Diaspora News - February 15 - 21, 2014

APNU ACCUSES THE PPP/C OF MISLEADING THE PUBLIC ON AML-CFT LEGISLATION

A Partnership for National Unity supports strong Anti-Money-Laundering and Countering the Fi-

nancing Terrorism legislation, institutions and law-enforcement measures. The People‟s Progres-

sive Party/Civic administration‟s record of the introduction and enforcement of such legislation in

Guyana, however, has been one of inconsistency and incompetence. The PPP/C‟s approach has

created public confusion and apprehension instead of confidence, certainty and security. The PPP/C administration has been deliberately dilatory and delinquent in enforcing its own anti-

money-laundering legislation for over 13 years. It has not been diligent to implement reforms. It

has reacted only when forced to do so by direct threats of sanctions by the Caribbean Financial Ac-

tion Task Force and the international financial community. A special select committee was established by the National Assembly in June 2007 to examine a

new Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill. The committee

started work a year later under its chairman Dr. Ashni Singh, Minister of Finance. The new law

was enacted more than two years later in 2009.

The record of major enactments is as follows:

· The Money Laundering (Prevention) Act of 2000 was introduced by the People‟s Progressive

Party Civic administration fourteen years ago. It was assented to by President Bharrat Jagdeo on

29th March 2000 but was never fully enforced.

· The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act of 2009 was

then enacted under international pressure. It was assented to by President Jagdeo on 14thAugust

2009. It was never fully enforced.

APNU AT WORK

A WEEKLY SUMMARY OF EVENTS

KEEPING THE DIASPORA INFORMED

February 15, 2014— February 21, 2014

Vol. 30

· The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Act

of 2010 (Act No.15 of 2010) was assented to by President Jagdeo on 10th August 2010. It was never

fully enforced.

It was clear, therefore, that the PPP/C administration was in no hurry to consider legislative

changes even while it had preponderant voting strength in both the Select Committee and the Na-

tional Assembly during both the 8th and 9th Parliaments from 2001 to 2011.

Despite the introduction of the new Act, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) iden-

tified numerous deficiencies and delinquencies in Guyana‟s performance. It made several recom-

mendations to strengthen the AML-CFT Act, the Bank of Guyana and the Financial Intelligence

Unit in a series of Mutual Evaluation Reports (MER). The third round of MER, adopted by the

CFATF Council of Ministers in May 2011 in Honduras, stated: “Guyana was placed on a list of ju-

risdictions with strategic anti-money-laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism

(AML-CFT) deficiencies that have not made sufficient progress in addressing the deficiencies and

required Guyana to take specific steps to address these deficiencies by November 2013.”

CFATF reported, further, that: “The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of

Terrorism (AML-CFT) (Amendment) Bill 2013 was presented in Parliament on April 22, 2013, a

week before its deadline of April 30, 2013.” It was only in April 2013, therefore, when Guyana was

threatened with being „blacklisted‟ and deadlines for compliance were set that the Government was

forced to introduce amendments to the AML-CFT Act in the National Assembly.

APNU has always been most concerned about „good governance.‟ It advocated the institution of

strong enforceable legislation to deal with the scourge of money-laundering and the financing of

terrorism in Guyana.

APNU is determined that the Bank of Guyana, the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Special Organ-

ised Crime Unit and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are functionally empowered

with the needed autonomy and equipped with the technical and institutional capabilities and ca-

pacity to effectively discharge the functions assigned to them by the amended 2009 Act.

APNU has engaged the Government of Guyana, the private sector, civil society, the trade unions

and the international community in its campaign to protect the Guyana economy and the Guya-

nese people from the scourge of financial crimes.

APNU is committed to working to ensure that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Fi-

nancing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2013 (Bill No. 12 of 2013) is effectively enforceable.

Churches meet APNU on troubled anti-money laundering legis-lations

As pressure mounts on Guyana to pass key legislations to help fight dirty money, top officials rep-resenting a number of Christian churches in Guyana met yesterday with Leader of the Opposition, Brigadier David Granger and a team of officials from A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) at the Office of the Opposition Leader. The legislations are currently in limbo as both the Government and the Opposition parties remain deadlocked on a number of changes and conditions to the proposed bills.

