AFC backs govt amendments to Granger’s killings motion
February 8, 2013 By
The Alliance For Change (AFC) said it will support the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission to probe the countless unlawful killings that occurred in Guyana over the years. The party also wants to expand the period to be investigated. The two amendments were proposed by government for a motion tabled by Opposition Leader David Granger. Granger in his original motion had asked that a Presidential Commission of Inquiry investigate unlawful killings from 2004 to present, but government wanted the probe to go back as far as the 1960s.
‘I am here to stay’
January 31, 2013 By
– Rohee says as contract signed to kick start security reform
- Capita Symonds Associate Director Paul Wadsworth signs the agreement that will foresee the continued consultancy of the firm in the development of the Guyana Police Force
he Home Affairs Ministry on Monday signed a contract with the United Kingdom (UK)-based Capita Symonds firm for the provision of consultancy services for the Guyana Police Force (GPF), in keeping with the Security Sector Strategic Plan (SSSP).
The contract, valued US$129,750 or approximately G$25 million, is expected to last about four to six weeks, focusing on four critical areas: administration, succession planning, integrity/probity and public relations/communications. The ministry has already begun to receive applications for the 10 positions that are available within the Strategic Management Department which will act as a bridge for the four areas of development mentioned. The ministry will be putting together a panel of “distinguished” persons to review the applicants, ensuring that the bottom line of development is secured.
This consultancy firm is no stranger to the GPF, as it has held engagements with the law enforcement agency since 2000. Work on the strategic plan is rapidly moving apace since its launch in December. Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee noted that this partnership and the signing of the agreement was a step in a positive direction. However, he mentioned numerous times the opposition, the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), has flip-flopped in regards to whether they have actually seen the plan.
Rohee said that while a consultancy firm is working to create a change for betterment in the security sector, the opposition may be a potential glitch in the implementation. Rohee noted that “one thing is very clear, they do not support the minister that is spearheading the plan,” and as a result, the opposition may use their position to halt the implementation of the SSSP.
‘I am here to stay’
Rohee stated that he would not be stepping down as minister and ultimately that decision is left with the president, and not to him, pointing out that “the people expect me to serve”. He said he believed that stepping down would be an extreme “disrespect” to the president as it was the president who appointed him to the position.
Minister Rohee told Guyana Times International that the partnership between the Home Affairs Ministry and Capita Symonds was beneficial to improving the public image of the GPF and that the opposition has an obligation to the GPF as well as to the Guyanese people.
British High Commissioner Andrew Ayre stated that the development of the police force is beneficial to Guyana as a whole, noting that the British government “supports any and all ventures that will grow the security sector within Guyana”.
He said the SSSP was being implemented at the right time and that it was his hope “that all parties cooperate in the implementation of the plans, as that would lead to the development in the security sector”.
The high commissioner said in the spirit of cooperation, it was necessary for the government to seek input as to how to execute the plan. Capita Symonds Associate Director Paul Wadsworth stated that the company began working with the police force in early 2000, and is now back to improve on the developments that were first initiated. He said the firm was “very passionate about making a difference”, and was happy to see the labour of development taking place.
PPP/C seeking Gy$2.5M in compensation for damaged Linden office
January 31, 2013 By
Compton Fraser, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Region 10 organiser, is claiming some Gy$2.5 million for items that were damaged in the party office when a fire was set inside the building on July 18 last.
As the Linden Commission of Inquiry continued on Tuesday, with its compensation aspect of the probe, more witnesses came forward to claim compensation for injuries sustained and/or damages to their property. This aspect of the probe is in keeping with terms of reference number three which states, “Make recommendations for compensation where necessary for injuries, losses or damages as a consequence of the events of July 18, 2012”.
Fraser, in his brief testimony, said that he had a list of losses prepared by a Linden contractor, Orin Wilson, and he had helped to attach prices to some of the items. He noted that he checked the list and then took it to Freedom House to be examined. “I showed the guy the things that were damaged like the fan and computers, and he applied the cost to each item,” he explained, while adding that the list also contains the cost of materials and labour that would be needed to repair the building.
Meanwhile, a farmer, Ramchan Jewan Mangra, is seeking in excess of Gy$1.3 million for damages done to his properties, not for any loss of income. He said that he was prepping lands which he recently acquired, when the police asked for his assistance in cutting some logs that were placed to block the roads.
