Commentary
guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com

Posted February 16th. 2002

By Eusi Kwayana

Just as the PNC, GAP -WPA and ROAR are under dogs in the National Assembly, so the PPP/C is an underdog in Region 4 RDC. The General Secretary of the PNC/R declared many months ago in an interview beamed to the Caribbean, "We have power sharing here." .Many of us were astonished at his doctrine. I understood it better when I read that the PNC/R majority in the RDC of Demerara- Mahaica (Region 4) had voted to suspend their colleagues for making unfavourable remarks about the RDC at a press conference. The use of power needs examination, regardless of who exercises it. After some effort on my part a copy of the record, in the form of draft minutes was obtained.

According to it, at the opening of the meeting of December 18,2001 there was a motion for the suspension of the standing orders. It was "carried unanimously." Then there is the statement, "The motion read thus": What follows is not the text of the motion, but a speech. "Comrade chairman, Fellow Councillors, in moving this motion I wish to state the following in relation to the suspension of the standing orders…." The speaker then mentions that since the last meeting "there were lots of unfounded and misleading press statements made jointly by PPP Councillor Needkumar and his colleagues about the misappropriation of $27 million from the Loam Pit…..As Chairman of the Regional Finance Committee, this matter was never tabled at the committee at the level of the Regional Democratic Council." The member described the statements as "a political attack on the integrity of the Regional Chairman and that of the RDC" by the PPP/C councillors referred to and claimed that those offenders had "breached Rule 8 of the Standing order and I now call on my colleague Councillor Corlette to continue on this matter."

The minutes continue, " Councillor Corlette requested to speak on the motion" -not yet recorded. The Councillor found that the PPP/C councillors in question had breached Rule 10 © of the Standing Orders. He ended by demanding an apology by the four councillors. The text of the motion is then recorded. It cites the dates of the Guyana Chronicle in which the offending remarks are printed as 21st, 23rd, 27th and 30th November,2001.

The motion then calls for an apology and requires that "the apology be forthwith and that it be publicised in a similar manner in which the allegation were made."

From the minutes, the Chairman did not treat the motion as an accusation requiring an answer from those accused. The majority seemed to assume that a case was made out against each of the PPP/C councillors referred to. In any hearing which may involve a penalty, the presiding official after the charge is laid out normally calls on those accused for a defence. If this was done, the minutes don't disclose or record it. Justified offence, and a sense of being wronged are not enough for accusers with a majority or the presiding official.

They must follow a minimum procedure. These are miscarriages we attack from day to day when the government does them, or is suspected of doing them. It seems too that the PPP/C didn't call for a division and no one else did. Thus it is recorded that the motion passed "unanimously"

The motion itself was a package. It accused the four, with no provision for a defence , but, assuming guilt, called for an apology "forthwith." So we have a new Gang of Four. It was apology or nothing. The mover of the motion relied on the Guyana Chronicle of November 21st, 23rd,27th.and 30th 2001. The offending statements were not read into the record, or brought to the attention of the meeting. It was assumed by the Regional Democratic Council that what was printed in the newspapers was true, and that the statements were really printed in those newspapers.

I have taken the trouble to go back those newspapers and read them. What I saw there as stated by the Four was enough to cause the RDC to order an investigation of the operations at the Loam Pit The chances are that some of these were outside of its control. Is the RDC trying to claim that it knows and approves all that happens at the loam pit? If so, this is a large responsibility. The RDC seems to make no allowance for malpractices outside of its knowledge. This is disturbing and will be more disturbing if any should come to light. In the third publication cited in the motion, one PPP/C councillor implied that $27m was the value of LOAM said to be removed from the pit and not accounted for in the RDC's report. He also alleged that the GGMC had found this alleged discrepancy. He referred to a joint meeting between GGMC officials and regional officials and gave the date of that meeting. . The public ought to be told more about this alleged meeting, which seems to hold the secrets of the controversy. The silence of GGMC is not reassuring, especially as Mr. Munroe said later that its survey was a 'guestimate'.

A signed report in the Guyana Chronicle of November 30, 2001 gave the RDC's response to the allegations of irregularity. Chairman Munroe, with PNC/R councillors, at a press conference on November 28, gave answers to allegations. The answers are helpful as a start, but do not close all gaps. In the same paper, Mr. Kumar, in answering a journalist's question, made an allegation which he should be prepared to prove. According to the report, he definitely accuses "the Region" of what can be interpreted as only dishonesty. It is not a charge which persons in public office will ignore. The trouble is, this is the only published remark which can be seen as a charge of "misappropriation", and the report says that it came from one PPP/C councillor, not four. Even if the hearing was regular, this charge points to only of councillor, not four.

Yet four were accused and all were punished.

To accuse a Council of non accountability, or of not accounting for x million dollars is only saying that information is not disclosed, that there is spending without authority, that there is high-handedness, or that there is cause for concern. Non accountability may hide other offences, or corruption, or it may not. It is a call to Authority to clear its name.

The minutes also clearly state that when a PPP/C councillor sought to speak, the Chair reminded him that the motion was already passed, yet allowed a PNC/R councillor to make an extended comment on the same "passed" motion. "Councillor Neil Kumar asked to be allowed to speak on the issue although the motion was already passed. Councillor Corlette objected on a point of order and requested the right to lead arguments on the motion as mover of the motion. The point of order was sustained."

The report on Councillor Corlette's remarks occupied 34 lines of the minutes. At this stage Councillor Needkumar was entertained " to reply to the motion". He referred to "a minute in his position which was not a council document and as the source of his information."

There was no statement of what the minute was, from whom or to whom. The PPP/C councillor alleged then that there had been a meeting between the REO, Regional Engineer and officials of Geology and Mines, "unknown to the Regional Chairman." Strangely, nowhere has there been any attempt to verify this very important claim, though much hangs on it. "After lengthy discussions" say the minutes, the Chair reminded the PPP/C that they had not apologised and a motion to suspend the errant councillors for 90 days was moved and carried. They were duly suspended.

The second issue arose when the minutes of this meeting just discussed came to be confirmed. PPP/C members exercised their votes against the record presented. Under matters arising, "Councillor Needkumar raised the issue of the Loam Pit and was reminded by the Chairman that all those who voted against the minutes, should not be raising matters arising from the minutes." At that stage Councillor B.Veersammy asked to be excused. That was followed by all the PPP/C councillors walking out of the meeting." In brief, the bulk of what the gang of four published in the newspapers should have led to attempts to verify at the level of the RDC, the GGMC and other interested parties, and of course the Auditor General. To my mind, only one statement, if not backed by direct or circumstantial evidence, needed sanction. It was made not by four, but by one councillor. If the statements generally were considered worthy of sanction and not allowable under freedom of speech of representatives, then the procedure was hopeless, and in need of sanction. The main opposition party and all opposition forces are demanding justice from the government. Therefore it is common sense, that when any of them happens to be in authority it must set an example of the Justice it wishes to enjoy.