According to APNU, the coalition remains committed to amending the current Anti-Money Laun-

dering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act of 2009 to ensure that it is effective.

“APNU is committed to ensuring that the Bank

of Guyana and the Financial Intelligence Unit

are empowered and equipped to fulfil their func-

tions and achieve the objectives of the Act.”

APNU also said it is committed to engaging the

Government of Guyana, the private sector, civil

society, the trade unions and the international

community to protect the economy with enforce-

able.

The APNU team included Basil Williams, Deputy

Speaker of the National Assembly; Shadow Minister of Legal and Economic Affairs, Carl Green-

idge; and Mark Archer, Communications Director of APNU.

Already, worried business leaders and the other stakeholders‟ groups have been meeting with Gov-

ernment and the Opposition over the legislations.

Early last year, Government facing a deadline of May 27 tabled the Bills but the Opposition, which

holds a one-seat majority in the National Assembly, sent it instead to a Special Parliamentary Se-

lect Committee for modifications.

A Parliamentary recess and wrangling saw the next review in November by the regional regulators

being passed without the legislations in place. A warning was issued to member countries to take

steps to protect themselves from possible risks from Guyana.

A February review has also elapsed with May set for the next meeting of the Caribbean Financial

Action Task Force (CFATF) on the Guyana situation.

Kaieteur News, February 20, 2014

The issue has heavily divided the National Assembly with the Alliance For Change, the smaller of the two Opposition factions, linking its support for the legislations to the establishment of the long-awaited Public Procurement Commission. Government has said that failure to pass the legislations, part of a raft of measures to stop the flow of illegal monies into the established banking and other financial systems, could see the country being blocked by others in transacting simple businesses. Including this is the transfer of monies and payment for goods. Banks and other financial institutions have to demand proper identification of its customers with Guyana strengthening its laws to allow for the seizures of cash, bank accounts and properties be-lieved to have come from illegal means.

Guyana closer to becoming a narco state – Granger

Leader of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Brig. David Granger has said that “Guyana is now closer than it has ever been to becoming a narco state” based on the revelations of Guyana‟s narcotic linkages and the government‟s inability to enforce drug trafficking measures. The retired Brigadier who is experienced within the realm of National Security said that from 1999 to 2012 there have been a series of security reform initiatives promulgated by the current admin-istration which have amounted to no significant change within the security sector.

According to Granger, “For 15 years the government of Guyana has been receiving plans, reports

and recommendations from the British. The country has even come up with its own plans.

“I have participated in at least three of them, as a member of the border and National Security committee, a member of the Disciplined Forces Commission and I was a member of National Secu-rity Strategy Organizing Committee.” The Opposition Leader said that the People‟s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) has never fully im-plemented its own National Drug strategy Master Plan. He said that APNU has the plans; the party knows what to do and is “sincere about uprooting narco trafficking.” According to Granger, Guyanese drug traffickers are not linked to a few Koreans in Barbados or St. Maarten, but to the Italian Mafia. “That is where our drug trade takes us now, a murderous Mafia and I really shudder to think what would happen if we had murderous Mafiosi coming into this country, trying to enforce narco trafficking. It is there in the papers and from the British and American papers; it is well known” said Granger. Granger implored that no inroads are being made into the drug fight. Only the pushers and dealers are jailed while the kingpins still continue. “We catch a few girls with a couple of grams in her brassiere and we put her in New Amsterdam prison for three years, but the people who are taking drugs out by the ton never get caught.

Kaieteur News, February 20, 2014

“The people who are building airstrips and receiving cocaine by the ton are not being caught and this cocaine is finding its way into Mozambique, into Ghana, into Malaysia, into Italy and all around the world” he said. He said that APNU‟s “Master” plan is to bring narco trafficking eventually to an end, since he pos-its that “narco trafficking is the mother of all crimes; it encourages gun running because guns have to come in to protect the crime as happened between 2000 and 2008 with Mr. Shaheed Khan. “It is linked to money laundering because when people get these use amounts of money it has to be laundered, so that is why we are so concerned with the AML Bill because we know that although the government has had AML legislation for 14 years, they have not brought a single prosecution.” The Opposition leader speaking on how APNU intends to fight the drug trade posited that his coa-lition plans primarily to enforce the very acts including the National Drug Strategy Master Plan which is now on the table and well as strengthening the Guyana Police Force (GPF) to “cut of the head of criminality” and bring narco trafficking to an end. According to Granger at the top of the list is strengthening the Guyana Police Force (GPF), he said that before emphasis is placed on community and neighbourhood policing the GPF should be re-trained, reequipped and reorganized. “Police have to be better paid and they have to be retrained, that is the most important thing, hav-ing a good police force… the important thing is to ensure that you have an efficient police force, well paid well trained and committed to performing their duties.”