Targeted
The man noted that after assisting the police, he was under constant attack from persons who invaded his farms and his “pluck station” at their separate locations, damaging and to some extent stealing his equipment.
Mangra, who had testified during last year’s hearings, underwent intense cross-examination by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Attorney Basil Williams. The attorney rhetorically told the man that he is not claiming for loss of income because he has none. Commissioner KD Knights then inquired from Mangra and after confirming, explained to the attorney that the man is seeking compensation for the losses he incurred in terms of his equipment and his stocks and not for income.
Williams also asked the farmer whether he had made any efforts to restart his business, to which the man responded in the negative. The attorney stated despite having gained profits from the four years he was in the business, Mangra chose not to restart his business, however, the man noted that he has not done so because he is trying to move his farm to the new land he got.
Commissioner Dana Seetahal had asked the farmer if he ever entertained seeking compensation from the police since all the problems stemmed from him helping them out, and he responded in the negative. Additionally, two other persons also sought compensation on Tuesday for damages done to their properties. Savatri Klautky, part owner of Mariabu Investments, a logging and sawmill company, told the commission that her company had a shipment of logs valued US$4305 to be transported and had hired someone to do so.
Damaged truck
- Compton Fraser being sworn in to give evidence
The woman noted that they saw on television that the truck used to transport the logs was burnt and persons rolled off the logs and used them to “stop traffic”. She explained that they went to Linden after the unrest and the logs were nowhere to be found.
Commission Seetahal asked Klautky whether the company insures the logs and the woman replied saying “no”, but noted that it pays a royalty to the Land and Forestry Commission.
Narindra Latchman, the owner of a construction company, is claiming losses in excess of Gy$13 million as a result of his machinery being damaged. The man noted that his truck GNN 6804 had cost Gy$6 million, the excavator Gy$7.2 million and some other tools and commodities that were damaged.
When asked if he had insurance, the businessman explained that while he does, the insurance, however, does not cover damages done by fire or riot. He said that he had called the company, seeking compensation, and this was told to him by an agent. Latchman was then advised by the commission to go to the insurance company and obtain a copy of his contract so that the commissioners can see the terms and conditions set out in it. In addition, he was asked to produce the purchase receipts for the vehicles which he is seeking compensation for.
“There is a political agenda to target former President Jagdeo” – Nandlall
January 31, 2013 By
APNU MP Carl Greenidge
Attorney General (AG) and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall has expressed concerns over the parliamentary opposition’s consistent moves towards the denial of rights to Guyanese, using their one-seat controlling majority.
In a special interview aired on the National Communications Network, Nandlall and People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament Manzoor Nadir addressed the issue of the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012, which was passed last week by the opposition in the National Assembly.
Nandlall stated that the most fundamental thing to be noted is “when you examine all they have done in the Parliament, manifested either by Motions or Bills, there is a common theme that runs throughout – they assault democracy, they deny rights and freedoms and they violate the constitution.”
Pointing to the gag on Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee as being a denial of a right to speak, he also pointed out that the Former Presidents’ Benefits and other Facilities Bill is a denial of a vested right to property in relation to former presidents.
He observed that a former president is not an ordinary person “and here you have people not in government, but in opposition, seeking to take away legal rights and entitlements of seemingly powerfully placed personnel. When they were in power, you saw this thinking being manifested; you saw the rigging of elections; compulsory acquisition of people’s property wrongfully without compensation; denial of people’s right to express themselves; refusal to allow newspapers to print; and a whole regime of denial of rights. Now in opposition, with a controlling vote in Parliament, you can see the same theme running through their actions,” the AG declared.
Jagdeo targeted
- Former President Bharrat Jagdeo
He reiterated that the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 was designed specifically to target former President Bharrat Jagdeo and reeks of a vindictive intention to play politics with matters of great importance. He noted that historically, the issue goes back to pensions in Guyana.
The AG observed that, in 2004, the National Assembly fixed pensions for a number of constitutional office holders at seven-eighths of their last held salary. Those office holders include the president, the prime minister, the chancellor of the judiciary, the chief justice, judges of the High Court, members of parliament, government ministers, the speaker of the National Assembly, the director of public prosecutions, the commissioner of police and the auditor general, among others. “Significantly, in all the discourses, in all the criticisms, and during the campaign trail, not a single utterance was made about the pension of any of these office holders. Former President Jagdeo was the singular target,” he said.
