be myriad investigations to take account of all such allegations. Except that the allegation made about Dr Ramsammy has come amid a stream of claims about the links between this administration and Mr Roger Khan starting with the fact that this fugitive from US law, now a confessed drug trafficker and believed to have been the number one drug lord here, was able to establish himself to the point that he was able to build houses, operate a business on an island in the Essequibo River and come within a whisker of acquiring a prime forest concession in the south of the country no doubt for the continuation of the drug business he was involved in.
On top of that, though caught red-handed with weaponry and the spy equipment that Dr Ramsammy’s name has been mentioned in connection with, Mr Khan was able to avoid a conviction and, according to him, embarked upon an extensive campaign to aid the government in its fight against crime. So is President Jagdeo’s government brave enough to risk an investigation of all the allegations of its links to Mr Roger Khan? Clearly not, although any credible investigation would have to be completely free of government influence and would have to be headed up by persons of repute and without connections to the administration.
President Jagdeo was also asked if he would now agree to an investigation of what transpired with Clico (Guyana) since the PNCR had said it was quite prepared to have an investigation done of the Globe Trust debacle. Readers may recall that when he was first tackled with the question of why no forensic investigation of Clico (Guyana) to determine exactly, among other things, how US$34M in Guyanese investments went from here to Miami instead of Clico (Bahamas), President Jagdeo most ill-advisedly said he might countenance a probe if the PNCR was also willing to have one of Globe Trust – the rub being that several persons affiliated to the PNCR were blameworthy in the collapse of the institution. The President rather naively believed that the PNCR would not risk this inconvenience but it has since called Mr Jagdeo’s bluff and is prepared for such an investigation. When asked about this on Friday President Jagdeo’s disappointing answer was that he was unaware that the PNCR was so disposed. For someone who is well in touch with the goings-on across the board and has access to wide a variety of willing sources it was disappointing that President Jagdeo was unaware of the main opposition party’s position. Even though there should have been no linkage between the two probes the question persists. When will President Jagdeo convene an inquiry into Clico (Guyana) to discover how our money got to Miami and who was withdrawing large sums in the days leading up to the placing of the business under judicial management?
Trinidad has already taken a lead on this and a forensic investigator has issued a report which has lifted the veil on some of the unsavory business practices of affiliates of the C L Financial Group. It is all the more important as the lead Clico (Guyana) executive Mrs Geeta Singh-Knight had a very positive relationship with this administration and ended up in plum positions on the Guysuco interim board and as head of the Berbice Bridge Company prior to the crisis in the group. You don’t end up in these positions in this country unless the government is in favour of it.
Third, President Jagdeo was also asked about his rather troubling disclosure at the Conference of Caribbean Police Commissioners in May that a plea bargain was in the works in relation to the polar beer case. Such a development was unknown to the public and still is.
Further, such information should have been restricted to the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions and should not ideally have been within the knowing of the President. What is more relevant here, given the time and rhetoric invested in the investigation commissioned by the President is that it has fallen flatter than stale beer through a series of inexplicable events that has left the DPP’s Chambers mute on the decision to abandon the prosecution of Mr Joshua Safeek and the GRA in the dark. It is typical of many so-called investigations that have been commissioned by this government.
The aforementioned cases are only a few of the matters which the government has thrown thick blankets around. The prime one is the pressing need for an investigation of the 2002 prison break and numbing violence that followed and claimed the lives of hundreds of people. The President had signalled that a comprehensive probe would be done of the killings that demoralized the police force, the East Coast and the entire country and there is still enough time for this before the end of this administration’s term in office. Last year’s three massacres and particularly the claims about the involvement of elements of the Joint Services in the Lindo attack are ripe for a rigorous investigation.
Numerous other issues cry out for a proper reckoning. The government is yet to provide a comprehensive account to the public for the use of billions of dollars in Lotto funds, the spending on the 2005 Great Flood, the accounts for the 2007 world cup, expenditure for the 2008 Carifesta, even though millions are still owed, and whether state funds that went to the Buddy’s Hotel and the Casique Hotel have been repaid.
Questions have resurfaced this year about the large drug supply contracts that have been entered into with New GPC (NGPC) with the concurrence of the Cabinet. It is a matter of public importance as NGPC’s parent group QA11 is another of those with favoured relationships with the government as witnessed by the controversial Sanata Textiles deal and subsequent fiscal concessions which had to be specially legislated for.