He said that there is a high level of demoralization because of political interference in the internal operations of the GPF, which he posits reduces the effectiveness of the force. “Look at what hap-pened in the Corentyne Coast; there was no evidence that those policemen were involved in illegal-ities, yet they were scattered all around the country. “It turns out now that there were local gangs operating in that area but because of the Minister‟s intrusive behaviour innocent police men have now been stigmatized by being transferred.” “Unless you deal with the police force you cannot deal with things like murder, banditry, piracy all of these other crimes and traffic accidents can only be brought under control by an efficient police force, if you have a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) that is weak, if you have traffic police that are weak or venal, they are taking bribes you can‟t stamp out crime… at any level whether it‟s domestic violence or narco trafficking,” said Granger.

Telecoms Bill held hostage in Select Committee – Govt.- Works moving quickly- APNU

Works to amend the Telecommunications and Public Utilities Commission legislations are in full swing in the Parliamentary Special Select Committee to which they were referred last November, says Carl Greenidge, Chairman of the Committee.

Kaieteur News, February 20, 2014

But Government believes that the Bills are being held hostage in the Parliamentary Special Select Committee whilst the country is depending on their passages to have connectivity transformation. Greenidge, also A Partnership for National Unity (APNU‟s) Member of Parliament, said that the Committee has identified experts to assist with the examination of the legislations since Telecom-munication is a technical area that could be confusing to persons, who do not work in the field. He added that while the Committee is working apace on the legislations it has just touched on the controversial section, which includes treatment of existing service providers; how to deal with companies that monopolize certain services; role of Public Utilities Commission; and Role of the Minister. However, more indepth works have to be done on the controversial areas. Though, he is unaware as to when works in the Committee will conclude Greenidge is confident that Committee members are moving quickly. The passage of these Bills will provide the legislative framework to transform the connectivity of Guyana, says Presidential Advisor Gail Teixeira, at last week‟s post-Cabinet press briefing. She was at the time lamenting on Guyana being a cash-based economy. Strides are being made to facilitate electronic banking and reduce the citizens‟ dependency on cash to transact business. According to Teixeira, Guyana has a lot of catching up to do in this area. As such, it is therefore im-portant for the Telecoms Bill to be passed in the National Assembly. “The Telecoms Bill has been held hostage for a number of reasons just the like the Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We are stymied from moving forward…The Telecoms Bill came in 2011. Remem-ber that while moving forward by the government and based by a number of interventions that we stopped the process.” “We didn‟t take it to the next stage to pass it…We could have passed it but there were very strong different views with the Opposition Parties and even with the companies involved so a lot of dis-cussions have taken place between 2011 and now,” she said. Teixeira said that Government hopes to succeed this time around because that would have an im-pact on the speed with which the country would move. And, even though, the physical and logisti-cal issues would have to been done for connectivity the legislative framework has to be resolved. “Even if you put transmission lines, repeaters and transmitters, if you do not have the legislative instrument it would be stalled or paused. And, these are all issues that affect the speed with which you could pass the Bills,” she said. According to Teixeira, when she looks at Guyana 30 years ago and to present, there is a big change with the presence of more commercial banks in areas such as Lethem and Bartica; introduction of ATMs; and there are quite a number of banks that persons could access credit cards.

