Category: Letters to the editor

Posted on

The leadership of the GDF has a constitutional duty to raise the Muri permission formally with President Ramotar

The statement attributed to the Chief-of-Staff of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Brigadier Mark Phillips in relation to survey rights to 2,200,000 acres granted to a company with powerful Brazilian ties raises a number of issues. The Chief-of-Staff is reported to have said: “The army will remain committed and adherent to the policies of the government. ‘The government has a responsibility for governing the country and determining what is best, so the GDF will respect any decisions made for the country.’”

While democracies accept the importance of having the military answerable to the civilian administration, a constitutional amendment in 2001 defined the country’s defence and security policy, the role of the Defence and Security Forces in relation to that policy, and the allegiance of the members of those forces. These are set out, perhaps not by accident, in Article 197 A of the constitution, the same article that deals with the judicature.
Continue reading “The leadership of the GDF has a constitutional duty to raise the Muri permission formally with President Ramotar”

Posted on

Mr Granger should not separate national legislative agenda from anti-laundering bill

Joint Statement issued with Ramon Gaskin:

The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, currently the subject of intense speculation and national debate, was being considered by a Select Committee prior to the National Assembly proceeding on its two- month recess.

Despite the urgency that the Bill be passed into law to prevent Guyana being deemed as non-compliant with its international obligation, no work was done by the Select Committee for the entire ten weeks or so from the recess date.

We have since learnt that shortly after the Select Committee’s resumption, at a meeting which none of the opposition members could attend, lead PPP/C member Ms. Gail Teixeira, Chairperson, abruptly terminated consideration of the Bill and brought the Committee to an end. Her action deprived not only the opposition MPs but also members of the public the opportunity to appear before the Committee to present their views.
Continue reading “Mr Granger should not separate national legislative agenda from anti-laundering bill”

Posted on

Mr Nandlall should provide the basis for the claim to these astounding powers

According to the Guyana Chronicle of Saturday, October 26, 2013, Mr. Anil Nandlall, Attorney General, commenting on what he referred to as a gag order by a judge in a pending legal matter in the High Court states: “In our legal system, the holder of the office of Attorney General is the protector of the public’s legal interest and the defender of the Constitution of Guyana…” These are astounding powers with which Mr. Nandlall seeks to clothe himself, apparently simply by stating so. He has no such role, functions or powers.

On the issue in which he gratuitously inserts himself, Mr. Nandlall cites principles and authorities mainly from the UK which does not have a written constitution and would therefore be of doubtful authority, and from India, which does. Yet his singular acknowledgement to Guyana is a case of dubious relevance to the substance of what he attempted to address.

Incredibly, while the post of Attorney General is a creation of the Constitution of Guyana, Mr. Nandlall omits to cite Article 112 which sets out in clear language the role of the Attorney General. That article states:

“There shall be an Attorney General of Guyana who shall be the principal legal adviser to the Government of Guyana and who shall be appointed by the President.”

Mr. Nandlall should now assist Guyanese by identifying for us those Articles of the Constitution which in his learned opinion make him the protector of the public’s legal interest and the defender of the Constitution of Guyana. And he must also explain to us his failure to defend our interest in the several violations of mandatory provisions of the Constitution including the requirements for an Ombudsman (Article 191), Public Procurement Commission (Article 121 W) and local government elections (Article 71).

Neither Mr. Nandlall nor his Chambers appeared in the matter in which the Judge made the order and unless he has apprised himself of both text and context of the order it seems completely out of place for him to describe the Judge’s ruling as a “misuse, if not an abuse” of a legal principle. Assuming that he was approached in whatever capacity by the party against whom the order was made, the proper course of action for him was to refer the party to their legal counsel to seek such redress as is available under the law.

I hope that there is one thing that Mr. Nandlall and I will agree on, and that is, the importance of restoring dignity to the office of the Attorney General to which much damage has been done over the past decade.

Posted on

News about GuySuCo’s board is troubling

The news that the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) is without a Board of Directors is troubling, its credibility further diminished. Unlike an entity established under the Public Corporations Act, GuySuCo’s operational law is the Companies Act and by virtue of its 1976 registration, it straddles two such Acts, the repealed Companies Act Cap. 89:01 and the Companies Act 1991.

Under the former, the appointment and terms of office of the directors are made and set by the Minister of Agriculture acting on behalf of the Government. And by virtue of the 1991 Act, the possibility that GuySuCo can have no director is virtually ruled out since the Act makes the directors the sole authority for exercising the powers and functions of the company. That Act states:

The directors of a company must—

(a) exercise the powers of the company directly or indirectly through the employees and agents of the company; and

(b) direct the management of the business and affairs of the company.

There is some indication that while there is no board there is a chairman of the board suggesting that like Atlantic Hotel Inc., GuySuCo is now a single director company. That model has proved bad enough in the case of Atlantic Hotel Inc. But even temporarily, it can be disastrous in the case of GuySuCo whose financial condition is at best precarious and which requires annual injection of public funds to stay in business.

Unfortunately, GuySuCo is not the only entity which has seen provisions of the Companies Act stretched this week. Another government company, Property Holdings Inc. held an AGM chaired by Mr. Winston Brassington, executive head of NICIL. When the legality of the presentation of financial statements for five years was questioned, Ms. Marcia Nadir-Sharma – Brassington’s deputy at NICIL – who attended the meeting as Legal Advisor to PHI, is reported to have said that the Minister of Finance had given approval for late tabling of audited financial statements.

The problem is that the Act grants such power not to a Minister but to the Registrar of Companies acting on an application by the company supported by a resolution of the directors.

Posted on

This post on Ms Manickchand’s Facebook page is frightening

“I am happy they [the three suspected bandits killed by the Police on South Road] are dead and I don’t care about the details of a post-mortem. In fact why is the state even wasting money on them? My sentiment would be the same for ALL murderers and thieves.”

These are not the words of some uneducated idiot uttered in some heated exchange in some out-of-the-way ghetto. No, it is a direct quote from the Facebook page of Ms. Jaya Manickchand, an attorney-at-law and Member of the Guyana Elections Commission. Ms. Manickchand clearly does not believe that the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence applies to a certain class.

Ms. Manickchand’s post also reveals her perception and bias of crime. She cannot bring herself to even consider as crime, corruption a la Pradoville 2 or the appropriation of state resources by the political class. I doubt that she even thinks that a minister of government using a gun to inflict terror on another person as a crime, or the heist of Guyana for a few. For her, no doubt, crime is exclusive to a certain class and its perpetrators without rights.

It is frightening that a member of the ruling political class could be callous enough to have such a sentiment, and worse, arrogant enough to express it to the world. But it is a measure of the depth to which Guyana has sunk that she can remain a member of the Guyana Elections Commission.