–No disagreement on Gov’t Bill after 10 months of dithering
THE Special Select Committee reviewing the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Financing Terrorism (AML/CFT) Bill, last night, “consensually” completed its consideration of the Bill.
This was according to Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, in whose name the Bill was tabled in the National Assembly.

In an exclusive interview with the Guyana Chronicle, he said, “The Bill was considered clause by clause by the Committee and certain inconsequential amendments, such as renumbering of sections, were consensually made and the Committee completed in a consensual manner its examination of that Bill.
“This is significant in that it confirms the contention of the Government that the Opposition has nothing material to add to the Bill and therefore they were wasting the nation’s time over the last 10 months by publicly declaring that they have amendments to make to the Bill.”
He noted that although the Committee’s consideration is complete, the draft report and the Bill are still to be finalised.
“We will be meeting at noon tomorrow (today) before the 2:00pm sitting to address the finalising of the Bill and the report,” Nandlall said.
However, he stressed that he remains “unsure” of the future of the Bill.
The AG added that at the “eleventh hour” the Opposition made three proposals that were outside of the Committee’s mandate and surmised that this seems to be their “exit” strategy.
He said, “It is clear that the Opposition is not interested in passing this Bill. At the very last minute they are trying to ram down the throat of the Government a set of disjointed, ad hoc and unreasonable proposals, which they know the Government will find impossible to accept in order to provide themselves with an exit strategy so that that they can save face and say that the Government has rejected their proposals.”

Nandlall stressed that the National Assembly remitted a Bill to the Select Committee for its consideration and the Standing Orders are very clear that a Select Committee must confine its work, in terms of a Bill, to the Bill which has been remitted to it.
“A Select Committee does not, therefore, have a roaming and roving mandate to wander off outside of the four corners of that Bill,” he said.
According to him, the three proposals, outside of the Committee’s mandate, are risky ones.
Nandlall said, “Unfortunately tonight (Sunday, February 9) 10 months after the predecessor of this Bill was laid in the National Assembly, the Opposition produced three sets of amendments: one from Mr. Jaipaul Sharma, one from Mr. Carl Greenidge and one from Mr. Basil Williams.

“Mr. Greenidge’s proposals collide with Mr. Sharma’s proposals and the Committee had to adjourn for over an hour for the two of them to consolidate their proposals.
“I emphasise the proposals came after 10 months. Significantly they do not touch and concern any provision in the Bill. They propose to amend the 2009 Principal Act.
“We raised the objection that the Committee has no mandate and authority to treat with these amendments as they are ultra-vires to the remit and authority of the Committee.
“Additionally, these amendments were submitted in a very disjointed, disorderly and clumsy fashion, but apart from their form, they seek to alter and amend very substantial matters in the Principal Act.
“They seek to change the entire governing apparatus of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), in terms of the constitution of the Unit and by whom, and worst yet they seek to establish a super structure called an AML/CFT authority, which shall administer and manage the affairs of the FIU. This body is to be appointed by a Committee to be established by Parliament.”
He made it clear that these are very substantial amendments and he is unsure of the ramifications and impacts it will have on several sections of the Principal Act.
The AG said, “This top heavy Unit is to be comprised of persons whom the proposals described as “stakeholders”. It does not say who these stakeholders are.
“So quite apart from the possibility of this proposal clashing with sections of the Bill, we run the immediate risk of this amendment not meeting the approval of CFATF.

“One of the most important considerations of CFAFT in constituting the FUI is to ensure that the FIU is autonomous in its composition and its functioning. Here it is that we have this new body beholden to the entire National Assembly and a conglomerate of unknown “stakeholders”. This undermines the very basis of the FIU, simply because we are now bringing a larger number of persons into the operationalizing of the FIU, some of whom themselves or their connections may be the subject of investigation, that is why the persons were appointed by a singular person, to ensure that the risk of contamination is minimal.”
The other set of amendments, he added, seek to remove the Attorney General wherever that name appears and replace it with the FIU.
Nandlall said, “These amendments smack of the functions which have been ascribed to the Attorney General are administrative and ministerial. It was given to the Attorney General and not any other minister for a reason. The person who has to administer these functions therefore, must be a person trained in law and be a minister of Government. You simply cannot replace Attorney General and replace it with FIU. The AG’s functions are legal and governmental. The FUI’s function is investigative and administrative.”

The AG stated that the third set of amendments seek to invest a police officer or customs officer with a power to seize currency from any person, anywhere in Guyana, if those officers have reason to believe that the currency is the proceeds of crime or will be used to finance crime.
He said, “Significantly, currency in the Principal Act, current is broadly defined to include cash, cheques, money orders, jewelry, precious metals, etc. The Government is contending that this is a dangerous power to vest in any customs or police officer, since it is susceptible to abuse.
“We live in a cash-based society and Guyanese travel around with large amounts of cash and jewelry to do their business. A policeman now is being given the power to stop and seize currency from a person if this officer forms the opinion, even whimsically and capriciously, that the currency is the proceeds of crime or will be used to commit a serious offence.
“In other words, currency will be like contraband in Guyana and when the police seize this currency, the hapless victim is required to go to a judge for and order to have the money released.
“Such a proposal, I submit, will only be put into law after the people have been consulted as it is dangerous to place such power in the hands of anyone.”
Nandlall maintained that these amendments were hurriedly put together at the 11th hour in the face of a deadline.

“They were brought in raw, unedited and hurriedly assembled form. At a minimum they have to be studied, refined by the Committee’s draftsperson. I don’t know how all of this can be achieved within the time available,” he stressed.

DEADLINES
The November 2013 vote saw Guyana missing CFATF’s deadline.

CFATF is expected to review Guyana’s position at its next meeting in May 2014.
However, ahead of the May deadline, FATF is scheduled to meet on Thursday, February 13 – the more pressing deadline.
The France-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) issued a statement at the start of February that listed Guyana as the number one country in the Americas that could be taken on by the International Cooperation Review Group’s (ICRG) for review and possibly further sanctions.