Dear Editor

AS a Guyanese citizen of voting age, a property owner in Georgetown and a student of Law, I am paying keen attention to the commission of inquiry into the affairs of the Georgetown City Council.

Its methodology, approach, findings and recommendations coming out of the draft report make for interesting reading. I have to confess that my first impression of the commission is that it appears to be a travesty of justice and fair play. It seems as though the commission itself is working with a not-so-hidden agenda to achieve a particular outcome. It appears to be politically motivated. The commissioner’s public rebuke to the chief citizen to “shut up and listen” said it all. Its composition and appointment seem questionable. I must make two basic points here:
First, when one considers sections 14 and 19 of the Local Government Commission Act of 2013 and the Eighth Schedule of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, the commission of inquiry seems to be in breach of those legal provisions and therefore, null and void. The Terms of Reference of the commission published in the Official Gazette also appears defective for want of specificity; if the scope of the commission is not limited to any particular matter, but is roaming and at large, then there would be no limit to the questions which witnesses might be required to answer, thus the need for the Terms of Reference to be specific.

The other point I wish to make in this regard is that the methodology used by the commission struck me as odd, unfair and designed to deliver a certain outcome at the end of the inquiry. Allegations were made against officials; and without them being present to hear and understand the precise nature of the allegations made against them, those officials were summoned to the commission to defend themselves in the absence of those who made the allegations and in almost all cases, without the support of proper legal counsel. A most unfair and demoralising situation for any public official. Questions of natural justice, human rights and the constitutional rights of those officials were ignored by the commission of inquiry.

The other question is, how were witnesses selected or screened by the commission? Apparently, the only individuals who appeared before the commission are those who have grievances with City Hall; weren’t there any witnesses who wanted to testify about their good experiences with that organisation?

There are no reports of positive things done by the Georgetown City Council. It seems to be the case that the commission in character and spirit, was lopsided, discriminatory, prejudicial and biased against that entity.

Perhaps the most noticeable thing in the media reports I have read about the commission’s report is that the commissioner made no reference to the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, which guides the actions of the Council; but he referred to the Public Corporations Act and Companies Act. These have very little to do, if at all, with the matters at hand and those that are encouraging public conversation about the council.

There can be no proper inquiry or investigation into the actions of the City Council unless there is sufficient consideration of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01 and the statutory powers vested in the officials of the council. Actions of omission and commission by city officials must be taken within the context of the Act, Chapter 28:01, custom and practice of the organisation, policies of the organisation, and the political, social and economic environment prevailing at the time the action or decision was taken. But it could be the case that given the need for the commission to deliver a certain outcome, the commissioner felt that the Act, Chapter 28:01 was not particularly relevant to the inquiry. The commission of inquiry was required to investigate operations of the City Council; the commissioner investigated officers.

One final point: by what process did the commission of inquiry include matters pertaining to the former town clerk and sitting Commissioner on the Local Government Commission, Ms Carol Sooba? Did she appear before the commission? Or is it a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune? This compromises the integrity of the entire investigation. How can a payout package for a sitting commissioner Ms Carol Sooba, who worked at the Mayor and City Council become part of a recommendation by the commission of inquiry?

Regards
Timothy Davison