All of these issues and the continuing pall of doubt they cast over the propriety of governance by this administration carry over from month to month and year to year without the government being too bothered by it. That is something that should worry all Guyanese as it means they either don’t care enough about the quality of governance to complain about it or their government is comfortable knowing that it won’t be held ultimately accountable.
Ultimately accountable
By Stabroek staff | June 29, 2009 in Editorial
http://a.stabroeknews.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=3&campaignid=1&zoneid=6&loc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stabroeknews.com%2F2009%2Feditorial%2F06%2F29%2Fultimately-accountable%2F&cb=56ebed962e
With each passing day, the questions about whether this administration is committed to transparency and accountability grow more sonorous and with good reason. At his press conference on Friday President Jagdeo was given the opportunity to clear the air on several controversial areas which posed questions about the administration’s probity.
The first had to do with Minister Ramsammy and the claim by the former lawyer for Mr Roger Khan that he had been in contact with the Minister on certain matters. The President’s response was disappointingly dismissive. He would not, he said, launch an investigation just on any allegation otherwise there would have to be myriad investigations to take account of all such allegations. Except that the allegation made about Dr Ramsammy has come amid a stream of claims about the links between this administration and Mr Roger Khan starting with the fact that this fugitive from US law, now a confessed drug trafficker and believed to have been the number one drug lord here, was able to establish himself to the point that he was able to build houses, operate a business on an island in the Essequibo River and come within a whisker of acquiring a prime forest concession in the south of the country no doubt for the continuation of the drug business he was involved in.
On top of that, though caught red-handed with weaponry and the spy equipment that Dr Ramsammy’s name has been mentioned in connection with, Mr Khan was able to avoid a conviction and, according to him, embarked upon an extensive campaign to aid the government in its fight against crime. So is President Jagdeo’s government brave enough to risk an investigation of all the allegations of its links to Mr Roger Khan? Clearly not, although any credible investigation would have to be completely free of government influence and would have to be headed up by persons of repute and without connections to the administration.
President Jagdeo was also asked if he would now agree to an investigation of what transpired with Clico (Guyana) since the PNCR had said it was quite prepared to have an investigation done of the Globe Trust debacle. Readers may recall that when he was first tackled with the question of why no forensic investigation of Clico (Guyana) to determine exactly, among other things, how US$34M in Guyanese investments went from here to Miami instead of Clico (Bahamas), President Jagdeo most ill-advisedly said he might countenance a probe if the PNCR was also willing to have one of Globe Trust – the rub being that several persons affiliated to the PNCR were blameworthy in the collapse of the institution. The President rather naively believed that the PNCR would not risk this inconvenience but it has since called Mr Jagdeo’s bluff and is prepared for such an investigation. When asked about this on Friday President Jagdeo’s disappointing answer was that he was unaware that the PNCR was so disposed. For someone who is well in touch with the goings-on across the board and has access to wide a variety of willing sources it was disappointing that President Jagdeo was unaware of the main opposition party’s position. Even though there should have been no linkage between the two probes the question persists. When will President Jagdeo convene an inquiry into Clico (Guyana) to discover how our money got to Miami and who was withdrawing large sums in the days leading up to the placing of the business under judicial management?
Trinidad has already taken a lead on this and a forensic investigator has issued a report which has lifted the veil on some of the unsavory business practices of affiliates of the C L Financial Group. It is all the more important as the lead Clico (Guyana) executive Mrs Geeta Singh-Knight had a very positive relationship with this administration and ended up in plum positions on the Guysuco interim board and as head of the Berbice Bridge Company prior to the crisis in the group. You don’t end up in these positions in this country unless the government is in favour of it.
Third, President Jagdeo was also asked about his rather troubling disclosure at the Conference of Caribbean Police Commissioners in May that a plea bargain was in the works in relation to the polar beer case. Such a development was unknown to the public and still is.
Further, such information should have been restricted to the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions and should not ideally have been within the knowing of the President. What is more relevant here, given the time and rhetoric invested in the investigation commissioned by the President is that it has fallen flatter than stale beer through a series of inexplicable events that has left the DPP’s Chambers mute on the decision to abandon the prosecution of Mr Joshua Safeek and the GRA in the dark. It is typical of many so-called investigations that have been commissioned by this government.