He emphasised that when the original bill was passed into law in 2009, there were two other bills which were approved contemporaneously, addressing benefits for the leader of the opposition and former first ladies. The bills were intended to put into law and to codify a common regime of benefits which were always enjoyed by these persons since Independence. “Again not a single word about these pieces of legislation,” noted the AG.
“The Leader of the Opposition Act contains a similar regime of uncapped benefits, but again, not a single word of criticism had been uttered of this legislation. Hence, my contention is that there is a political agenda to target former President Jagdeo.”
Bill cannot apply
- Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall
The AG explained that, in any event, the bill cannot apply to or affect former Presidents Jagdeo or Hinds because the facilities which are conferred in the 2009 law amount to property in law, which is protected under article 142 of the Constitution as a fundamental right and, therefore, they cannot be taken away by any ordinary legislation, either prospectively or retrospectively.
Significantly, it cannot even apply to President Donald Ramotar because the 2009 act was in force when he assumed office and article 222 (3) provides that the president’s salary, allowances, terms of service and other benefits cannot be altered to his disadvantage after he assumes office. “The opposition therefore misled the population when they told the people during the 2011 campaign that they will reduce President Jagdeo’s pensions and benefits. They must now explain why they cannot fulfill what they claimed was their major campaign promise,” Nandlall said.
MPs should return duty free concession
“If the opposition is so concerned about having more money available for the public servants, the rice farmers and the sugar workers as they claim, which indeed is quite laudable, I challenge them to give up the duty free concessions which they received as parliamentarians and pay back the monies which the State had to forego when those concessions were granted. Having regard to the types of vehicles which are purchased with these concessions, each of these concessions costs approximately Gy$10 million,” the AG indicated
What will they do in govt
Should President Ramotar not sign the bill into law, he will send it back to the National Assembly with the reasons for his non-assent, Nandlall explained. “Then the Speaker can put it back to the Parliament. If it then receives two thirds support from the Parliament, then the president must assent,” he said.
Trotman must safeguard Rohee’s rights as an MP – Nandlall
January 25, 2013 By
Legal Affairs Minister and Attorney General Anil Nandlall
The Committee of Privileges that was slated to meet Monday, to review whether Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee had violated any of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly was abandoned.
Legal Affairs Minister and Attorney General Anil Nandlall expressed the view that he believes “it is safe to conclude that Rohee will be allowed to speak in the National Assembly on the next occasion that he attempts to do so.”
The Legal Affairs Minister had dispatched a letter last week to the clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs, in which he called for the meeting of the Committee of Privileges to be “aborted permanently” or be “adjourned indefinitely”.
Minister Nandlall in the letter reminded the clerk, that the Speaker has said orally, that he would “not proceed with the matter in the Privileges Committee, unless and until the matter is determined by the Court”.
“A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) echoed a similar request, and therefore, the Speaker, I believe, had very little choice but to accede to the joint request of the government and APNU,” the Legal Affairs Minister reasoned on Monday. Nandlall stated that Speaker Raphael Trotman now has the responsibility of ensuring that Rohee is accorded the right conferred upon him as a duly elected MP.
He noted significant comments made by the Speaker when the meeting commenced. “If I interpreted him correctly, he said very clearly, that his interpretation of the Chief Justice’s ruling is that Minister Rohee has a right as an elected member to speak on any matter. So hopefully, one would expect that that would be given effect shortly.”
The parliamentary opposition has consistently within the past year, made attempts to force Minister Rohee to step down from his ministerial post through a ‘no-confidence’ motion in the National Assembly and public disturbances.
They have also charged that he gave direct instructions to police ranks in Linden in July which led to the shooting of three persons involved in protests in the mining town. Another motion was then passed in the National Assembly in an attempt to prevent the minister from speaking. The Speaker ruled against it, but the parliamentary opposition disregarded the ruling, and in an unruly spate of actions, drowned the minister out when he rose to speak, forcing the adjournment of the sitting.
The issue was taken to the courts by Nandlall and acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang recently ruled that Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee has a right to speak in the National Assembly as an elected member.
In an attempt to force the issue, the opposition moved to the Privileges Committee, and the Speaker had said he would await the ruling of the court.