“…Bringing in e-commerce legislation to allow to expedite for example e-banking because now de-pending on the amounts you are moving it could take a long time and it should not be taking a long time it is easier up until this period to send money overseas than to send from one commercial bank to another commercial bank…so that I think it is far easier than years ago,” she noted. She said that Guyana would remain a cash-based economy until there is connectivity throughout the country to facilitate electronic transactions such as e-banking. Nonetheless, there are still parts of the country that do not have connectivity, and there are still some businesses that do not readily accept cheques. Credit cards are not widely used in Guyana. However, while Government and the Opposition are working on the passage of the legislations the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company introduced its Mobile Money service under the name „Mobile Money Guyana‟ (MMG) in March 2013 with approval from the relevant authorities. According to Eshwar (Shawn) Thakurdin, Managing Director of MMG, “The introduction stemmed from the concept proving very successful in other developing parts of the world since its introduc-tion…The aim is to provide financial inclusion and encourage economic development.” He said that since its introduction internationally, mobile money has gone through massive trans-formation and growth. The service in its current form not only covers those previously neglected, but also banked segments who value the convenience and simplicity it brings. “The main obstacle we foresaw was the general cash-based nature of the public. How would we get our customers to trust our technology to store money and make payments? Indeed, in the first few months of launch this was very evident,” he added. However, with consumer education, mainly through regular community outreaches, the public has surprisingly embraced the service. The company now has thousands of persons using MMG monthly to buy Credit (C-Point), pay bills and send money across Guyana. Thakurdin stressed, “Our main task is emphasizing to users that the technology is safely used around the world, and protected by their PIN (4-digit number) just like a bank card. This means if you lose your phone, you don‟t lose your money. So, storing your money in your „mobile wallet‟ is safer than carrying cash. Lose your phone and you can get back your money. But if you lose your purse or wallet, chances are it‟s gone for good.” “We can build such an extensive network because the service runs on GT&T mobile network. Inter-net access is not mandatory. As such, we have been able to bring our services to many remote loca-tions where internet connectivity may not be strong. Our agents in Annai, Mabura, Lethem and Mahdia have earned the trust of their communities. So it seems that communities which may be considered „cash-based‟ have warmed up to using MMG. Through our best form of advertising…word-of-mouth, we see the activity increasing,” Thakurdin said.

Sukul’s disbarment is a national embarrassment – Chris Ram

- calls for Presidential inquiry

Kaieteur News, February 17, 2014 The disbarment in England and sub-sequent resignation of Court of Ap-peal Judge, Rabi Sukul is a National embarrassment and the President must immediately set up an inquiry in the circumstances of his appoint-ment. This is the view held by practicing Attorney-at Law, Christopher Ram, who in his chrisram.net outlet, not-ed that the offence committed by Justice Sukul in England also takes place in Guyana. Ram, in his writings said, “What is frightening is that a colleague who practises daily in the courts told me

that the sin of drafting false grounds of appeal that led to the disbarment of former Justice Sukul, is committed regularly in the Guyana courts, even by seasoned lawyers.” He opined that, “those civilized rules seem alien to Guyana where an attorney convicted and jailed in Canada practises in the courts in Berbice despite the information about his conviction having been brought to the attention of and acknowledged by the Attorney General.” Ram said “spin it however we might,” the Sukul revelation, “is a huge embarrassment to the coun-try, the Government, the Chancellor, what exists of the Judicial Service Commission, the Attorney General and the legal profession.” Ram in his analysis noted that according to a statement from the Office of the Chancellor, he learnt of the disbarment 11 days after the decision by the London Tribunal and nine days after it appeared in the London Law Gazette. According to Ram, “the statement from the Chancellor‟s Office did not offer any reason for his ac-tion in seeking Justice Sukul‟s resignation rather than moving to have him removed in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution…If the Chancellor‟s call for the resignation and Jus-tice Sukul‟s compliance were seen to be the end of the matter, they would invite all kinds of specu-lation by a justifiably skeptical public.” He suggested that for the public to be satisfied, the action by the Chancellor leaves no option but for the President, who appoints and removes judges, to set up an Inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Justice Sukul.