The aforementioned cases are only a few of the matters which the government has thrown thick blankets around. The prime one is the pressing need for an investigation of the 2002 prison break and numbing violence that followed and claimed the lives of hundreds of people. The President had signalled that a comprehensive probe would be done of the killings that demoralized the police force, the East Coast and the entire country and there is still enough time for this before the end of this administration’s term in office. Last year’s three massacres and particularly the claims about the involvement of elements of the Joint Services in the Lindo attack are ripe for a rigorous investigation.
Numerous other issues cry out for a proper reckoning. The government is yet to provide a comprehensive account to the public for the use of billions of dollars in Lotto funds, the spending on the 2005 Great Flood, the accounts for the 2007 world cup, expenditure for the 2008 Carifesta, even though millions are still owed, and whether state funds that went to the Buddy’s Hotel and the Casique Hotel have been repaid.
Questions have resurfaced this year about the large drug supply contracts that have been entered into with New GPC (NGPC) with the concurrence of the Cabinet. It is a matter of public importance as NGPC’s parent group QA11 is another of those with favoured relationships with the government as witnessed by the controversial Sanata Textiles deal and subsequent fiscal concessions which had to be specially legislated for.
All of these issues and the continuing pall of doubt they cast over the propriety of governance by this administration carry over from month to month and year to year without the government being too bothered by it. That is something that should worry all Guyanese as it means they either don’t care enough about the quality of governance to complain about it or their government is comfortable knowing that it won’t be held ultimately accountable.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Freedom of Information legislation: President’s self appointed two-month deadline up today
KN news item, Friday 19 June 2009
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/06/19/president%e2%80%99s-self-appointed-two-month-deadline-up-today/
Freedom of Information legislation: President’s self appointed two-month deadline up today
June 19, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under News
Alliance for Change leader, Raphael Trotman, yesterday lashed out at recent comments by the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, Donald Ramotar, who said that the government was currently drafting a Freedom of Information Bill and there will be consultation after.
Trotman is of the opinion that the position taken is ludicrous firstly given that the AFC has already submitted a draft, which has gained consensus with the other opposition party.
He noted that rather than the government preparing the Freedom of Information Act in isolation it should have been a consultative process where stakeholder such as the bar association and media representatives among others, would have had an input and “we could all be proud of a well thought out piece of legislation.”
According to Trotman, he was quite aware of the constraints at the Office of the Auditor General as alluded to by Ramotar but stressed that those very constraints were convenient, given that, when the government wishes to hurry up a piece of legislation the AG’s office works with haste.
The Government’s long-awaited Freedom of Information Bill is currently in its final draft, according to PPP General Secretary, Donald Ramotar, who told Kaieteur News that the process was slow, not because of political problems, but because of practical reasons.
Ramotar had pointed out that there is only one Attorney General’s Office, which is already in possession of a number of other pieces of draft legislation from other Ministries.
He assured that when the draft is completed, there would be consultations with the opposition and other stakeholders.
“How can we consult if we have nothing to consult with?” Ramotar asked.
This comment was however not greeted too kindly because the AFC leader is of the opinion that there is already a very comprehensive draft FOI legislation that was tabled and could have been a basis, or any new legislation that the Government proposes.
Vice Chairperson of the AFC, Sheila Holder, recently reminded the President of his commitment to lay in the National Assembly the FOI Legislation.
The two-month deadline that President Bharrat Jagdeo set for his government to introduce FOI legislation is up today.
According to Trotman, to date, there have been no serious consultations on the Bill. He reiterated that if the government proceeds with its Bill, then it would be supported, since “the legislation is more important for Guyana than it is for the AFC.”
But Trotman did point out that as far as he was aware, there have been no consultations with any of the stakeholders, such as the Bar Association and members of civil society.
It is believed that the government is seeking to use the Trinidad and Tobago model, “which is the model we used and was developed with the help of a human rights group out of India… We adapted it for Guyana and we are sure we have a Bill that can pass international scrutiny. We are still hoping that the PPP Government will accept the Bill.”
