IT’S been quite a week on the political front. From Shawn Hinds’ revelations on possible state-sponsored crimes to the closure of the Water Rodney Commission of Inquiry to the charging of a former government Minister, the media and scribes have been kept very busy. Today we wish to comment on the latter story.Upon its assumption of office, the Coalition Government made it quite clear that investigation of alleged corruption of the former Government was high on its agenda. The Government even set up an agency to go after stolen public assets. While in Opposition, the AFC and APNU were extremely critical of the PPP Government on this issue. The PPP had persistently denied that there was the level of corruption that the Opposition was accusing it of. In fact, the Government claimed that if there were corruption, it was in the lower echelons of the government service. The PPP went as far as daring the Opposition to produce the evidence.
Now, a bit under three months in office a Government Minister is before the courts for a range of offences that have to do with misappropriation of public resources. These charges came after the Minister returned a set of cars that she allegedly improperly acquired to the Government. The Government did not at that time indicate that it would prosecute the Minister. A day after she appeared in court we are hearing of another matter in which the same minister is involved. According to the Government, the matter is in the hands of the police.
No sooner had the ink dried on that matter, it was reported that the former Health Minister would most likely be charged in a matter that gained a lot of attention and led to his removal shortly before the elections as a Government Minister. The matter in question occurred at the Whim Magistrate Court when the Minister threatened to strip and beat political activist Sherlina Nageer.
The PPP has predictably claimed that this is all part of a campaign by the Government to smear the party. While we sympathise with the PPP’s stand, we feel that that party had enough time while in office to deal with the allegations of corruption and arrogance on the part of their members. For the DPP to recommend charges, the evidence before her must have been compelling.
In the final analysis, it is the courts which must pronounce on these matters. And one is considered innocent until proven guilty. But even if those charged are vindicated by the courts, enough has been revealed to suggest that there was corruption in high places. This is a scourge bedevilling Governments all over the world, particularly in the so-called Third World. If the prosecution of these officials in Guyana can serve to highlight the issue of official corruption, then the country would be better off for it. While some may see it as witch-hunting, it could well serve as a deterrent against corruption under the current and future Governments. Our country is too poor to carry the burden of the level of corruption being alleged.