the case that there must be in place a Law Reform Commission. Expert advice on

the need and priority for changes in our law, expert advice on what changes

have been occurring around the common law world from which we can extract as we

see fit, expert advice as to what may be appealing but troublesome so as to

avoid an unmeritorious adoption thereof, could have been forthcoming from such

a Law Reform Commission. But “No!” said the A.G. and the Government

he represents.

Setting up such an institution which is

necessary to archive the reasons why we pass the laws we do, so that we can

have institutional memory to fall back on, would have been a great credit to

this country especially in this important field of criminal law and criminal justice.

Our criminal law and criminal justice system

are in a mess. And one of the methods to clean up such a mess is through the

efforts of a Law Reform Commission. Research, at a serious level, on points of

policy and principle, on points of pros and cons of a law can be done by such a

Commission before a deliberation occurs here, before we legislate in this

National Assembly.

This Amendment Bill introduced with the

purpose of continuing Government’s criminal justice reform would have

been found by such a Commission as only adding to that mess and being a recipe

for disaster.

Mr. Speaker, this Government feels that

because that mandate has been granted to it to legislate then it must only

legislate to further fortify the position of the State. It fails to appreciate

that the other obligation is to pass laws which must improve the lives and lot

of its citizens, and to fortify the system which will give a greater justice to

such citizens.

This Amendment which seeks to provide for

appeals by the D.P.P. to the Court of Appeal and thereafter as of right to the

C.C.J., against the acquittal of an accused will not improve the lives of a

whole lot of citizens. The lot of the accused will be made more horrible. So,

too, the lot of all those involved in the trial process -witnesses, the Police,

the jury, the Judge, and even the entire system, because of the inundation

these appeals will have on it. This is readily foreseeable.

So why bring this Amendment? This Government

will argue that since the accused has the right to appeal his conviction, then

the State should have the right to appeal an accused acquittal. The acquittals

rate these days are soaring but that is not due to the fact that the State does

not have such a right of appeal. And now that the State will be given that

right to appeal, I warn that it would be foolhardy to conclude that there will

be, from now on, more convictions and less acquittals.

More convictions will only happen when there

is an improved quality of the investigation of crime, and a high quality

prosecution at the trial thereafter. Both these phases require a sustained

effort at training the personnel, keeping abreast and advancing with the

technologies which assist in detection, and having advocates at a trial process

who apart from articulating in a manner to convince a jury, must also be sharp

enough to counter the stumbling blocks any good Defence Counsel will

legitimately mount. Just like our AG used to do and my colleague, former AG,

Mr. De Santos still does. Improving and strengthening the three P’s –

policemen, prosecutors and prisons will realize what this Government strives

for and what the citizens want – a fair criminal law justice system. This is

the way forward. Not what we have here in the provisions of this Bill!

There are several very dangerous themes

running through this legislation which must give cause for major concern. I

shall address them in due course. But I must state certain realities why we

have the existing status quo in which acquittals by the jury in trials on

indictment were never subject to appeals.

In a hundred and more years of the common law

jurisprudence, time immemorial as we would say, the settled position, the

bed-rock foundation of our criminal justice system has been that a jury’s

verdict of acquittal represented the limit of the power of the State to impose

punishment upon the citizen. This was the perfect balance and counter-balance

between the powers and resources of the State and the relative weaknesses of

the ordinary subject within a democratic society.

Right up to recently, our Court of Appeal

could only hear appeals from persons convicted. The prosecution had no right of

redress, however strongly it held the view that an accused was wrongly

acquitted.

Indeed, in 1978, by Court of Appeal Amendment

Act 21 of 1978, only a DPP’s Reference to the Court of Appeal on a point

of law following an acquittal on indictment was permitted. And in such a

Reference nothing adverse could happen to the accused who was acquitted,

pending the outcome of that Reference. He was a free man. The Reference only

illuminated the point of law for a better application by the Judges on Assizes.

So the historic axis, that a jury’s verdict of acquittal remained in

place, never shifted as a result of this 1978 Amendment. The legitimate

delicate balance between State and the individual was intact as regards the

finality of the acquittal at a trial. This DPP’s reference of 1978 could

not be said to have impugned the supremacy of the jury or in any way limit the

accused’s right to appeal if he was convicted.

This Bill before this House, however, Mr.

Speaker, seeks a blatant erosion of jury supremacy! But more than that it

affects other venerated legal safeguards which are the hallmark of our system

of criminal law and criminal justice such as the presumption of innocence, such

as the rule against double jeopardy, and even in my opinion the independence of

Judges and hence the doctrine of separation of powers.

This Bill is frightening and in the words of

a famous Barrister, John Cooper, (concerning an Amendment not too dissimilar

put up by PM Blair’s Labour Administration in England in 2003) .. …“Parliament

then the criminal law will intervene on behalf of the weaker party.”

It is this reasoning which grounds why certain

rights are given to accused persons and duties obligated to the

State.

The Amendment in England in 2003 was duly

passed because in England Parliament is supreme. That is the constitutional

principle which governs England.

We have the Supremacy of the Constitution and

in various provisions of our written constitution sacrosanct principles like

the rule against double jeopardy, the presumption of innocence, separation of

powers are all explicitly, if not implicitly, enshrined therein.

I want also to mention what we all learn at

Law School about juries and their importance. Juries, as we know, and those

over there should know from the Arnold Rampersaud trials, is that serious

stumbling block which every Government hates when such Governments begin to act

dictatorially elected or unelected. It is that juries are a bulwark of liberty.

Lord Devlin in his classic book “Trial

lives.”

This Bill seeks to do away with that

particular constitutional balance between a puny citizen and a powerful State;

it seeks to out that lamp which shows that freedom lives! And all because of

some unpalatable outcomes at the Assizes over the years! To walk away from this

balance, and to replace it with the provisions of this Bill is a monumental

mis-step.

This Government by its nature, and its

exhibition and public expression here of its nature, feels that it knows best.

However, it knows not what it is playing with!

How do the Bill’s provisions breach

some of the fundamental doctrines? An illustration comes very readily at hand.