When President Jagdeo first made the announcement, Trotman, though heartened, said that he would have expected that the Bill tabled by him would have been addressed first.
According to Trotman, the Bill that he tabled was not a piece that he “just imagined”, since it was based on a model that is in force in Trinidad and Tobago.
He added that the Bill has been thoroughly addressed by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
According to Trotman, one would have considered that in an effort to save time, the government would have at least worked with the one that was tabled, questioning if they found the Bill in his name, “totally unacceptable.”
“We are already drafting it (FOI). It is something in my manifesto. We have already gone beyond many countries in terms of changes to the constitutional system,” Jagdeo told media operatives in Trinidad, in April.
The essence of the Freedom of Information Act, according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), is the empowerment of the populace to request any piece of information (with few exceptions, such as medical records) held by a public authority.
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/06/19/president%e2%80%99s-self-appointed-two-month-deadline-up-today/
Freedom of Information legislation: President’s self appointed two-month deadline up today
June 19, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under News
Alliance for Change leader, Raphael Trotman, yesterday lashed out at recent comments by the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, Donald Ramotar, who said that the government was currently drafting a Freedom of Information Bill and there will be consultation after.
Trotman is of the opinion that the position taken is ludicrous firstly given that the AFC has already submitted a draft, which has gained consensus with the other opposition party.
He noted that rather than the government preparing the Freedom of Information Act in isolation it should have been a consultative process where stakeholder such as the bar association and media representatives among others, would have had an input and “we could all be proud of a well thought out piece of legislation.”
According to Trotman, he was quite aware of the constraints at the Office of the Auditor General as alluded to by Ramotar but stressed that those very constraints were convenient, given that, when the government wishes to hurry up a piece of legislation the AG’s office works with haste.
The Government’s long-awaited Freedom of Information Bill is currently in its final draft, according to PPP General Secretary, Donald Ramotar, who told Kaieteur News that the process was slow, not because of political problems, but because of practical reasons.
Ramotar had pointed out that there is only one Attorney General’s Office, which is already in possession of a number of other pieces of draft legislation from other Ministries.
He assured that when the draft is completed, there would be consultations with the opposition and other stakeholders.
“How can we consult if we have nothing to consult with?” Ramotar asked.
This comment was however not greeted too kindly because the AFC leader is of the opinion that there is already a very comprehensive draft FOI legislation that was tabled and could have been a basis, or any new legislation that the Government proposes.
Vice Chairperson of the AFC, Sheila Holder, recently reminded the President of his commitment to lay in the National Assembly the FOI Legislation.
The two-month deadline that President Bharrat Jagdeo set for his government to introduce FOI legislation is up today.
According to Trotman, to date, there have been no serious consultations on the Bill. He reiterated that if the government proceeds with its Bill, then it would be supported, since “the legislation is more important for Guyana than it is for the AFC.”
But Trotman did point out that as far as he was aware, there have been no consultations with any of the stakeholders, such as the Bar Association and members of civil society.
It is believed that the government is seeking to use the Trinidad and Tobago model, “which is the model we used and was developed with the help of a human rights group out of India… We adapted it for Guyana and we are sure we have a Bill that can pass international scrutiny. We are still hoping that the PPP Government will accept the Bill.”
When President Jagdeo first made the announcement, Trotman, though heartened, said that he would have expected that the Bill tabled by him would have been addressed first.
According to Trotman, the Bill that he tabled was not a piece that he “just imagined”, since it was based on a model that is in force in Trinidad and Tobago.
He added that the Bill has been thoroughly addressed by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
According to Trotman, one would have considered that in an effort to save time, the government would have at least worked with the one that was tabled, questioning if they found the Bill in his name, “totally unacceptable.”
“We are already drafting it (FOI). It is something in my manifesto. We have already gone beyond many countries in terms of changes to the constitutional system,” Jagdeo told media operatives in Trinidad, in April.
The essence of the Freedom of Information Act, according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), is the empowerment of the populace to request any piece of information (with few exceptions, such as medical records) held by a public authority.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Still drafting, will consult with opposition when completed
Guyana - Kaieteur News news item, Monday 15 June 2009
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/06/15/still-drafting-will-consult-with-opposition-when-completed/
Still drafting, will consult with opposition when completed …Freedom Information Legislation…- Donald Ramotar
The Government’s long awaited freedom of Information Bill is currently in its final drafting stage.