Dr Roopnaraine says APNU grouping remains united
January 25, 2013 By
APNU parliamentarian Dr Rupert Roopnaraine
Amid reports of tension among the coalition parties of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), co-leader of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) Dr Rupert Roopnaraine is assuring the public that the parties are still united and strong to serve its purpose.
There were reports stemming from the monthly leadership meeting held last Thursday that there was deep tension between the WPA and the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), as it relates to the next step for the coalition.
However, Dr Roopnaraine said some issues were raised and were dealt with. He noted that the issues raised were none that caused “grave tension”; rather, they were housekeeping matters.
“The matters discussed ranged from party politics to the rise in structure of the party. The matters were ongoing matters and we have come to some resolution on these matters, but there was not anything dramatic that would result in severe tension,” Dr Roopnaraine said.
He added that the coalition has the interest of the people at heart, and with that in mind, it is doing what is best for the people.
When contacted, on Friday, he indicated that APNU parliamentarians were engaging supporters at Tuschen, East Bank Essequibo in their regular MPs village walk about.
The APNU in a press statement said the partnership discussed matters pertaining to the stand-off between Region 10 and the Guyana government. The coalition noted that the government allegedly failed to honour its promises pertaining to the agreement with the Region 10 administration.
Other matters discussed included the current legislative agenda and local government elections.
The APNU Leadership Council is comprised of representatives of the 10 groups/parties that make up the partnership. The parties have been struggling to keep their disagreements, divisions and power struggles internal and away from media spotlight ever since the unrests at Linden and the public criticism that followed.
Court vindicates govt’s Lotto Fund deposit
January 10, 2013 By
–deems opposition’s challenge misconceived
Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh
Justice Diana Insanally has dismissed legal proceedings filed by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) parliamentarian Desmond Trotman, which challenged the constitutionality and legality of the government’s deposit of proceeds from the lottery into a Developmental Fund, popularly referred to as the “Lotto Fund”.
The judge on December 28, 2012 ruled that the challenge was misconceived, and ordered the applicant, Desmond Trotman to pay to the respondent, the attorney general Gy$50,000 in costs.
Trotman was represented by Miles Fitzpatrick, SC and Christopher Ram. For several years now, opposition politicians and critics of the government, including Ram, a Chartered Accountant and Anand Goolsarran, a former Auditor General, have been heavily critical of the government on this issue of depositing money in the “Lotto Funds” as opposed to depositing same directly into the Consolidated Fund.
The government’s contention has always been that it is perfectly lawful and proper and constitutional to place those monies in a fund separately and apart from the Consolidated Fund.
APNU Parliamentarian Carl Greenidge had moved a motion in the House last year seeking to compel Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh to deposit these monies directly into the Consolidated Fund, contending that it was unlawful and unconstitutional to deposit it elsewhere.
During the debate in the National Assembly, the government argued that the motion was misconceived and that the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, Article 216 of the Constitution, and the Lotteries Act permit those monies to be kept outside of the Consolidated Fund and in a Development Fund. The opposition however used their one-seat majority to pass their motion.
APNU Parliamentarian Desmond Trotman
The court, in dismissing the matter, found that the deposit of the monies in the Development Fund of Guyana (Lotto Fund) is in accordance with Article 216 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and the Lotteries Act, thereby vindicating the government’s position.
The administration hopes that this would put this matter to rest.
The government took the opportunity to encourage the opposition to take more of these issues with which they have difficulties to the court for resolution rather than using them in the press and elsewhere to perpetuate their self-induced perception of lack of transparency and accountability in government’s business, and to lend sustenance to their omnipresent zombie of corruption in all spheres of governmental activities.
Rohee condemns opposition’s shortsightedness
January 10, 2013 By
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee had chided the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) for rejecting major reforms of the security sector.
The minister reacting to the opposition’s posture said, “they fail to see the forest and are only looking at the trees… you cannot deal with crime if you do not address certain reforms within the institution that is tasked legally and constitutionally with the responsibility to address those problems.”
On December 31, 2012, Minister Rohee hosted a special forum where he outlined in great detail, the reforms that will be embarked on so as to improve the overall functioning of the security sector.
Subsequently, both the APNU and the AFC declared that they will not be supporting any reform led by the minister. This, Minister Rohee said was most “regrettable” since the reforms are long overdue and much needed.
