Category: Letters to the editor

Posted on

Treatment of Sattaur by persons from the GRA is not acceptable

Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority Mr Khurshid Sattaur erred gravely when he shared taxpayers’ information with the administration. However irrestible the demand, he ought to have made it clear that he would not comply. Instead, he compromised himself, his office and his profession. A complaint of professional misconduct was made to the local and international professional accounting bodies but was later withdrawn. There was therefore no adverse finding against him.

Seven months into a new government, the public learns that Mr Sattaur has been sent on leave to facilitate a forensic audit of the authority. I accept that, even with the apparent inconsistency.

What I do not find acceptable is the humiliating treatment he is reported to have received from persons from the Revenue Authority. If the report of leave is correct ‒ and there is no reason to doubt this ‒ Mr Sattaur remains Commissioner General and a member of the Governing Board of the GRA. He does not cease to be either because he is on leave. It is rare and improper for persons on leave to have their homes visited by their subordinates and computers and firearm taken away from them. In the case of a taxman for whom threats to life are an occupational hazard, the danger is obvious and is recognised in his being provided with a guard and a firearm licence.
Continue reading “Treatment of Sattaur by persons from the GRA is not acceptable”

Posted on

It was a serious error to treat a special package for the AG as a benchmark

Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo appears to have intended to dismiss the public’s response to the 50% salary increase for Cabinet members in describing it [the response] as “comparable to beating a dead horse”, adding that “this rage has run its course”. (SN Oct 22 ‘Pay hike necessary to offset ministers’ loss of earnings’). The latest evidence to the contrary is a letter by Mr Nowrang Persaud in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek (25-10-15) ‘Attorney General’s salary should have been red-circled’.

In his letter, Mr. Persaud refers to a report touching on the differential between the salary of the Attorney General and the rest of the Cabinet on the need some decades ago to ‘import’ a Guyanese legal luminary with unique competences. In his last week’s Stabroek News column on the subject of the increases, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran had identified the package offered by Prime Minister Burnham to Sir Shridath Ramphal. Mr. Ramphal was at the time working in a top law firm in Jamaica, and in his new position in Guyana would be designated responsibility for two disparate portfolios – Attorney General and Minister of State for External Affairs – with the additional task of drafting the emerging country’s Independence Constitution.

It seems from his writings that Mr. Ramphal did his best to discourage Mr. Burnham from employing him: he would only accept the position as a technocrat without party affiliation; was doing well financially in Jamaica with his family; if for any technical reason he had to sit in the Legislature, he wanted no vote and would not be subject to any party whip. But as he said, Forbes Burnham was not easily put off and agreed to all his conditions, presumably salary included. Continue reading “It was a serious error to treat a special package for the AG as a benchmark”

Posted on

Expenditure on new ministries would be unconstitutional

The Guyana Times of Sunday May 24 (New Ministries created by Granger illegal – PPP/C) reports former President Bharrat Jagdeo and former Attorney General Anil Nandlall as stating that “the formation of new Ministries is illegal since monies cannot be released to those entities, which are not represented in the Appropriation Act.”

This is a bit ironic. President Donald Ramotar did exactly that when he created the new Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment and appointed Mr. Robert Persaud as the Minister. This was long before the convening of the Tenth Parliament and the passage of the Appropriation Act 2012, assented to on April 30, 2012.

The fact that the PPP/C created a new ministry before any Appropriation Act was passed does not itself make President Granger’s action legal, or illegal. In fact, the creation of a new ministry in 2012 by the PPP/C was as legal as the creation of new ministries by the APNU+AFC in 2015. Article 100 provides for offices of the Prime Minister, Vice-Presidents and Ministers of the Government as may be established by Parliament or, subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament, by the President.

Article 120 of the Constitution gives the President the power to constitute offices for Guyana [and] make and terminate appointments to such offices…” There is no requirement for an appropriation Act before the creation of any ministerial or other constitutional office and It would have been useful for Mr. Jagdeo or Mr. Nandlall to have pointed out the illegality of President Granger’s combined acts.

The Cabinet has a number of lawyers, two of whom are affected by the creation of these new ministries. I have no doubt that all these lawyers would have considered the constitutional ramifications of the action by President Granger and offered their views to the Attorney General, who is the principal legal adviser to the Government.

Notwithstanding the legality of the appointments, it does appear to me that the Constitution forbids the expenditure of any money on those ministries without parliamentary approval. Article 120 goes on to state that “where the constitution of, and making of appointments to, such offices involve expenditure chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, such expenditure shall be subject to the approval of the National Assembly.”

In my view “approval” in this article can only be reasonably interpreted to mean prior approval, and not approval by way of any subsequent, supplementary Appropriation Act. On my interpretation, any expenditure on these new ministries, including any payments to and for the ministers and the supporting ministers, would be unconstitutional.

Posted on

Mr Nawbatt’s campaigning an abuse of state resources

There were credible reports that on Elections Day 2011 Minister of Foreign Affairs Ms. Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett was out campaigning for the PPP/C in the hinterland Amerindian communities. If that was not a violation of the Representation of the People Act it came very close.

It seems that Ms. Rodrigues-Birkett is at it again this year and has brought in the Guyana High Commissioner to Canada Mr. Harry Nawbatt to campaign with her in those communities, exploiting his work as a Contract Employee with SIMAP some years ago. (See Stabroek News May 9, 2015 `Envoy to Canada campaigning for PPP/C in Rupununi’). This is particularly troubling not least because Mr. Nawbatt is an election official for the voting by those Guyanese eligible to vote by virtue of their employment in Canada.

Fortunately there are scores of observers for the elections tomorrow and I am sure that they are taking note of the misuse of state resources by the PPP/C in this campaign. I hope too that GECOM, which has the constitutional and statutory duty to hold elections that are free and fair, is also taking note.

I am confident that the Coalition will win these elections despite the grievous abuses of state resources by the PPP/C, its ministers, high commissioners and other public officials. Among the many tasks the Coalition in Government will face is to mandate GECOM to make recommendations and proposals to prevent such abuses ever taking place again in Guyana. Such reform is long overdue.

Posted on

Candidates Ramotar and Anthony violated an express provision of the elections legislation

Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act provides that the election agent of each group of candidates may appoint one of the candidates as its duly appointed candidate to attend the poll at a polling place. The election agent must do so in writing and deliver it to the returning officer of the district not later than seven days before the election day. Only one person may be so appointed for any one polling place.

The presence of candidates Mr. Donald Ramotar and Dr. Frank Anthony of the PPP/C at Camp Ayanganna on May 2, 2015, reportedly observing the voting of the army personnel, is a violation of the Act. As if that was not bad enough, Mr. Ramotar’s attendance in his Party colours was naked electioneering at a place of polling, which is also forbidden. And then to top it all here, candidate Ramotar is permitted to handle and examine what looks suspiciously like the voters list for that polling place.

GECOM, unreasonably in my view, last week decided to deny citizens the right to vote if they choose to do a conflicting duty to assist the elections process as party agents. Yet is it willing to tolerate and close its eyes to the picture of candidates Ramotar and Anthony violating an express provision of the elections legislation and engaging in politicking at a place of poll. The presiding officer should have excluded at least one, if not both candidates and advised them that they had no lawful business there.

I hope that this will not be repeated come May 11.