Dear Editor,
HISTORY was created in Guyana on Thursday 13th April, 2017, when the country’s National Assembly debated and passed the State Asset Recovery Bill, which paved the way for establishment of the State Asset Recovery Agency. It should be noted that Guyana, through the passage of that bill, which was facilitated by the APNU+AFC coalition, demonstrated that it was prepared to comply with the provisions of the UN Convention on Corruption that was signed by the PPP government in 2008, but which that regime did nothing to implement.
During the parliamentary debate on that bill, the opposition PPP continued its vicious attacks on the bill, consistent with its approach after the David Granger-led government announced the establishment of the State Asset Recovery Unit within the Ministry of the Presidency. Minister of State Joseph Harmon in his address to the parliament, reminded the house and the nation that when the APNU+AFC government came to office in 2015, it asked persons who had acquired state assets illegally to return them and many failed to do so. Among those who failed to adhere to the government’s request were members of the PPP leadership and former government officials.
Given its 23-year rule which produced unprecedented corruption in the country and the criminalisation of the state, the PPP leadership is aware that it is being held accountable for the disappearance of numerous state assets and the accumulation, at home and abroad, by its members, of massive proportions of wealth during that period. In the debate, the Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, The Hon Basil Williams, made the point that the bill was government’s reaffirmation to stamp out corruption and that there would be no safe haven for corrupt persons. In other words, the APNU+AFC government has signalled that wherever the people’s stolen assets are stashed they will be tracked down, confiscated by legal means and returned to the people.
It is clear that the government is trying to ensure that persons involved in the operations of the Public Service, who used and those who intend to use their positions to illegally amass wealth, will not benefit from their illegal actions. It is this realisation that has driven and is still driving the PPP’s hostility to the establishment of the new agency and its mandate that is embodied in the legislation.
Given this situation, real politics made it impossible for the opposition and the government to find common ground in parliament on the asset recovery legislation. Because the PPP had made it very clear that, no way under the sun it was prepared to support the State Assets Recovery legislation, its posture in parliament during the debate and its eventual abandonment of the parliamentary process on that day must be seen for what it was, a mere playing to the galleries of its constituents. I posit here that it was always the intention of the PPP to stage a walkout from Parliament on that day, for whatever reason they chose. It was an integral part of their tactics to undermine the process that day. I was therefore not surprised when Mr Anil Nandlall, former Attorney General and now PPP spokesperson in parliament on legal matters, chose to speak late in the debate. Nandlall, by his own admission, knew that there was a time constraint on the process, but he deliberately refused to recognise the significance of this when the speakers’ order of presentation was put together. By delaying his presentation in a debate which he believed should have been open-ended, he thereby created the atmosphere to justify his party’s representatives abandonment of the process. Therefore, for the PPP to accuse the government of denying Nandlall his right to make his address is hogwash, since it was the PPP’s decision that determined which of their parliamentarians would speak and when.
I will add here that it is politically naive for the PPP to make such a major mistake and don’t expect the government side to make political mileage on its blunder. The debate on the SARA legislation was not an ordinary one. The political stakes were high. Both opposition and government wanted their positions to prevail, since the political consequences of not doing so have the potential of determining which party could win the 2020 general and regional elections. In passing the bill, the government has made a significant step in fulfilling its election promise to fight corruption and recover stolen state assets. In doing so it has enhanced its electoral fortunes come the next elections.
For the PPP, its attempt to delay the passing of the bill by appealing for it to be sent to a parliamentary select committee, if conceded to by the government, would have been a major victory for that party. It would have meant that their intention to kill the bill before it was debated and passed would have succeeded, thereby ensuring that the extent of the wrongdoings of former government officials and their cronies, including the acts of rape of the country’s resources, would have remained hidden. This would have provided the PPP leadership (i) with the space it needs to consolidate its support base for the 2020 elections; (ii) to continue its masquerade of misrepresentation of information; (iii) provide it with more space to propogandise its supporters with mythical explanations that the government’s accusations against them of corruption was nothing but the spewing of hot air; and (iv) that the government was just being vindictive and spiteful in its pursuit of alleged wrongdoings by them.
Putting aside partisan considerations, the passing of the State Asset Recovery Bill is an important victory for the nation in the fight against corruption, holding public officials accountable for their criminal actions and depriving them from benefiting from the acquisition of illegal wealth. The nation will be well served when the billions of dollars in stolen assets are returned, allowing the government to have more money to spend on wages and salaries and the social sector. Equally important, the bill, after it is assented to by His Excellency David Granger, will act as a deterrent to the criminally inclined and reduce the losses that the nation suffers annually from the viciousness of the greedy.
History will recall that the APNU+AFC government’s passing of the State Asset Recovery bill was a courageous act to protect the national patrimony and to ensure that future generations of Guyanese have the necessary resources and wealth to have a good life.
Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye