WHILE addressing the recently held Guyana Defence Force officers’ conference, President Bharrat Jagdeo alluded to the “unbelievable corruption” that is taking place within the GGMC’s field operations, and inferred the need for the presence of army officers in the Commission as a means of arresting the situation.
Certainly, all is not well within the state system as far as the allegation of corruption is concerned and the administration has been moving to effect in dealing with this blot.

Commissioner Woolford’s reply to the President’s observation, certainly amounted to a stout defence of his stewardship, and of the organisation he leads. But even though he admits the concern by the GGMC over the President’s statement, at his press conference, sought to disagree with the president’s observations. This prompted a pointed response from current Works Minister Robeson Benn, himself a former GGMC head.

It is unlike the person of the Head of State/Government to make public, such very serious observations without good cause. In fact, it is his prerogative. And the fact of such pronouncement that asks for the support of armed forces officers, does reflect a very grave, if not uncontrollable situation.

What Woolford must appreciate is that despite his detailing of efforts being made by GGMC in dealing with corrupt practices, they are not enough: the problem still festers. The President is dissatisfied, and therefore, greater efforts are required by him and his managers in arresting this slide.

The GGMC head needs to be more proactive; and since he has acknowledged the presence of corruption, his defence of being unable to pursue complaints, not backed–up by written statements and the need to follow due process is even more puzzling and at best unacceptable. This is likened unto a farmer who wakes up every morning and sees his animal stocks diminishing due to wild beast raids. Rather than pursue the intruder beyond his perimeter, he waits to entrap him within, but never does so because the animal moves with stealth, continuing to create mayhem. Therefore, rather than waiting for written evidence, he and his managers must deploy other strategies to nail the offenders.

The revealing aspect of this gravity and much to the discredit of the GGMC’s Commissioner, is Minister Benn’s statement of miners visiting him to lodge complaints. No doubt, his statement is an indication that the organisation’s leaders are in a “different world.”

About Minister Benn’s having locus standi or not on the matter, is beside the point. For it is Stabroek News view (Editorial: 31.1.11), not surprisingly, that he does not. They must be reminded that as a cabinet officer, moreso as one who has personal knowledge of the industry he has the right of opinion, particularly in this instance where Woolford’s view is apparently miles from the actual state of play.

For this print to question the President’s involvement in the issue because it is not a national emergency, is indeed the height of vindictiveness. How can he as the nation’s chief executive not be legitimately concerned about an issue as grave as that which he has described within an important industry? Is it a case of damn if he does, and damn if he does not?

Finally, Stabroek’s editorial makes a big play about Woolford’s fortright response, referring to the Burnhamite Public Corporations Act that virtually gagged senior public sector officials during those years, from making statements that would embarrass the then administration. The article imputes that such a situation still exists, as senior state officials are still fearful of speaking on issues. Had this still been the case, as contended by Stabroek News, then the GGMC’s head would not have spoken in the manner that he did. Where is the continuous gag?