Every columnist will tell that when something occurs in the country, you would say to yourself: “I have to write on this; this is close to what I believe in so I got to write on this.” Every columnist without exception has that experience.
When I read the decision of the Chief Justice (CJ) in a writ filed by a remigrant over his duty free vehicle, I just know that I should not let such an occurrence miss my repertoire of columns. I believe every citizen should utter a word of disagreement when powerful state institutions do wrong things to the citizens of a country.

The GRA, police force, army, CANU, judiciary, etc are formidable state entities whose errors can destroy a citizen’s life. At all times, society has to be on its guard that such state bodies do not act with callousness and impropriety because the consequences for the individual or an organisation can be terrible.

The police can lock up a citizen wrongfully, and the fear of being in a remand cell can bring on suicidal thoughts. It is incumbent on powerful institutions listed above to always be sensitive to the abuse of rights.
The decision of the CJ against the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) in a case involving the duty free vehicle of a remigrant should be a lesson for all powerful state bodies because the wrongful mistreatment of a citizen can send shock waves through the society.
I believe the Government of Guyana should step in with an investigation because the words of the Chief Justice reverberate. You read what happened to the remigrant and you ask yourself how a simple administrative procedure could have turned into a nightmare for the remigrant? The remigrant scheme is important for enlarging the skills bank of Guyana thus the government needs to take an interest in this case.

When a remigrant is granted special concessions by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the executing agencies are guided by the decision of the Ministry. Mr. Reaz Manjoor’s was given duty concession for his vehicle. The GRA is the executing agency. Which law in Guyana compels the GRA to question the man as to how he secured the money to buy the vehicle? That is a direction that can lead to abuse.

Imagine what society becomes when the City Hall or Central Housing and Planning Authority compels a teacher or soldier to show the source of money for the big house he/she is constructing before the building plan is approved. Imagine what society become when the certifying department of the police force demands source of funds for the expensive, brand name vehicle before certificate of fitness can be issued.

Read the words of the CJ. She was no-nonsense in her delivery. She was pellucid that GRA does not have legal authority to demand the remigrant show how he acquired the money to buy the vehicle. She was so decisive that she denied the GRA’s lawyer an appeal. She unambiguously stated that there can be no basis for appeal because the GRA was acting outside of the law.

The remedy the CJ delivered to the plaintiff came too late. The man’s vehicle was on the wharf for 11 months and he submitted documents to the GRA that the GRA was not entitled to have. Read the CJ’s decision. What happens now? Does this case just become a forgotten footnote?
It should not be for one compelling reason. When the one-year anger of the remigrant was boiling over, I am convinced the government came in for a cussing –down. And the government did the right thing by granting the concession. I am positive that during the impasse the government came in for some unjustified tongue-lashing. It is for this reason, I believe the government should enquire into this administrative cruelty.

Who is in error here? Is it Mr. Gavin Lowe, Deputy Commissioner who made the decision or it is Ms. Nicklin Belgrave the GRA’s legal authority. State bodies have legal advisors. When UG withholds a student’s grade and is threatened with a lawsuit, the legal advisor has to tell UG if it is acting in accordance with the UG statues. If NIS refused a pension and is threatened with a lawsuit, the legal advisor has to determine if NIS is within its right. The GRA’s mistreatment of Mr. Majoor was wrong. Someone should be held accountable.

The lawyer for Mr. Majoor, Mr. Siand Dhurjon (incidentally, the lawyer for this newspaper), told me in an invited comment that this is the second case he won against the GRA for the identical decision. Well, something is wrong here. Why did they have to have a second case? Mr. Dhurjon told me there are many similar cases pending before the GRA.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.