An accused is charged with any one of the offences mentioned in 34 C (5), say

murder. The main evidence is a confession statement as is so peculiar here in

Guyana. As is normally the case, this confession is objected to at the trial.

The Judge conducts a voire dire and rules that the confession is

the jury brings in a not guilty verdict.

The DPP will now, unlike before, have the

right to appeal the Judge’s decision to exclude that confession. This is

what Clause 34 B (1) (a) (iii) is saying. The Judge’s discretion in

holding evidence inadmissible is now appealable, at the behest of the DPP. It

is true that before only the Judge’s discretion to hold evidence

admissible could have been questioned on appeal by a convicted appellant. Now

this whole balance is being shifted.

But more than that, the accused has to remain

in the lockups pending the determination of this appeal by our C.A. Moreover,

that may not be the end of the wait because if the C.A. rules that the

DPP’s appeal was unmeritorious, the DPP as of right can appeal to the

C.C.J.

In similar terms, even if the Judge in the

said case had ruled admissible the confession. And the matter is sent to the

jury and the jury comes out with a not guilty verdict which presently would

entitle the accused to go free, the DPP has powers to hold the accused in the

lockups -(although a jury has acquitted him, mind you) – and tell the accused: “Wait

summation is found wanting by the C.C.J, say 5-6 years after the acquittal,

the poor accused has to go back and face a brand new trial before another jury

and Judge! Will this not mean a contravention of the right to a trial within a

reasonable time?

Clause 34 B (1) expressly is getting at

Judge’s whose rulings at trials the DPP does not like. These rulings in a

large measure will depend on foundation facts led by the Prosecution and tested

by cross-examination. To want to appeal a Judge’s discretion to exclude

is tantamount to the State pouring scorn over its own Judges in it pursuit of a

conviction at a trial. It smacks definitely of an erosion of the independence

of a Judge’s adjudication in the criminal justice system, which as I have

said, has this preferential balance in favour of the accused, in view of the

power of the State and weakness of the citizen. Now if it is the Judges that

the Government is getting at, then better equip them. And ensure better

appointments. Don’t damage our well-known criminal justice architecture!

Don’t shift this longstanding balance.

Moreover, the double jeopardy rule as I know

it will be encroached upon. When a jury finds a citizen not guilty after a

Judge’s summation and a jury deliberation, then that should be the end of

the matter. To devise an appellate procedure which will now realise a second

trial after a first acquittal is but an abolition of this double jeopardy rule.

I needn’t go further and say that the presumption of innocence is also

flung through the door.

Now it may be argued that the DPP may not

abuse her right of appeal. It will only be sparingly used. Such an expectation

must be unacceptable. This power in the hands of the DPP, who in the

constitutional construct as we know it is a member of the Executive branch of

Government, can be exercised to the detriment of accused persons. The

manifestation will be an elongated period in prison, or the Sword of Damocles

hanging over your head if lucky to be put on bail, as the finality of the

process is being determined by inordinate appeals. This can constitute

oppressiveness if not downright torture.

The effects, need I say, will be massive

backlog and more frustration in the Court system. Policemen and witnesses will

become frustrated having to duplicate their testimony in another trial. All of

this will undermine an already sorry system.

This Bill must not be supported! Neither here

in this National Assembly nor in any Select Committee stage. The AFC will only

support its total withdrawal!

2008-8-3: The AFC

Column…MEDALS, DIPLOMACY & VENEZUELA? By Raphael Trotman, AFC Leader

style=’font-size:13.5pt;color:blue’>

The Guyanese public was recently treated to a

most interesting sight of the Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force,

Commodore Gary Best, being bestowed with the Medal Star of Carabobo, on the

24th July, 2008, by the Ambassador of the Venezuela. The medal itself given in

honour of the triumphs of Simon Bolivar is a prestigious one and is to be

considered of very high standing.

However, there was something about this

ceremony that set me thinking and in fact left me uncomfortable. I am sure that

Commodore Best is very deserving of all medals coming his way, but whether it

was prudent for the Government of Guyana to permit such a medal to be awarded

is a question which remains unanswered.

Looked at conversely, would President Chavez

have allowed his top General to be given a medal by our Ambassador in Caracas,

knowing the intricacies and complexities surrounding our border controversy?

I wondered immediately about the incidents in

October, 2006 when Guyanese Parasram Persaud was killed by the Venezuelan

military at Eteringbang, and in November, 2007, when two Guyanese dredges were

blown to smithereens by the Venezuelan military in a show of force.

To date, the family of Persaud and the owners

of the dredges have not been compensated, and the expected reports following

investigations were never delivered.

In accepting military honours and medals we

must be able to reconcile these latest incidents, and those over the years, of

which Ankoko should be a constant reminder. I therefore am forced to ask

whether this new energy we are seeing in Venezuelan diplomatic activity is part

of a plan to lead to a negotiated settlement, or to an entrenchment of the

claim to Essequibo.

I am all for the settlement of our

controversy and welcome the signs of progress that we see since Hugo

Chavez’s ascension to the presidency. Commencing with his visit to Guyana

in 2004 and followed by his pronouncements that he wished to see the matter

resolved.

Only recently, we have had the small but

profoundly powerful contribution made to the distressed farmers of Buxton

following the destruction of their farmlands.

I thought that this gesture made a powerful

political statement given the trivial and “cass cass” manner that

our Government was dealing with the issue of depravation following the razing

of the backlands.

Since then we have the announcements that the

Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is proposing the installation

of an oil pipeline in Guyana for our benefit, the reiteration of the intention

to build a road linking the two countries, and the “no objection”

offered to Guyana’s proposal to have a British organisation develop

environmental programmes in a large portion of the Essequibo in exchange for

financial aid.

These are very welcome and promising

developments that show a ray of hope that our long and debilitating controversy

may be resolved during my lifetime.

Past incidents and the ongoing geo-political

maneuverings, however, necessitate that I temper my expectations and make

caution my watchword.

