OF RECENT, the news cycle was partly dominated by reports of the results of forensic audits commissioned by the government soon after it assumed office. The fact that these audits were set in motion so early in the government’s tenure meant that they were convinced that the previous government had overstepped its boundaries as far as its management of the commonly owned resources was concerned. This was not surprising since the parties which now comprise the government had made a big deal about government corruption while in opposition. Over the last few months some sections of the media have lamented what they saw as the government’s sloth in making the report of the audits public. Some commentators have even speculated that the government may have changed its mind as far as pursuing any glaring instances of wrongdoing by the previous government. This prompted the president on more than one occasion to point out that the government can and presumably would only take action if there is convincing evidence. The big question arising from the president’s position is what represents convincing evidence?
Judging from the blogs and the comments on social media, it is clear that there is a section of public opinion that wants urgent action by the government on what they perceived to be gross misconduct by officials of the previous government. This sentiment was highlighted by the recent excitement over statements attributed to the Prime Minister, which suggested that he was not in favour of revoking the broadcast licences granted by former President Jagdeo to individuals and groups identified as having close ties to the then ruling PPP. At least three of the PM’s cabinet colleagues felt the need to make their views on the matter public and the PM himself came out in favour of a review of the licences.
Now we have the reports of the audits in the public domain. Many of them reveal some damning instances of mismanagement, which have been interpreted by the auditors as examples of misconduct that may be unlawful. Indeed, the auditors have in some instances recommended disciplinary action. These findings, have to a large extent, vindicated the current ruling parties. The question now is what to do with these findings. Do they amount to sufficient evidence that could stand up in a court of law, if the government decides to go that route? These are questions that would of course engage the attention of the government’s legal advisors.
But there is also a political aspect that is bound to feature in the deliberations. The government would have to take into consideration the sentiments of its supporters and the criticism it risks subjecting itself to should it be swayed against taking forthright action. In fact, there is already some criticism of the government by well-known columnists who are warning the government about the dangers of appearing to be “soft” on this matter.
We believe that this is a testing moment for the government. It has to balance three colliding factors. First, it has to be mindful of its own strident rhetoric while in opposition about charges of corruption and how this has fuelled heightened expectations among its supporters. Second, it has to heed President Granger’s caution about seeking redress without sufficient evidence. Third, it has to take into consideration the PPP’s charges of ethnic and political witch-hunting. Months ago General Secretary Rohee had identified what he saw as an Afrocentric cabal trying to push the government in the direction of punishing the PPP.
In the circumstances, the government should make decisions that would in the end benefit all of Guyana. There is no doubt that official corruption needs to be tackled and rooted out. Small, struggling economies such as ours are further stultified by widespread corruption. Democracy itself is undermined by official corruption as the legitimacy of the government is undermined in the process. And the scourge of poverty which still stalks our country is enhanced by the rape of the national patrimony. We shall see.