Such an Inquiry will necessarily exclude the three ex-officio members of the Judicial Service Com-mission and must have the power to subpoena records and persons. “We have to make sure that the architecture that permitted this travesty to occur is dismantled.” Ram said that the Sukul Saga has exposed some serious flaws in the constitutional arrangements governing the Judicial Service Commission and its methods of operation. According to Ram, Guyana needs a more effective Judiciary than the one Constitutional Division of which is limited to a single judge and of which the top two persons have been singled out by the politicians for tax free salaries. “That is antithetical (adverse or opposing) to the rule of law which requires all to be treated equal-ly…The public expects improvements to a Judiciary that often appears dysfunctional and that brings the country into such untimely disrepute (not that there is such a thing as timely disre-pute!).” He posits that the constitutional arrangements governing the composition and conduct of the Ju-dicial Service Commission needs fixing with provision for an independent Chairman. “But we must not fool ourselves: our legal problem neither begins nor ends with the judiciary…The Guyana Bar Association, of which I am the Secretary, has been largely silent while the judiciary and the Justice Improvement Project on which billions have been spent seem to move in opposite direction.” He noted that as the Bar Association considers its response to the Sukul issue, it must also address the improper conduct of legal practitioners, including their employment of touts. The Bar Association, he said, has to justify the privileged place society accords the legal profession and to recognise that its objects extend well beyond representing lawyers‟ interests. According to Ram, “It is regrettable that what was planned as a celebration to Justice (Desiree) Bernard has drawn heightened focus on a dark day for Guyana‟s Judiciary and the country.” Ram in his piece noted that fate could hardly have been crueler, given this week marks the first oc-casion that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is meeting in Guyana as an itinerant court.

“It should have been a moment of pride for our judiciary and a tribute to our own Justice Madame Desiree Bernard, CCH, OR on whose long legal career, including a place on the CCJ, the curtain will soon close.” Instead, he observed, the cocktails and lunches being arranged for the distinguished visiting legal luminaries will not erase the embarrassment of the most recently appointed member of our Appel-late Court Justice Rabi Sukul being disbarred from practising in the UK by the Bar Council of Eng-land and Wales for intentionally misleading his client by drafting false grounds of appeal.

“At every hopeful point at which the pessimists think the country has exhausted its sack of scan-dals, another one surfaces, exposing the immoral underbelly of a soulless country: one of failed, or dysfunctional, or non-functional national institutions.” According to Ram, “we – and I mean mainly the business class and the professionals – are too comfortable, compromised or cowardly to challenge the illegalities and improprieties that are per-petrated daily by public offices in Guyana.”

There should be a full investigation into the Sukul matter Stabroek News, February 19, 2014 [Letter] Dear Editor, To practise law in England and Wales one must belong to one of the four Inns operating in Eng-land, In 1988 Sukul was made a member of Lincoln‟s Inn. For those who don‟t know what Lin-coln‟s Inn is, I offer this explanation from the Wikipedia encyclopedia. “The Honourable Society of Lincoln‟s Inn is one of four Inns of Court in London to which barris-ters of England and Wales belong and where they are called to the Bar. The other three are Middle Temple, Inner Temple and Gray‟s Inn. It is believed to be named after Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln.” Some time in 2012 Mr Sukul became the object of disciplinary proceedings before a UK tribunal for an alleged offence which has been adequately described by the local newspapers. Whatever in-tervened would be pure speculation but Mr Sukul came to Guyana and was appointed to the Ap-peal Court in July 2013 nearly one year after the charges of professional misconduct were institut-ed against him in England. Since Mr Sukul was a member of Lincoln‟s Inn, a simple question to that body requesting infor-mation as to Mr Sukul‟s standing as an attorney might possibly have revealed that he was under investigation for gross professional misconduct and that a decision was pending. This was one phone call, Editor, and neither the person nor persons who recommended this man for appoint-ment as an appellate court judge in this country including the Attorney General who holds the po-sition of chief legal advisor to the President, sought to make this simple phone call to Lincoln‟s Inn. Mr Nandlall informs us that a Law Lord told them that Mr Sukul was in good standing, but he ne-glects to name the Law Lord, and we would be very interested in who this person is. The matter takes on an even more interesting aspect when it is now understood that nothing dis-tinguished Mr Sukul‟s service at the English bar, nor had he ever served as a judge in England or even a magistrate, but we nevertheless bring him here and put him in the highest judicial forum in the land. Since Mr Nandlall is speaking to the public through the newspapers and I am a member of the public, I am prompted to ask what sort of due diligence is this? Is this how Mr Nandlall seeks to protect our legal system and his President? I am asking that the question of who recom-mended Mr Sukul be put to him in the Guyana Parliament. Also the question as to how exactly Mr Sukul was appointed to the Appeal Court should be put to him as the Minister of Justice in this country.