A report on what are Venezuela’s true

intentions sheds light on the issues and the contradictions that Guyana can

find itself in if not careful, and I believe that certain extracts are worthy

of publication in the interest of freedom of information:

PIPELINE

Laying the pipeline would provide economic

benefits to Guyana. It would create jobs for Guyanese in land preparation and

the construction process. It would also create jobs for the security and

maintenance of the pipeline. Concomitantly, oil supplies by Venezuela to Guyana

to fuel its industrial sector, would be ready and swift.

The problem is, what will be

Venezuela’s share of the employment, during and after. Is it likely that

some or many of the before may be likely to remain in Guyana as a deliberate

strategy? How many Venezuelans would be employed after, and would the plan to

maintain security of the pipeline be Venezuelans in the main?

Would they be members of the Venezuelan

National Guard, fully armed with weapons from Venezuela? What modern military

weapons and patrol vehicles would they place in Guyana? There is an even graver

concern. Intervention in sovereign countries to protect investment and nationals

has been a pattern of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.

History is replete with examples, one of the

latest being the U.S. military invasion of Grenada on the pretext of protecting

its investment and U.S. citizens there when in fact, the real reason was the

overthrow of the socialist/communist government on the island.

Venezuela could always manufacture a pretext

to intervene in Guyana to protect its pipeline and to thereby seize and occupy

Essequibo, the territory of Guyana it is spuriously claiming. Beware of the

Greeks bearing gifts.

HIGHWAY

The proposed highway from Venezuela to Guyana

would benefit Guyana in many ways. It would open the vast western hinterland to

farming, fisheries, forestry and mineral development.

Given Guyana’s small population and

lack of capital, it would be obvious to conclude that Venezuela would be the

major, if not only, beneficiary of the highway, given the size of its

population and its enormous treasury of oil revenue.

Very few Guyanese would want to live in the

interior. The majority would want to migrate to North America and greener

pastures, and even to Venezuela itself.

Venezuela would no doubt offer sotto voce

citizenship to Guyanese in the Essequibo on the basis that they are by

geography de facto citizens.

The reality is that many Venezuelans,

ordinary and corporate citizens, would be crossing over to Essequibo, while

many Guyanese would be hoofing it to Venezuela, become Venezuelan citizens and

then be encouraged to return to the Essequibo to re-settle as dual citizens,

but supporting Venezuela.

The reality also is that Guyana does not have

the administrative and security capacity to fully monitor movements of people

and material from Venezuela into Guyana.

At the same time, Venezuela is also noticing

the plethora of Brazilians who are crossing from Brazil into Guyana via the

porous, unsecured and unguarded southern border.

There are an estimated 60,000 Brazilians in

the southern and mid-area of Guyana involved in mining and other activities.

The newly opened bridge across the Takatu

River connecting Brazil to Guyana is increasing the flow of Brazilians. The

Venezuelans want to take a page out of Brazil’s land grab and legally or

illegally occupy the east with its own citizens while Brazil aggrandises itself

in the south.

Brazil has a population of some 200 million

and Venezuela, some 25 million. Guyana has about 850,000. Slowly but surely,

while Guyana is looking north and not south or west, Brazil is looking north at

Guyana’s land and resources and is moving in. Venezuela is looking east

at Essequibo and also wants to move in.

Venezuela’s master plan seems to be to

occupy the Essequibo in a civilian way as opposed to a military

posture. The highway is the foundation of the

plan.

“Beware of the Greeks bearing

gifts.” This report makes much sense and leads me to conclude that before

any road or pipeline is allowed to pass through Guyana there must be a

renunciation of the claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s land in a formal

manner both at the level of the Venezuelan Government, and internationally.

The Jagdeo Government had better not make any

fatal mistakes.

2008-8-10: Remarks by

O.E., S.C.

Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, O.E, S.C., was

an enigma. There is no escaping or denying that fact. To many he was a

visionary and an extraordinary statesman, and yet also, to just as many as well

he was the villain who took Guyana to its nadir. No matter what we do, or say,

that is the history of our country and we have to recognize and accept it.

Burnham was undoubtedly, an outstanding student, great orator, gifted lawyer,

visionary, and wise and wily politician. That we are debating him now after twenty-three

years since his demise is testament to the influence that he had on Guyana.

No other Guyanese has made such an imprint on

Guyana, and the Caribbean Region, as he did. In fact I hasten to say that no

other person, or President, in the foreseeable future, is likely to have an

impact on Guyana and things Guyanese as he has. The name Burnham became

synonymous with Guyana, and we were all weighed and measured by this fact. His

benefits and his burdens became our benefits and our burdens. Twenty-three

years since his demise, and still the unmistakable impression of his footprint

remains. Whether it is to be found in towns and streets named in his honour, in

the roads, housing schemes and bridges which we still frequent, or the frequent

references to rigged elections, and failed policies, the name Burnham stays on,

almost hauntingly, never really having been put into a proper place of eternal

rest. Can we do so today? I wonder/

Mr. Speaker I won’t pretend to know

everything about the politics of Burnham or about the inner workings of his

cabinet and policies as others here undoubtedly can justifiably boast. My

introduction, and knowledge of him, came through his wife and former first lady

Viola, the quintessential lady in every regard, and his children and

grand-children with whom I maintain a very close relationship today. Mr.

Speaker, I feel compelled to say that despite whatever may be said about the

man Burnham, that in the many years that I have known the family, I have found

no evidence of extravagance, of arrogance, or even a hint of performance in

them. In many respects they were just as affected and bothered as the next

person was by the happenings of his time.

As I said before, there were many benefits

and many burdens that resulted from his presence in Guyana, and it is not my

intention to tabulate and calculate these as if to place them in a scale of

judgment to measure right and wrong, but to say that no objective assessment of

the man can be complete if we attempt to airbrush away his blemishes, and to

buff his accomplishments. The same is true in the reverse were we to seek to

diminish his many accomplishments and dredge to the fore his mistakes and

blemishes as if these were the only defining characteristics of his life. We

cannot escape that reality. Burnham’s life was inextricably linked with

that of another former President Cheddie Jagan and if we if continue to deny

the reality of the impact of their individual and collective lives on the state

and psyche of the people then we will be guilty of being false not only to

ourselves, but also to the generations past, and yet to come. There is a

certain irony in us having motions coming in successive order to honour two men

whose lives were shaped and defined by each other. Perhaps our purposes would

have been better served if we had taken them together and in that way have a

more objective, definitive, and constructive discussion on their lives, and

contributions.