This is according to General Secretary of the Peoples Progressive Party, Donald Ramotar, who told Kaieteur News yesterday that the process was slow, not because of political problems, but because of practical reasons.
According to Ramotar, there is only one Attorney General’s Office which is already in possession of a number of other pieces of legislation from other ministries that were drafting.
He assured that when the draft was completed, there will be consultations with the opposition and other stakeholders.
PPP's General Secretary Donald Ramotar
PPP's General Secretary Donald Ramotar
“How can we consult if we have nothing to consult with?” Ramotar asked.
On Thursday, Vice Chairperson of the Alliance for Change, Sheila Holder, used the opportunity of the party’s press briefing to remind the President of his commitment to lay in the National Assembly the Freedom of Information (FOI) Legislation.
According to Holder, the two-month deadline that President Bharrat Jagdeo set for his government to introduce FOI legislation is fast approaching.
She pointed out that the nation could recall that while in attendance at the 5th Summit of the Americas, in April, 2009, President Jagdeo was faced with the AFC’s full-page advertisement, and was pressed by international journalists to respond to questions about governance, corruption, and transparency in Guyana.
“The President was quoted as saying, among other things, that legislation was being prepared and would be presented to Parliament within two months. The AFC has since learnt that the government will be using the Trinidad & Tobago model as a precedent just as the AFC did.”
Holder told media operatives that the President must be reminded that he made his promise in a very public and international way, and that the eyes of the free world are on him and his government.
“His failure to keep his word will once again indicate that we are faced with a government that gives lip service to the concepts of democracy and good governance.”
The party’s vice chairperson pointed out that while the AFC supports the introduction and passage of this legislation, it wants to remind the government that there is already legislation before the National Assembly that has been designed to achieve the same objective of providing access to information to members of the public.
“The AFC is more than willing to have the government endorse, and adopt its Bill in order to expedite the process.”
Leader of the party, when pressed by media operatives, disclosed that the party has always indicated its willingness to work with the Peoples Progressive Party, the Peoples National Congress and the other parties as it relates to advancing the Bill.
According to Trotman, to date, there have been no serious consultations on the Bill, but reiterated that if the government proceeds with its bill, then it would be supported, since “the legislation is more important for Guyana than it is for the AFC.”
But Trotman did point out that as far as he was aware, there have been no consultations with any of the stakeholders, such as the Bar Association and members of civil society among others.
He reminded that given the feedback to his party, it is believed that the government is seeking to use the Trinidad and Tobago model, “which is the model we used and was developed with the help of a human rights group out of India, so we adapted it for Guyana and we are sure we have a Bill that can pass international scrutiny. We are still hoping that the PPP government will accept the Bill.”
When President Jagdeo first made the announcement, Trotman, though heartened, said that he would have expected that the Bill tabled by him would have been addressed first.
According to Trotman, the Bill that was tabled by him was not a piece that he “just imagined”, since it was based on a model that is in force in Trinidad and Tobago.
He further added that the Bill has been thoroughly addressed by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
According to Trotman, one would have considered that in an effort to save time, the government would have at least worked with the one that was tabled, questioning if they found the Bill in his name, “totally unacceptable.”
“We are already drafting it (FOI). It is something in my manifesto. We have already gone beyond many countries in terms of changes to the constitutional system,” Jagdeo told media operatives in Trinidad.
Trotman had recently told this newspaper that he was disappointed that the Government did not see it fit to support the Freedom of Information legislation in 2008 but was, nevertheless, optimistic for 2009.
He had noted that his disappointment was further fuelled by the fact that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had held a workshop for Parliamentarians and media operatives, where Freedom of Information (FOI) was extensively discussed.
He conceded that legislation such as the FOI will take time, but pointed out that there was a resounding call by Guyanese, who were now beginning to understand the importance of such a piece of legislation, as well as the calls from the international organisations.
Trotman emphasized that Freedom of Information is important for good governance and transparency.
The essence of the Freedom of Information Act, according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), is the empowerment of the populace to request any piece of information (with few exceptions, such as medical records) held by a public authority.