We are now left with a number of problems: a. the judicial system, already unpopular in this coun-try (according to a poll which was done some years ago) has now been brought into further disre-pute; b. why was the background of this man not diligently checked in view of the high post we were giving him, to avoid the embarrassing consequences our judicial system and indeed all Guya-nese now face. Surely this matter cannot end here. There has to be a full investigation and the opposition will have to be involved since they have appointees to the Judicial Service Commis-sion. Is there no end to the shenanigans in this country? Will we never be able to hold our heads up in pride for being a Guyanese. When people ask us where we are from, must we always say from South America in shame of saying Guyana; our own underdeveloped Caricom neighbours hold us in contempt. Since our appeal court has now come into further disrepute, is it not time for us to institute pro-ceedings to leapfrog the Appeal Court and go directly to the CCJ, as is done in the UK, for serious and important matters requiring expeditious hearing? Yours faithfully, Tony Vieira

Granger not ready to discuss possible second run for presiden-cy Stabroek News, February 17, 2014 Opposition Leader David Granger is not ready to discuss whether he will seek to be A Partnership for National Unity‟s presidential candidate for the next elections but he does believe that he has been successful so far in keeping the coalition strong and unified. Granger, in a recent interview with Stabroek News, said he has not considered a second run since his current focus is on building the partnership and achieving the strategic goals they have set. The coalition business is now on a month-to-month basis and according to him, this business takes precedence over personal ambition. He also brushed off criticisms about his political credentials, saying the position he holds requires a strong statesman who ensures that the coalition functions effectively and keeps the government on its toes. “So those techniques that I used were successful…I cannot agree with those critics,” Granger said. Granger, who also serves as leader of the PNCR, dismissed the notion that the party has had a “tainted past.” He praised the party‟s record in office, while adding that a PNCR return to office will continue to build on that record. He asserted that his leadership of the party has led to greater institutional strengthening in all of the regions. He observed that many persons who had left the party have returned even though it is a work still in progress. Further, he said the party registered stronger performance in several regions at the last general elections but especially in Region Ten and in Georgetown. “So I would say both the campaign which I led and my tenure as leader so far has contributed to the institutional strengthening of the party, increasing party membership and there has been greater outreach…,” Granger said. He added that on the communication front the party now has seven weekly television programmes and regular outreaches to the regions.

Asked about whether he has been able to galvanise enough support to bring about positive change in the governance of the country, Granger admitted that this has been a slow process and he cited the PPP/C‟s control of the media and its domination of the economy as challenges. The coalition, he said, is not an enemy of the business community and has therefore managed to draw support from people who want a safer and more transparent country in which investment can take place. He insisted that the opposition has managed its one-seat majority well, noting that both APNU and the AFC are working hard. He said there is a high degree of respect and cooperation between the two sides and he cited the election of AFC member Raphael Trotman as Speaker as the first mani-festation of the management of the relationship between the two groups. On the question of local government elections and whether the opposition would have failed in this regard since the polls are yet to be a reality, Granger said that the PNCR and later APNU have cam-paigned for years for local government reforms. “We do not failed we feel we have succeeded in bringing the four bills through the Special Select Committee back to the House and as result of that there was every reasonable expectation on the part of the APNU that 2014, this year…we would once again have local government elections,” Granger said. He said that the partnership is concerned that President Donald Ramotar withheld his assent from one of the four bills but “right now we are engaged in actions which are intended to ensure that that bill be brought back for the President‟s consent.” According to Granger, the work of APNU in-creased steadily over the last two years and he pointed to recent efforts as being responsible for bringing local government elections closer to reality than it ever had been in the twenty years since the last local government election was held. He added that the partnership remains solid and a decision was taken to participate in the upcom-ing local government elections as one unit both in the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils‟ (NDC) and municipal elections. Asked if snap elections is something he supports, Granger said the partnership does not support them and believes in pushing for good governance by the ruling party. “Having elections without making the PPP more accountable is not going to solve the problems of the country. The PPP must be made to govern the country in a more accountable and transparent manner. So we have not been calling for snap elections or any elections except for local government elections,” Granger said. Security Granger, a security expert with years of experience in the field from his time in the army, opined that the major threat from crime facing Guyana is a transnational one particularly narcotics traf-ficking, gun running and money laundering. He also stressed that narcotics trafficking is the “mother of all crimes.” He said several of the execution-type murders, which have baffled the po-lice, could better be investigated if they looked at the narcotics link. He maintained that the government has not done enough to effectively fight narco-trafficking pointing out that the country has not had a drug national master plan for three years. He said the opposition is the one that is pressing for it since narco-trafficking is tearing the society apart. “But there is little outcry on the part of some sections of civil society… they [do not] demand a better planning to counter the drug scourge,” he said. The absence of the plan, he said, has led to the fail-ure of policies, weakening of CANU and the continued inflow of narcotics into the country.