The whole cycle of patting each other on the

back and then engaging in fights while Guyana continues to bleed has been

described by some to be pathetic, self-serving, and useless. Interestingly, the

actions, failures, and even cooperation of these two men, Jagan and Burnham,

have left us with many good memories and memorials, but yet still

unfortunately, as a divided nation and a destroyed and displaced people.

Despite the meaningful and measurable contributions that were made the critical

question of whether we are better off today is left unanswered. We speak of

legacy, but have we done anything to critically assess the legacies of those we

wish to honour and thereby ensure that we move forward with the wholesome, and

discard the unwanted, or are we just pretending to be constantly advancing the

legacies of those we wish to honour?

Mr. Speaker the lives of Forbes Burnham, and

that of his sometimes colleague, and sometimes opponent Cheddie Jagan, must be

viewed in the context of the happenings of their era when the cold-war brought

its freezing grip to Guyana and determined and influenced many of the decisions

taken by our leaders of the day. Guyana fell victim to the war, and remains,

unto today, a badly wounded casualty. We have experimented; critically

supported; condemned; killed; and defamed each other; sometimes not realizing

that we were acting out a script handed to us by colonial masters and

superpowers. Where are we today when reliable estimates say that there are as

many as 700,000 Guyanese scattered like homeless people across the globe and

making profound and worthwhile contributions to other societies –yet

unable to grasp the opportunity to remain home, and to do the same for their

motherland. Should we really be celebrating at all?

Mr. Speaker when the AFC was alerted that

there was going to be a Motion to honour the contribution of the late President

LFS Burnham, we agreed in principle to participate in this event for the

primary reason that it is time that we as Guyanese, and particularly Guyanese

leaders, bring both amplification and closure to a past that was both glorious

and many times sordid. The story of Guyana is a story of unending contradiction

of the type that even Marx and Engels could not unravel. Our presence here

today is not to indulge in hero worshipping, but to say that in our leaders,

both past and present, we can find good and bad. We in the AFC believe that we

cannot move forward unless we confront our ambivalent past; not by conflating

it and pretending that the good and bad were fused to produce a perfect state,

but rather, by disaggregating that past and separating the ignominious from the

honourable.

There is no doubt that events such as this

are a clumsy attempt at best to give recognition to the works of past leaders,

but they nevertheless constitute a valiant start to healing which we support.

It would have been so much better Mr. Speaker if this country had a Committee

or Commission made up of eminent citizens, including, those who rose to high

status such as past and serving Presidents, who met and decided on the manner

of honouring of citizens and from whom from time to time recommendations could

be made to this National Assembly for honours to be bestowed through

Parliamentary Motions and otherwise. What we have is a situation of “your

heroes and my heroes.” You exalt yours, and I will exalt mine. Within the

region Jamaica stands out as the closest example of a country with a bitter

past that has dealt with the issue of “my hero” “your

hero” successfully. Perhaps we may wish to look there for good example.

Mr. Speaker we cannot bring healing and

reconciliation if we do not move to the place where we honour heroes nationally

and not in a partisan way. We are being forced and encouraged to bring

individual motions to celebrate, venerate, and exalt our own heroes in a kind

of one for me and one for you syndrome. Under the current system for the award

of national honours if you’re not one of the chosen few then you have

nothing to get. The President of Guyana is the Chancellor of the Orders of

Guyana, and is advised by an Advisory Council which comprises the Chancellor of

the Judiciary, four persons appointed by the President after consultation with

the Prime Minister, one member appointed after consultation with the Leader of

Opposition, one member by the President, and one other member who holds an O.E.

There is little wonder why then there has been no investiture ceremony in

Guyana for the past six years. This, for a country that calls itself a modern

and inclusive democracy. This has to change.

In this regard the AFC recommends that the

process of honouring of citizens of Guyana be de-politicised and that a

non-partisan committee be established to craft new and transparent criteria,

and to decide on the award of national honours. This committee must not operate

like the one which arbitrarily issues national awards such as was the case when

Shivnarine Chandrapaul was recently honoured. Quite frankly, the man deserves

far more than an AA because what he has achieved for Guyana, and the Region, is

vastly superior to the contribution of many in this Chamber. South Africa did

it successfully by reforming its system of national orders to meaningfully

embrace their new democracy, and “to reflect the spirit of a non-racial,

non-sexist democracy where a culture of human rights prevails.”

I end Mr. Speaker, not only by hailing the

exploits and accomplishments of Forbes Burnham, but by holding out the

expectation for a better Guyana after today. It is significant that CARIFESTA

is to be held in Guyana in a few days time and there can be no better tribute

to Forbes Burnham than to have a successful and glorious event that serves not

only to showcase the talents of the Caribbean, but moreover, to fuse our

cultures, our experiences, and our destiny. If it takes this event to bring

closure to our bitter past then I am happy and hope that this was not an

exercise to feather one’s ego and score points in an unending game with no

winners, but that by tomorrow there will be a new epoch of cooperation, and

understanding, and an end to the ignorance and the prejudice which it breeds.

Perhaps the symbolism of the bridging of two of Guyana’s rivers will not

be lost as we reach out not just to river banks, but to each other.

2008-8-24: AFC Column-When

/ Chairman of AFC

No matter how exhaustive and well formulated

the constitutional provisions in a democracy are, that democracy will suffer

irreparably when there is not an understanding by its political actors that

there is something called unwritten conventions, which bolster and buttress

such written provisions, and which ought to be adhered to so as to create

confidence and efficacy to the system.

Political actors who master only the art of

democratic centralism and party paramountcy will perhaps hardly know anything

about the convention of ministerial responsibility. Nor will they ever care to

know.

From all appearances, it is either the

absolute ignorance of this convention, or an unabashed arrogance towards it,

which may be the reason why thus far into the Jagdeo Administration there has

not been a sacking of or a resignation by any Minister, despite instances of

Ministerial misconduct which ranges from the boldly bawdy to the

incomprehensibly incompetent.

