THE following letter is a response to AFC/Kaieteur News attacks on Winston Brassington:
IN recent weeks, the Kaieteur News and opposition parties in Parliament have made a number of attacks and insinuations regarding my conduct as Head of the Privatisation Unit and NICIL.  Given the recurring nature of these attacks, I feel in defence of my personal integrity, that I should respond.

Period and Performance (Service Record)
First, at the end of 2011, I have completed over 17 years at the Privatisation Unit, 15 of these years as Executive Secretary and Head of privatisation.  During this period, I have worked in a full time capacity as a contract employee.  From the start of 2002, I assumed the CEO responsibilities of NICIL, the Government holding company for investments.
During the last 17 years, I have also served as a Director/Chairman of dozens of state boards.
As far as I am concerned, I have done my job with honesty and integrity and can stand up to whatever scrutiny is brought to bear. I have also complied with all submission requirements to the Integrity Commission.
As Head of the PU and Executive Director/CEO of NICIL, I report to the respective Boards and Cabinet as appropriate. In my capacity as CEO/Head, I may also respond, as appropriate, to various questions that may be raised by the parliamentary committees or media.  Additionally, questions on the activities of PU/NICIL may also be raised in Parliament and answers submitted via the responsible minister or via the HPS Press Conferences. Over the last 17 years, PU/NICIL has responded to many such questions.
In early 2011, I signaled my intention to government to join the private sector. This decision was taken well in advance of the 2011 elections and was guided by the fact that the privatisation programme was substantially completed.  By the end of 2011, I reached agreement in principle with government, that from 2012, I would work on a part-time basis, transitioning to a consultant. At the same time, I have made it clear, that I am committed to ensuring that those matters that I am working on will be completed or where my institutional knowledge is required, that this is available. Further, I am personally committed to ensuring that any questions regarding the integrity of the process and transactions can be addressed.

Process and policy
No organization is based on one individual. Both the Privatisation Unit and NICIL, report to the Privatisation Board and NICIL Board respectively. On many matters, these Boards in turn, report to Cabinet.
* In the case of privatisation, every privatisation is governed by the GoG Privatisation Policy Framework Paper (PPFP) laid in Parliament in July 2003. See www.privatisation.gov.gy for a copy.  One cardinal principle of the privatisation framework is the 3-tier process that includes a Privatisation Board that includes 50% of the board members coming from labour, the private sector, and consumer organizations.
* In the case of NICIL, this is a government holding company, set up by the PNC before 1991. Like any company, this company is governed by the Companies Act.
Therefore, in terms of accountability and reporting, the first duty of a Head is to his Board.

Audits and transparency
Both NICIL and the Privatisation programmes are subject to audit by the Office of the Auditor General.
The law mandates than only the Office of the Auditor General shall audit state entities. As such, NICIL has no choice in the selection of the auditors.
The Office of the Auditor General has always been empowered to audit all privatisations of this government. In 2008, the Privatisation Unit published a report documenting the transparency of every privatisation– www.privatisation.gov.gy. This report is currently being updated to reflect those additional transactions that have been completed since then; once completed, this revised report will be made a public document via the Privatisation Board.
In respect of NICIL, its books were audited to the end of 2010. However, the audit opinion is not issued until all of the subsidiaries audits are completed and the consolidated statements of the group can be completed.  In this respect, up to 2004 audit opinion has been issued for NICIL as a group, with this audit opinion being a “clean opinion.”
PU/NICIL is not involved in secret deals.  As anyone involved in national and international business will know, Confidential Agreements between the negotiating parties are a primary and normal requirement. It is not a matter of the lack of transparency in government dealings; it is that the government has to sign Confidentiality Agreements before it can engage in meaningful dialogue with potential investors. Otherwise, no self-respecting business will engage in discussions with the government. Information can only be put in the public domain at certain stages in the negotiations.

Parliament
Members of Parliament, of which Mr. Ramjattan has been for many years, have many avenues available to obtain information on NICIL or privatisation. The following are some of the avenues:

1. Raise written questions in Parliament and seek answers from the Government. In this respect, every question put forward by the opposition parties in parliament has been answered by the PPP Government.

2. Seek answers on public accounts and accountability, via the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament.   Given that it is the Auditor General who has the statutory responsibility for auditing state-owned entities, opposition MPs through their representatives on the PAC (a committee chaired by the opposition), can question the state of completion and any reason for delay.

3. Seek answers to issues via the other Parliamentary Sub-Committees,e.g. the Natural Resources Sub-Committee. I have answered questions in the past on GPL, the Berbice Bridge, and other matters.
The above avenues have always been available to opposition MPs.

Politics, Politicians and the Media
Given the technical nature of the position I hold, it is not usually my place to first respond to issues raised by politicians. In fact, on many of these issues, it has more to do with politics. The media, on the other hand, is expected to be fair, objective, and balanced.  Even if one does not like it, in any public office (political or otherwise), one has to endure a certain level of press attack. However, when opposition leaders like Ramjattan, via Kaieteur News, carry a headline “Brassington resignation ‘no get out of jail free” card,” the headline alone, is intended to impugn one’s integrity and suggest an accusation of a serious nature.

Thus my response
Mr. Ramjattan’s statements are generalizations and unsubstantiated. I value my integrity as I have asserted above. For all the reasons stated above, Mr. Ramjattan has conveniently ignored the avenues available to him as an opposition MP to seek answers (despite him sitting in the Parliament for many years) and has, in his usual caustic attack, launched into a tirade without providing any substance.  As a lawyer, Mr. Ramjattan should know the implications of what he is doing.  Therefore, in light of the facts of what I know,  the established reporting lines that I adhere to, the established avenues available to Mr. Ramjattan in Parliament as an opposition MP, (as he is not part of the executive Government), I find Mr. Ramjattan’s conduct “deeply dishonest.”  In this regard, Mr. Ramjattan via KN reports has displayed a reckless and dangerous disregard for the tenets of fairness and honesty that he claims to stand up for.
My hesitancy in taking legal action or responding in the past has been tempered by the fact that despite what is the truth, few legal cases on libel have ever been decided in the public domain or the truth is often distorted reflecting statements of “a biased, subjective and unbalanced nature, often reflective of an opposition perspective.”
I guess, for those of us, who have endured in the public arena, it will be without thanks from those who seem content to always criticize, without themselves standing up to take responsibility for their actions.