“Narco-trafficking is a big problem and I think the failure to agree on the establishment of a DEA

[Drug Enforcement Agency] office by the United States is one of the expressions of that failure.

The failure to promulgate the National Drug Strategy Master Plan, the failure to strengthen the

Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit, the failure to strengthen the police narcotics, have all created a fa-

vourable environment for trafficking in narcotics to strive,” he said.

Chief Justice, Govt. cannot solely approve expenditure from coffers – Greenidge Kaieteur News, February 16, 2013 Government cannot approve expenditure and expend amounts from the Consolidated Fund on its own. As such A Partnership for National Unity‟s (APNU), Chief Financial Spokesperson, Carl Greenidge, is adamant that action will be taken against Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, for what he deems unlawful expenditure. He was speaking of amounts expended by Government without approval. These included the US$8M utilized by the government last year, to fund the expansion project of the Cheddi Jagan International Airport and for which there has been a repeated rejection in the House. Greenidge said, yesterday, that notwithstanding what Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang, has ruled, he nor the government by itself, cannot approve expenditure. According to Greenidge, the constitution is clear that it is the National Assembly that has to ap-prove expenditure. He noted that the ruling by the Chief Justice will be challenged, as the opposition is not in agree-ment. “What the Chief Justice is saying is that Government can write any expenditure it wants and spend it…it (the expenditure) cannot be by default,” argued Greenidge. Greenidge said that he is hopeful that the Chief Justice, upon reflection realizes how ridiculous his ruling is, given the implications. Meanwhile, Greenidge commenting on this year‟s Budget which is constitutionally due by the end of next month, said that APNU‟s modus operandi remains the same. He said that as long as proper explanations and details for projects and other expenditure are not provided and for which the opposition are not in agreement, these will be voted down. Greenidge‟s comments came on the heels of similar statements made by the Opposition Leader, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger, who said that the Chief Justice‟s ruling is flawed and that the 2014 Estimates will be cut where necessary. Granger at a recent press engagement, told media operatives that “we do not feel the ruling is ap-plicable to internal workings of the National Assembly, we have Standing Orders which have the force of law and we feel that we will continue to behave as we have behaved in the past.”

He is of the view that “if a matter is brought before the National Assembly and we are asked wheth-er we disagree or we agree, whether we approve or disapprove, the members of the National As-sembly will vote in accordance with the interest of the country. If we disapprove we will say we dis-approve.” According to Granger, “I would like to see which court would convert a disapproval by National As-sembly into approval…I would like to see which court will convert 33 votes into 32 votes.” Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman is the only person who can appeal the ruling by the Chief Justice, as Granger was struck out as a defendant. Trotman at the beginning of the last sitting of the National Assembly had indicated to the House that the ruling by the Chief Justice was contrary to one that he had made. Trotman said that while the appeal rests in his hands, he would be looking to consult with the lead-ers of the Government and Opposition sides of the House in order to make a decision.This, he said, is because the approval of the amended budget was essentially done by the two sides in the House.