All those Ministers, falling within this

range, are very close friends and colleagues of mine. But they are well aware

that I will be a severe critic when criticism is necessary, and involve matters

of principle – especially principles which touch and concern the rule of

law and constitutional propriety.

To criticise for such reason does not mean to

hate or to have a political agenda, as is so often mischievously

misinterpreted. It is simply for the sake of our country, for our fledgling

democracy.

The convention of individual ministerial responsibility

fixes blame on a Minister for all failure of policy and administration whether

the Minister himself is at fault or not, or if the failure resulted from

departmental maladministration.

In other words, a Minister must take the

praise for the successes of his department and the blame for its failures. This

is responsible Ministerial government which we must strive to perfect, or come

close to.

Now when the blame is grave enough, being

directly as a result of an error or misjudgement or wanton unlawful conduct on

the part of the Minister, such an errant Minister must be fired by the

President or tender his resignation voluntarily. Otherwise, the entire system

becomes undermined; and a dangerous precedent set.

President Jagdeo was the beneficiary of the

status of Senior Minister of Finance in 1994 when the then Minister of Finance,

Mr. Asgar Ally, resigned suddenly and in some stealth for (what was speculated

at the time) committing an act which in the eyes of Dr. Jagan ought not to have

been committed.

So President Jagdeo must be aware of this

convention and the consequences for serious contraventions thereof.

Recently there have been instances of grave

maladministration which in any decent democracy would have resulted in firings

by the Head of Government or resignations from the Ministers themselves.

But this democracy is not now decent; that

died with Jagan. This indecency has realized a democratic rollback.

Evidence of these instances is in the Auditor

General’s latest report. The abject poverty in the quality of management

of our financial affairs within the various Ministries is simply unimaginable!

Unreconciled bank accounts, overpayment to

contractors, non-compliance of stores regulations, complete reversals in

procurement processes and failure to adhere to Tender Board regulations

constitute only a small fraction of the list of irregularities.

The Minister of Health admits that his

Ministry breached tender procedures and regulations in procuring almost $1B of

medical supplies from the New GPC. Not even a wrap on the wrist.

Why? Because as we now know the President

approved it himself! “There is a 2003 no-objection Cabinet

approval”, is his justification. Why then should we have laws if they are

going to be bent and broken in this fashion?

And even when there are no laws under which

tax holidays and concessions could be granted, the Minister of Finance makes

his grant to QAII – speculatively worth in excess of $3B – only to have

to rush back to Parliament to pass a law to legalise this illegality! No one is

held accountable for this fiasco.

Neither is there that national outrage which

ought to be exhibited by our right-thinking members in society; nor even within

the backbenches of the Government.

I recollected that a man found himself in the

Queen’s bedroom some decades ago. The U.K. Minister in charge duly and

with a certain ring of honour and dignity resigned, because somebody has to be

responsible.

This may have been an extreme instance of

individual ministerial responsibility; but it emphasizes the political culture.

I can boast that even whilst a member of the

PPP when I noticed grave errors and misjudgements of my own Ministers, I

fearlessly spoke out. I remember all too clearly a biting commentary against

Minster Feroze Mohamed in 1994.

Instead of a rectification of the problem,

establishing civilian oversight of our Police Force then under the stewardship

of Laurie Lewis, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against me by the

PPP’s internal inquisition.

My plea to Dr. Jagan may have relieved me of

serious party penalties….to the displeasure of Luncheon, Reepu, and Nokta

who wanted to sit in judgement.

Another more infamous instance in which the

call was made that this convention of ministerial responsibility applies, was

in relation to the “Gajraj issue” where I publicly dissented on the

issue of this Minister’s re-instatement in a piece titled “The

shame is greater than the exoneration”. Though I have lost friends in

doing as I did, I have had no regrets because it was the right thing to do.

Ministerial responsibility as a convention

was never nurtured in our abnormal politics. And this is the other unmitigated

disaster of this country.

We have an opposition, PNC, which hardly has

left any moral authority, or winsome appeal on grounds of integrity and

credibility to criticise the PPP/C.

All this Government has to rebut with is:

“You did similarly, and you did it even worse. You did not even allow

Auditor General’s Reports.”

Though formidable for partisan propaganda purposes,

this is just not legitimate. Guyana’s fragile democracy and its

undeveloped political culture will never see forward movement if arguments like

these continue to be advocated by these parties which have brought us here. An

alliance with and for change is the only way forward!

2008-8-31: AFC Column

or another” by Sheila Holder, MP

style=’font-size:13.5pt;color:blue’>

Everyday the goodness of people around the

world is recorded in some way or another. As the events of the Democratic

National Convention taking place in the USA unfolds this week the world looks

on mesmerised by the capacity of the American people to embrace change from the

bottom up. The courage being displayed by white Democrats in electing Barack Obama

the first black American as leader of the Democratic Party and their candidate

for President of the most powerful country of the world is what will restore

America’s leadership on the world stage. Are the Guyanese people capable

of doing the same, rising above their racial fears to look to the future with

new leaders of integrity and hope for a better Guyana?

With the Guyanese people experiencing

political fatigue and disappointment in the way things have turned out

generally under successive PPPC governments and indeed over the last five

decades it is easy to overlook the fact that we too have our share of goodness

as a people. Distrust, deceit, disappointment, dishonesty and anger dominate

our political exchanges which have seen the country mired in social and

political instability and economic stagnation.

Some analysis, have determined that there is

benefit to be derived from the race-based politics of Guyana. Take for example

the comments made by Donald Ramotar, MP and General Secretary of the People’s

Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) recently at their biannual congress about the

AFC. It is no accident that he sought to position AFC leader Raphael Trotman,

MP as he did – having something to do with violence somewhere at sometime –

thereby attempting to paint him with the brush that best emits fear, which the

PPPC has used as a tool rather successfully in retaining their East Indian

support base. Why else would he do this if his objective was nation building

and the attainment of peace and harmony among our people?