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/06/15/still-drafting-will-consult-with-opposition-when-completed/
Still drafting, will consult with opposition when completed …Freedom Information Legislation…- Donald Ramotar
The Government’s long awaited freedom of Information Bill is currently in its final drafting stage.
This is according to General Secretary of the Peoples Progressive Party, Donald Ramotar, who told Kaieteur News yesterday that the process was slow, not because of political problems, but because of practical reasons.
According to Ramotar, there is only one Attorney General’s Office which is already in possession of a number of other pieces of legislation from other ministries that were drafting.
He assured that when the draft was completed, there will be consultations with the opposition and other stakeholders.
PPP's General Secretary Donald Ramotar
PPP's General Secretary Donald Ramotar
“How can we consult if we have nothing to consult with?” Ramotar asked.
On Thursday, Vice Chairperson of the Alliance for Change, Sheila Holder, used the opportunity of the party’s press briefing to remind the President of his commitment to lay in the National Assembly the Freedom of Information (FOI) Legislation.
According to Holder, the two-month deadline that President Bharrat Jagdeo set for his government to introduce FOI legislation is fast approaching.
She pointed out that the nation could recall that while in attendance at the 5th Summit of the Americas, in April, 2009, President Jagdeo was faced with the AFC’s full-page advertisement, and was pressed by international journalists to respond to questions about governance, corruption, and transparency in Guyana.
“The President was quoted as saying, among other things, that legislation was being prepared and would be presented to Parliament within two months. The AFC has since learnt that the government will be using the Trinidad & Tobago model as a precedent just as the AFC did.”
Holder told media operatives that the President must be reminded that he made his promise in a very public and international way, and that the eyes of the free world are on him and his government.
“His failure to keep his word will once again indicate that we are faced with a government that gives lip service to the concepts of democracy and good governance.”
The party’s vice chairperson pointed out that while the AFC supports the introduction and passage of this legislation, it wants to remind the government that there is already legislation before the National Assembly that has been designed to achieve the same objective of providing access to information to members of the public.
“The AFC is more than willing to have the government endorse, and adopt its Bill in order to expedite the process.”
Leader of the party, when pressed by media operatives, disclosed that the party has always indicated its willingness to work with the Peoples Progressive Party, the Peoples National Congress and the other parties as it relates to advancing the Bill.
According to Trotman, to date, there have been no serious consultations on the Bill, but reiterated that if the government proceeds with its bill, then it would be supported, since “the legislation is more important for Guyana than it is for the AFC.”
But Trotman did point out that as far as he was aware, there have been no consultations with any of the stakeholders, such as the Bar Association and members of civil society among others.
He reminded that given the feedback to his party, it is believed that the government is seeking to use the Trinidad and Tobago model, “which is the model we used and was developed with the help of a human rights group out of India, so we adapted it for Guyana and we are sure we have a Bill that can pass international scrutiny. We are still hoping that the PPP government will accept the Bill.”
When President Jagdeo first made the announcement, Trotman, though heartened, said that he would have expected that the Bill tabled by him would have been addressed first.
According to Trotman, the Bill that was tabled by him was not a piece that he “just imagined”, since it was based on a model that is in force in Trinidad and Tobago.
He further added that the Bill has been thoroughly addressed by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
According to Trotman, one would have considered that in an effort to save time, the government would have at least worked with the one that was tabled, questioning if they found the Bill in his name, “totally unacceptable.”
“We are already drafting it (FOI). It is something in my manifesto. We have already gone beyond many countries in terms of changes to the constitutional system,” Jagdeo told media operatives in Trinidad.
Trotman had recently told this newspaper that he was disappointed that the Government did not see it fit to support the Freedom of Information legislation in 2008 but was, nevertheless, optimistic for 2009.
He had noted that his disappointment was further fuelled by the fact that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had held a workshop for Parliamentarians and media operatives, where Freedom of Information (FOI) was extensively discussed.
He conceded that legislation such as the FOI will take time, but pointed out that there was a resounding call by Guyanese, who were now beginning to understand the importance of such a piece of legislation, as well as the calls from the international organisations.
Trotman emphasized that Freedom of Information is important for good governance and transparency.
The essence of the Freedom of Information Act, according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), is the empowerment of the populace to request any piece of information (with few exceptions, such as medical records) held by a public authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)