The strategic plan will see the establishment of a Strategic Management Department which will have oversight for it. In this regard, advertisements will be published in the media, inviting suitable persons to apply.
A panel, consisting of technical officers from the Home Affairs Ministry and the Guyana Police Force will examine the applications, 10 of which will be selected.
Minister Rohee also explained that the issues that will be looked at in the reform includes administration, succession planning, probity and integrity of the force, and public relations were drawn from the Capita Symonds Report, a UK-based firm that was consulted.
Moreover, he noted that all of these steps were done in consultation with the police force.
The minister himself will have very little involvement in this process; as his responsibility is to set the parameters to ensure that the force is properly oriented, and that it has the necessary tools to effectively address all the issues that were brought out in the Capita Symonds Report by the experts.
The first phase of this consultancy will last for a period of about four to six weeks, and will commence sometime later this month. It will cost approximately US$129,750 or Gy$25 million.
Discussing the change in name for the Guyana Police Force to the Guyana Police Service, Minister Rohee said that Cabinet in its wisdom deliberated on this matter and agreed that the change will be apt in terms of making this premier law enforcement agency, a more service-oriented organisation in keeping with its motto of “Service and Protection”.
With regards to the opposition’s claims that the minister had this reform plan in gestation for an inordinate amount of time and has now, opportunistically, chosen to release it, Minister Rohee said that this argument is petty and explained that the process was an expensive one that encompassed several phases and every step had a cost, which had to be approved, before moving on to the next.
Court to rule on Rohee’s no-confidence motion challenge on Friday
January 10, 2013 By
Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang on Friday is expected to make his preliminary ruling on the lawsuit challenging the opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall had challenged the motion naming David Granger in his capacity as Opposition Leader and Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman as respondents.
The motion said that Resolution Number 18 passed in the National Assembly on Monday, July 30 is unlawful, violates the doctrine of separation of powers, and is null and void as well as unconstitutional. It also stated that despite objections from the government’s side of the National Assembly, the Speaker allowed the motion to be debated and duly passed on July 30.
Sanction
Attorney General Anil Nandlall
Since the passing of the motion, leaders of both the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) have made statements to the effect that the National Assembly will sanction Minister Rohee if the said no-confidence motion is ignored by the government of Guyana.
The motion also made reference to the APNU saying publicly that upon the resumption of sittings of the National Assembly, it will approach the privileges committee to have Rohee suspended for six months if he fails to adhere to the no-confidence motion.
The attorney general had argued in his motion that Minister Rohee was appointed by the president in his current capacity, not at the pleasure of the National Assembly. The attorney general is also arguing that the Speaker of the House may have committed a grave constitutional error and abrogated the doctrine of separation of powers when the no-confidence motion was entertained.
Referring to the decision by the House Speaker as a “constitutional travesty”, Nandlall is asking the High Court to consider that “even greater constitutional heresy is likely to yet take place”, since based upon the public declarations made by the leaders of the opposition parties, steps have already been taken in consequence of the no-confidence motion and the resolution passed thereafter.
Granger, in his response to the AG court action, had stated that the declarations and orders sought by Nandlall were without merit and were misconceived. He noted that the decision of the Speaker to send the matter to the privileges committee was an internal proceeding of the National Assembly.
In addition, AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan has also expressed some degree of confidence that the verdict will be in the opposition’s favour. In an invited comment, Ramjattan pointed out that like in any other cases, his party trusts that the acting chief justice’s judgment will be without prejudice. He further related that if the final decisions are not found not to be in accordance with the party’s expectations, then they would move to appeal the judgment.
Opposition’s pressure on gov’t bearing fruit – APNU
January 4, 2013 By
By Pushpa Balgobin
The A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) said it believes that the pressure the combined opposition has placed on the government is bearing fruit, but played down talks of moving a no-confidence motion against the government to force fresh elections.
At a news conference at his office, Opposition Leader David Granger claimed, “The government is against the ropes… public support has drawn away from the People’s Progressive Party; there is no leadership, no movement towards national unity.”
According to Granger, as a result of the current situation, the public has seen “no change in quality of governance”. Granger stated that the role of the opposition has to be one of checks and balances. He also lamented that while many agencies saw tremendous budget cuts that should have crippled their potential; they are in fact hiring staff and going forth “merrily”.
- APNU Deputy Leader Dr Rupert Roopnaraine