Whether our religious beliefs are Christian,

Hindu or Muslim we are required to practice the proactive ‘Golden

Rule’ which the principals of the AFC embrace.

id=”_x0000_i1033″ src=”images/LatestNews_img_39.jpg”>Christianity tells us in

Matthew 7: V 12, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to

them”.

Hinduism tells us in Mahabharata, Anusasana

Pava 113: 8, “One should not behave towards others

in a way which is disagreeable to oneself.

This is the essence of morality. All other activity is due

to self desire.”

Islam teachings tell us, “Not one of

you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves

for himself”.

The fact that our country is where it is

today – in the doldrums -is testimony that collectively Guyanese have

disregarded these crucial principles of reciprocity. Therefore, collectively we

all have to strive to turn things around by bringing out the goodness that is

within the Guyanese ethos.

Without exception every political party in

and out of the National Assembly has claimed to have as their objective peace

and harmony among our people and national development for all; yet there has

been little evidence that we’re any closer to achieving these laudable

objectives. Instead the political rhetoric on both the governing and opposition

sides has maintained a high level of stridency.

Transient calculations of the effect this has

had on our struggling economy suggest it to be devastating to say the least.

Examples are there for all to see in the large numbers who are unemployed, our

graduates, expertise and artisans who are leaving at an accelerating rate even

though they are likely to be exposed to xenophobia for seeking to thrive in

another man’s land. Are we prepared to do what it takes to turn things

around and provide for our people at home?

Unlike many of our compatriots it is the

belief of the members and principals of the AFC that the ability to change the

current hostile political status quo exists among sufficient numbers of the

Guyanese people. So, despite the insults and hostilities directed at us for

choosing such a path the AFC maintains its message of change, healing and

reconciliation that neither of the parties that governed the country over the

last fifty years is willing to advance in order to create an enabling political

environment upon which progress depends. We in the AFC base our choice of

methodology on the amazing human capacity for goodness that resides

instinctively in the conscience of our people and reinforced by the power of

the teachings of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.that is the basis of our

hope.

28^th August 2008

2008-9-7: AFC Column –

style=’font-size:13.5pt;color:blue’>TIME TO RE-FOCUS by Raphael Trotman

Now that the hype and revelry of Carifesta

and the Beijing Olympics are over we need to re-focus our attention to the

numerous problems and issues which continue to beset out nation. Carifesta

provided a much needed refrain and distraction from the stress and hopelessness

that accompanies day-to-day life in Guyana. Undoubtedly, Carifesta was a

fantastic and profoundly significant event and the Guyanese people must be

commended for their unprecedented support for the numerous activities which

ensued, and for playing such gracious hosts to our Caribbean brothers and

sisters and those from further afield. I would be remiss if I failed to

acknowledge the efforts of the legion of organizers and coordinators, led by

Dr. Paloma Mohamed, who made us feel proud.

The AFC had taken the obvious decision not to

call for a boycott of Carifesta because it accepted that the impact of this

event was beyond the geographical parameters of Guyana, and moreover that

Carifesta, was not just about music, dance, and drama, but just as importantly,

about the advancement of the diverse and evolving concept that we call

“Caribbean Culture”. The majority of the people of Guyana

recognised this. Ultimately, the art of politics is about the ability to read the

mood of the people; about seeing the direction in which they are headed; and

about keeping apace with them. We chose to go with the people.

Despite recent successes the national

security situation remains tenuous and the AFC is particularly concerned about

the government’s preoccupation with the operational side of security

management; which preoccupation is being done at the expense of addressing the

fundamental weaknesses, flaws, fissures remaining in our society. It is these,

and the prolonged failure to confront them, that spawn cycles and waves of

violent crime every few years. In this regard, the thesis put forward by Tacuma

Ogunseye, and others, about the fight of freedom fighters involved in a

political struggle cannot be ignored even if a few dead bodies are stacked up

every now and then. These are the so called “root causes” that have

to be identified as a priority and tackled nationally by all stakeholders. It

was disappointing to say the least that after the encouraging commencement made

at the Stakeholders Consultation at the Office of the President earlier in the

year that the PPP reverted to its old ways by castigating the opposition

parties, the media, and other members of civil society, as being supportive of

criminality in Guyana. This in itself is laughable when we recall what Roger

Khan has been saying about what he did for them, but when viewed seriously, and

in the context of what has been happening within the past few months, show a

clear and definite plan to turn Guyana into a police state. These statements

and actions which seek to demonise and ignore those who voice opposition are

deliberately intended to reinforce the pall of fear, and to prevent the healing

and reconciliation which the people of our country so desperately need.

In the past months we have seen a of refusal

to address the issue of the Lindo Creek massacre, the refusal to publish the

report on allegations of torture by the security forces, the deaths of

prisoners in the state’s custody Edwin Niles and Nolan Noble, the

introduction of autocratic laws which will give the state the right of appeal

in criminal matters (thus breaking the sacred and sacrosanct function of trial

by a jury of one’s peers), and the ability to nefariously eavesdrop on

private conversations of citizens, the refusal to respect a decision of the

Chief Magistrate (ag) in granting Oliver Hinckson bail, the attempts to

decimate the free press, and most recently, the staunch refusal to address the

unhealthy issue of the functioning of the substantive Chief Magistrate Mrs.

Juliet Holder-Allen. When viewed individually, or cumulatively, the intent to

re-write democratic norms and principles is evident, and I daresay frightening.

There are those in power who are not

interested in settling the real issues of Guyana. The real interest lies in

dominance at every level of society. A dominance which is established by

driving fear into people’s hearts and minds. The Guyanese must be weary

of gimmicks and fluff which is meant to create the impression that all is well

and we are all one happy people. Today, as I write, the issue of the Economic

Partnership Agreement is being ventilated at the Convention Centre.

Consultations are good, but at this rate, represent an almost futile attempt to

bolt the stable door after the horse has fled. My bet is that despite the noise

being made that the President will sign the agreement. It is not that he has

many other options, but there is an element of doubt being created to suggest

that Guyana will not be a signatory to the agreement. Again, we are engaged in

another distracting exercise. In an email sent to me recently the following

truism was expressed: “If you had to identify, in one word, the reason

why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential,

that word would be "meetings."

