Written By Telesha Ramnarine
CABINET Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon yesterday, speaking about the deliberate delay by the Opposition towards the passage of anti-money laundering legislation, pointed out that the emphasis being placed on having ‘a bill for all times’ at the risk of disrupting the financial sector is unacceptable. 

He highlighted the fact that there will be more amendments in the future because the evaluations will have to continue as the wiles of anti-money launderers improve.

“I don’t know if God will descend and put sanity in the heads of our parliamentary colleagues, but we have an obligation to this nation to pursue an enactment to avert those dire consequences,” remarked Dr Roger Luncheon yesterday.

Speaking in the context of the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill (AML/CFT) at his usual post-Cabinet press briefing yesterday at the Office of the President, Luncheon made reference to the consequences that could result once the passage of the bill continues to be denied by the parliamentary Opposition.

A Parliamentary Special Select Committee (PSSC) meeting last Monday was postponed by agreement because APNU Leader David Granger and other members Joseph Harmon and Deborah Backer were at a meeting at the Office of the President (OP) to deal with issues arising from Venezuela’s arrest of an oil survey vessel that was in Guyana’s waters.

The agreement was to meet the following day, but according to Luncheon, this did not find much favour with the opposition “who, continuing with their delaying tactics, sought to have next week as the next meeting.”

Luncheon said he was advised by PSSC Chairperson Gail Teixeira that the work has been concluded without the presence of opposition members who “boycotted” the meeting on Tuesday.

The bill is now ready, Luncheon said, once that report is perfected, to go back to the House for the third reading and a vote. The report is expected to be completed by the end of this week or early next week.

DELAYING TACTICS
Meanwhile, Luncheon said the government continues to identify delaying tactics with the parliamentary opposition. Cabinet’s contention is that the evidence of delays and delaying tactics is overwhelming.

According to him, the parliamentary Opposition conspired at the end of the session just before the beginning of the parliamentary recess of 2013 to delay the conclusion of the PSSC’s consideration of the bill. “It was clearly at that stage ripe for its final consideration and the ensuing report to be brought to the House for the third reading.”

Months later, Luncheon observed, the delay tactics resumed and on the week of October 14, manifested itself in one non-productive meeting of the PSSC. “The opposition refused to meet further during that week and the meeting on the 21st was postponed by agreement to the 22nd. Unfortunately the opposition failed to appear. They boycotted that meeting.” He said the media was used by the parliamentary opposition to rationalise their actions.

As for APNU, Luncheon said the party is behaving as though this amendment bill is not principally a product of and related to Guyana’s CFATF (Caribbean Financial Action Task Force) obligations. In essence, the amendment to the original money laundering bill came about as a consequence of the multilateral evaluation report by CFATF which flowed from a series of amendments to the original bill. This remains the source of the amendments.

BILL ‘FOR ALL TIMES’
“What we are seeing here, is APNU’s rejection of this genesis and their efforts would have us believe that they are interested in having an anti-money laundering bill for all times, which fails to capture the whole spirit and intent of the multilateral evaluation mechanism employed by CFATF to ensure compliance with the state’s obligations.

“I can say without hesitation that there will be more amendments to the anti- money laundering bill because the evaluations will continue interminably into the future and as the wiles of anti-money launderers improve, increase and adopt new features, the mechanism provides for amendment to legislation to respond, to compensate, for the struggle against money laundering,” Luncheon explained.

The emphasis, then, that is placed on having ‘a bill for all times,’ at the risk of disrupting, disadvantaging the financial sector and its engagement with foreign entities, is indeed unacceptable, remarked Dr Luncheon.

“CFATF is not calling for that. CFATF has orchestrated, paid for the sum total of the amendments that they find necessary as of 2013. They have never asked us for any other CFATF Treaty, partner to produce a bill for all times because they know, as we do, that the money launderers of today would have new tactics and strategies of tomorrow and our legislative response would need to be amended suitably. CFATF has never sought to do what the opposition APNU is trying to do.”

AFC MORE RIDICULOUS
Luncheon said the position adopted by the Alliance For Change (AFC) is even “more ridiculous.” “This linkage between the enactment of the AML bill and the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) is touted as the AFC’s ultimate position.

“Heaven forbid in consideration of the non-enactment of the amended bill, one would have to ask what have adversely affected us by the non- establishment of the Public Procurement Commission(PPC) since its provisions were created in the amended constitution of 2001.
“This is a reasonable question. If so much value is placed on the establishment of the PPC to the point of risking the financial future of our institutions, then we have to ask ourselves, what has happened in the years that have gone since the PPC was not established?”
Luncheon said his answer to this seeks to establish how “ridiculous” the AFC has become in proposing that there are grounds for linkage between these two events.