MINISTER of State, Joseph Harmon, on Friday said that it is in the interest of former Minister of Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, to present himself to the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) and not his attorney.

Harmon was at the time responding to questions posed by the media during his weekly post-cabinet press briefing held at the Ministry of the Presidency. The Minister of State said too that he is unaware of lawyers being able to substitute themselves for clients.

On Thursday, Singh through his attorney Anil Nandlall, notified SOCU of his willingness to cooperate with the unit and investigators on any impending investigations relative to him.

In the letter addressed to head of SOCU, Sydney James, and copied to Police Commissioner, Seelall Persaud, Nandlall said, “Although my client is out of the jurisdiction, he always was and remains accessible, ready, able and willing to provide all or any information at his disposal which your unit may require.”

The letter concluded, “In the circumstances, feel free to contact me for any information you may require from, or questions you may wish to ask my client.”

But Minister Harmon said if SOCU decides to charge Singh, Nandlall cannot stand in the docks in his place.

”I don’t understand the insertion of Mr Nandlall into this process”, Harmon said, noting that the former Attorney General is already before courts for matters being investigated by SOCU.

Nandall’s submission to SOCU on behalf of Dr Singh follows, former National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) head, Winston Brassington’s letter published in the Stabroek News indicating that he had notified SOCU of his availability and willingness to cooperate fully with any investigation being conducted.

Brassington’s letter was published earlier this week and also follows an article carried by the said newspaper headlined “SOCU actively seeking Brassington, Ashni Singh.’

In his letter, the former NICIL head said he finds it strange that SOCU has made no effort to contact him, while adding that on April 14, 2016, a letter was dispatched to SOCU and the commissioner of police by his attorneys indicating that despite being out of the jurisdiction, he is available to fully cooperate with any investigation, and provide evidence by affidavit or video conference as is necessary to facilitate inquiries.

Nandlall told the Guyana Chronicle that his client resorted to dispatching the missive on behalf of the former finance minister, because of regular media publications, which are believed to paint his client as avoiding investigators.

“It was sent because of regular media publications, falsely [and] maliciously conveying the impression that my client is evading, eluding and avoiding certain investigators and investigations,” said the attorney.

Both Dr Singh and Brassington were part of management of NICIL under the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) administration and former Auditor General, Anand Goolsarran, in his findings of a forensic audit into the management of NICIL, had said there was the misappropriation of some $26.8B by NICIL between 2002 and 2014.

In the audit report handed over to the APNU +AFC government in October 2015, Goolsarran said the action of the management of NICIL was in violation of Article 216 of the Constitution, which says that all revenues or other moneys raised or received by Guyana (not being revenues or other moneys that are payable, by or under an Act of Parliament, into some other fund established for any specific purpose or that may, by or under such an Act, be retained by the authority that received them for the purpose of defraying the expenses of that authority) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Fund.

Goolsarran in the preliminary report recognised that from 1991 to 2001, NICIL transferred $3.415 B to the Consolidated Fund.

NICIL had contested Goolsarran’s recommendation and held that it had “clean” audit opinions from 2002 to 2013, noting that the current auditor general does not deem the entity to be in violation of the aforementioned constitutional provisions.

The holding company stressed that there is no legal precedent or court ruling that suggests that entity “is obliged to deposit its revenues into the Consolidated Fund or that Articles 216 and 217 are applicable to NICIL.”