When all the consultations are over with the

real issues still have to be confronted. That tens of millions were spent on

Carifesta preparations and events, and yet little Tanesha De Souza from Santa

Rosa could fall into a pit latrine and die on her first day of school tells us

that what we are being told is good and effective governance is really a sham

that has to be exposed for what it is. The government should be ashamed that

the commencement of the Amerindian Heritage celebrations were heralded by a

series of deaths firstly of this child, and then by the fiery and horrible

deaths of three students at the Waramadong who were housed in a dormitory

without electricity. Government propaganda tells us that every Amerindian

community is well taken care of and all modern facilities are provided; better

than ever before in history. Prove that you are upholding the heritage of our

indigenous brothers and sisters by protecting the little ones from fire, from

pit latrines; and from unscrupulous persons who rob them of their innocence

every day.

Lastly, I have observed the rhetoric growing

over Local Government elections. The government is again trying to create

another distraction to take our minds away from the madness that Guyana has

become by pretending that we are moving into a state of readiness. The AFC

maintains its position that we reserve the right to challenge and impugn the

List of Electors for any future elections because we were deliberately shut out

by the machinations of those who now fight over misspent money and improper

processes. The more things change in Guyana the more they remain the same.

We cannot proceed to have local government

and national elections in the future unless we have fundamental and far-reaching

reforms of our electoral and political systems. The manner in which we organize

and manage the State of Guyana has to be transformed from the bottom up. We

cannot demand and expect executive power-sharing at Cabinet level if the local

government system is broken and still allows a Minister of Government, and not

the village elders, to determine whether a bridge is to be built over a village

canal. The power of choice and decision making has to be restored to the people

at their level. Proceeding to hold these elections with no reforms is a recipe

for disaster and catastrophe. Similarly, if we proceed to pass a few laws and

take no time to have the people understand what they really mean, we will end

up just as we did after the Constitution Reform process ended, with a raft of

enacted reforms which are observed by no one; and the people who were to have

benefited, are left holding the nasty end of the stick once again.

The other parties have refused to have the

AFC and GAP-ROAR participate in the Local Government Reform Committee and we

warn the Guyanese people that whatever is hatched behind closed doors does not

have to be accepted by them. We are demanding accountability, transparency, and

inclusivity. After all, Article 13 of the Constitution says that it must be so.

2008-9-21: AFC Column

Holder

Tolerance Levels

It has struck me that as a people we are

behaving very much like the laboratory frog in the experiment in which

scientists placed a frog in water that they heated up slowly until it reached

boiling point. Amazingly, the frog became so acclimatized to the rising

temperature it became unaware of the growing danger as it stood comfortably in

the water that killed it. This is the scenario Guyanese seem to find themselves

in and, as a result, many have lost sight of the substance of what a free and

democratic people would consider to be the keys to successful living. Take for

instance the revelations about the VAT rate made by Christopher Ram on July 15

last to wit, that a very senior political functionary had confided in him that

the Government had discovered a significant error in the computation of the

rate of the VAT resulting in it being higher than it should have been. So numb

has the society become that virtually nothing has been done about this amazing

revelation by a people who had been clamouring for a reduction in the VAT rate

– a people for whom the IMF Board in their 2007 Article IV consultations with

Government called for, “well-targeted assistance to the poor to achieve

faster progress toward the Millennium Development Goals.”

People’s Spending Ability Very Low

So preoccupied are the majority of our people

in eking out a living or keeping their heads above water in (legitimate)

businesses and trying to avoid courting the wrath of ‘El

Présidente’, that little or no time has been speared to

contemplate that behind most of Guyana’s economic woes is an economy that

had stopped dead in its tracks since 1998 after hundreds of millions of dollars

had been pumped into it by the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) over

the period.

Stagnation of the Local Economy being

Ignored

When compared with other countries in the

region, the primary conclusion being drawn by the IFIs about Guyana’s

economic stagnation is the substantial decline in the share of net foreign and

private domestic investment we’ve been able to attract, a decline in our

labour force and an unstable political and industrial environment. Yet, little

or no effort is being made by the Jagdeo administration to attain some level of

rapprochement with parliamentary opposition parties and the labour movement,

address the constant exodus of large numbers of skilled Guyanese or, indeed,

come to grips with the skyrocketing unemployment rate confronting the country,

which no doubt is fuelling crime at unprecedented levels and people’s

concerns about their physical security.

Among the other matters, the IMF in its 2007

Article IV Board consultations noted was that, “macroeconomic stability

and growth are key to ameliorating poverty” and urged Government in their

usual paternalistic style, to address the high cost of electricity, develop a

reform programme for the NIS, improve governance while noting that domestic and

external imbalances remain large and that the economy continues to be

vulnerable to shocks.

Trust in our Justice System Low

As if adding insult to injury, we have to

operate with a government that doles out largesse to a select few; a legal system

that cries out for justice to be dispensed equitably and fairly (two

we won); corruption that has reached alarming levels while the

state’s revenue machinery is being shamelessly misused to harass opposing

voices – to list a few of the predicaments we face politically. At the

bottom of it all is a populace that has opted out of an intractable political

situation even as their personal social and economic situation deteriorates.

People must be more Civic-minded

But of similar concern to the society also

must be the glaring signs of apparent indifference, ineffectiveness, sloth,

outright failure of many functionaries operating outside of the ambit of

government; the signs that citizens are falling short on their duty and

responsibilities to family, community, country and their places of work. Take

for instance the fact that for the last three years residents living around the

Mandela dump site have been crying out in vain against the deleterious effect

of obnoxious and suffocating fumes emanating from that site. Look at the piles

of garbage that are an eye sore building up again now that Carifesta has ended,

which citizens must be held accountable for in and around our schools, canals,

places of business, roads, sea wall, public parapets, the lewd and loud music

that continue to bellow from mini busses even after legislation has been passed

prohibiting this. Worthy of special mention is the disgraceful sight left

behind on the seawall following the weekend recreational activities enjoyed by

thousands of citizens. Shame on the adults who don’t get it that it is

their duty to dispose of their garbage properly and not drop it on the seawall

grass parapet to be picked up by City Council workers next day!

Misuse of State Media Continues

It now seems clear that it will only be after

the PPP government is removed from office that the state media will be used

more responsibly to educate citizens on such matters and make them aware of

what democracy entails rather than provide Guyanese with incessant doses of

propaganda and over exposure of governing political personalities.

AFC Aims to Rebuild Trust in Politics

& Politicians

Next month end will be three years since the

AFC was launched with its raison d’être and rallying cry one of –

‘change’. We recognized since then that any paradigm shift that

would lead to the kinds of socio/eco/political changes desirable in our

circumstances would have to be principled centred in the way we participate

politically, based on truth and courage; and fuelled by the people themselves.

‘Change is inevitable. Change is constant’, Benjamin Disraeli informed

us.

2008-9-28: AFC Column –

WHAT IS JUSTICE? by Raphael Trotman, MP

style=’font-size:13.5pt;color:#0031FF’>

On Saturday last I sat amongst a small

gathering of family and friends as my father launched his book aptly entitled

“Waiting For Justice”. Apt, because at this time in Guyana, the

Region, and wider world, justice is becoming a rare and precious commodity that

is escaping the grasp of the poor in particular.

As I sat in the room listening to

distinguished panelists extolling the virtues of rights and justice I found

myself asking the question “What is justice?” I had not long ago

had an interesting, and if I may add distressing, excursion into the

Magistrates’ Courts of Guyana. Having become engrossed in the politics of

the day I find myself less in court than I would want to be and perhaps it has

helped me to be insulated from the travails of those who go to court seeking

justice and still waiting for it, but on the other hand has hidden from my eyes

the many injustices that ordinary men and women endure daily. I am bemused at

what passes for justice on a daily basis. Persons who should never be charged

are hauled before the courts and punished with severe bail amounts and remands

and those who should be locked away whisper somewhere and are let go. I am told

of a case where a youth stole a bicycle and perhaps had a change of heart and

returned it to its owner. Yet this youth was taken before the court and

sentenced to four years imprisonment.

My father as a human rights activist has

spent his life criss-crossing the globe helping ordinary people, governments

and to find justice. I, when I chose law as a career imagined that with each

passing year at the bar, I would see in my lifetime less people accessing the

courts’ corridors because we would evolve into a more civilized and

rights based society. This has not turned out to be what I expected. Over the

years rights and freedoms are less respected than when I was first called to

the bar. Most recently, I. have seen legislation introduced that gives the

Director of Public Prosecutions the right to appeal a jury’s acquittal of

an accused person. This I described in Parliament as the greatest abomination

of my time both as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian because it undermines the

very core of our justice system which presumes a person innocent and to be

protected from the abuses of the state. Nowhere else in the so-called free

world could I find anything similar. What is frightening is that this power can

be abused. Because we are not all saints, such power should never be placed in

the hands of any one person. Thus is why a jury of twelve peers should

determine guilt or innocence and that determination should be final. It is

always better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

As we make quantum leaps into the arms of

globalization, democracy, and modernity, we would expect that more people would

be better off today and their rights respected even without them having to go

to court to protect seeking to protect them. In Guyana, we have a Constitution

that enshrines individual rights and freedoms, but too many people, more than

ever before in the history of Guyana, are approaching the High Court seeking

relief and protection for some violation or the other. As I see it those who

are not running to court for relief are being dragged there for every minor

transgression imaginable.

It is now money and power that buy justice in

Guyana. People can literally commit murder and walk away without being charged

at all while the man with 3 grams of marijuana has to languish in prison for three

years; leaving behind his wife and children to be preyed upon by sycophants.

Why should this man who is without might and strength be jailed and even

possibly lose his life from disease or assault whilst the man with connections

walks free to sin again? Edwin Niles was such a person who was convicted of

being in possession of marijuana, was paying his debt to society, but never

lived to walk through the prison gate as a free man. Next year I plan to seek a

review of the draconian law that severely punishes persons for having small

amounts of marijuana in their possession. It is too draconian a law and is out

of sync with society. In fact, the law in itself is destroying more families,

and ultimately our society, by sending fathers to jail when they could pay

their debt in a less harsh way.

As I left the court last week I came across a

group of women calling on the Almighty to intervene and “deliver” a

certain Magistrate from insanity because the bail that had been granted to

their sons was in an amount that no poor struggling family could ever afford.

For them this was as good as a sentence to prison. It is their lamentations

that set me thinking about this protean concept we call “justice”.

I think of Leonard Arokium who continues to dwell in the dark as to what force

of evil killed his son and workmen at Lindo Creek, and of the very Learned

Magistrate whose hallowed Chambers were recently searched by police ranks and

wonder what justice is there for them and many, many others like them who have

no hope of justice.

Every society should have justice standing

straight and tall as its beacon. The justice system, which includes, the police

and prison services should work in tandem, to produce a safe and orderly

society. In Guyana today the pre-occupation of the day is with guns and bullets

and on little else. Without laws which are enforceable, and enforceable blindly

and equally, there is no society. This is why Guyana despite all the

decorations and adornments that are put up to make it appear pretty and palatable

will continue to be rated the second most corrupt state in the hemisphere.

Money, power and political influence have now contaminated and corrupted almost

every facet of our society; if not all. We pretend to have justice here but too

many, and invariably, only the poor are shut out completely. My comments are

not meant to chastise those who administer justice in Guyana but to speak on a

matter that is on every one’s lips. As Lord Atkin stated in Ambard

–vs-the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago “Justice is not a

cloistered virtue, she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful,

even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.” If people lose a sense

that there is no justice for them of that there is one system for some and

another for them, they will resort to other means to gain attention and to

settle their disputes. This is what we see every time a person arms himself

with an AK-47 and what we are beginning to hear in the lyrics of the resistance

music that is now standard. Unfortunately, these realities are unknown or

forgotten by the present administration and it is becoming nigh near impossible

to convince them otherwise. The job of the next government has to be to restore

order and the rule of law in Guyana as priority number one.

2008-10-5: AFC Column – IS

Ramjattan, AFC Chairman Guyana Government’s sudden hesitation