The constitution and the Standing Orders provide no barrier to the management of the budget debate line by line Stabroek News, February 19, 2014 [Letter] Dear Editor, I have been following the variety of opinions expressed in the press consequent on the final deci-sion of the acting Chief Justice Ian Chang concerning the autonomy of the National Assembly in relation to the budget debates. There seem to have been many words written on what the National Assembly cannot do in relation to the budget estimates presented by the Minister of Finance. I suggest that a broader reading of articles in the national constitution together with the Standing Orders of the National Assembly will show that there is really no problem. Article 9 of the main text of the Constitution of Guyana 1980 says that “The rules and orders of the existing Assembly . . . shall . . . be the rules of procedure of the National Assembly . . . but shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Constitution.” James Pender, parliamentary staff advisor provided by the Commonwealth Secretariat, wrote on „legislation‟ and on „appropriation bills and financial procedures‟ in his advisory papers numbers 4 and 5 for the National Assembly in 2005-6. Mr Pender proposed simplification of the budget de-bate and procedures and noted that relevant changes in Standing Orders would require parallel changes in the constitution. However, he gave no indication that the Standing Orders might be in conflict with the national constitution. The current set of Standing Orders were approved by the National Assembly on May 2, 2006 when the PPP/C had a working majority. I have not found any indication that the PPP/C objected to those Standing Orders on the grounds that they did not match the Constitution of Guyana. Nor did the PPP/C apparently note any conflict with parliamentary Standing Orders when passing the 2003 revision to the constitution.

The relevant article in the Schedule to the national constitution for the debate on budget estimates is number 171. The much-cited Article 218 just deals with the Appropriations Bills following budg-et debates. Article 171 (1) says that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and of the rules of procedure of the National Assembly, any member of the Assembly may introduce any Bill or propose any mo-tion for debate in, or may present any petition to, the Assembly and the same shall be debated and disposed of according to the rules of procedure of the Assembly.” So the budget debate is accord-ing to the Standing Orders; that is explicit. Article 171 (2) then says that “Except on the recommendation or with the consent of the Cabinet signified by a Minister, the Assembly shall not – (a) proceed upon any Bill (including any amend-ment to a Bill) which, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the follow-ing purposes – (i) for imposing or increasing any tax; (ii) for imposing any charge upon the Con-solidated Fund or any other public fund of Guyana or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it . . .” So the National Assembly cannot without cabinet/ministerial agreement im-pose a tax or increase a tax. Nor can it change any proposed use of the Consolidated Fund tax oth-er than by reducing the amount of the proposed use. But Article 171 (a) (ii) allows the Assembly to reduce proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund even if the cabinet/minister disagrees. Bills which are contentious are passed after the first reading to a committee stage as a conventional way of not blocking the plenary sessions of the National Assembly with detailed debate better han-dled in smaller groups of MPs and technical advisers. The budget debate is in principle no differ-ent from the management of any other Bill passing through the legislature. The Committee of Supply, resolved from the plenary National Assembly as a whole, is a reflection of the importance of the budget as the ultimate lever of control of the legislature over the executive in tripartite Jeffersonian government. The committee system moves the debate away from the constraints of ambiguities in Article 171 of the national constitution into the self-governing sphere of the National Assembly, as approved by Article 9 of the constitution. Standing Orders 71 and 72 in Chapter XI – Financial Procedures – cover the budget process. Only after the give-and-take and adjustments made in the Committee of Supply does the final version of the budget revert for vote to the National Assembly in plenary (Standing Orders 71 (4)) after the minister‟s motion (Standing Order 71 (1)) has been amended (Standing Order 71 (5)) and the motion put to the vote without further debate. The Minister (of Finance) can then introduce the Appropriation Bill under Article 218 (2) of the constitution: “When the estimates of expenditure . . . have been approved by the Assembly a Bill, to be know[n] as an Appropriation Bill, shall be introduced in the Assembly, providing for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure . . .” In other words, all the serious debate and horse-trading takes place in the Committee of Supply without needing to consider the convoluted wording of Article 171 – which deals with both Bill and motion but not in a congruent manner. Standing Orders 73-76 provide detailed instruction for the management of the debate by line items, including provision for motions to increase or decrease the sums allotted in the estimates.

Read in this sequence, the Constitution of Guyana and the Standing Orders of the National Assem-bly provide no barrier to the management of the budget debate line-by-line in the same manner as in almost all democratic and semi-democratic countries. The appeal by the PPP/C to the High Court thus appears to be based on misreadings of what the law and Standing Orders actually pre-scribe. Of course it would be preferable to have a less convoluted and more conventionally worded national constitution, but that is another matter. Yours faithfully, Janette Bulkan

Suriname’s Ambassador pays courtesy call Newly accredited Surinamese Ambassador to Guyana, Ms. Nisha Kurban Baboe paid a c0urtesy call on the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Brigadier David A. Granger, MSS, MP on Monday 17th February 2014. Ambassador Kurban-Baboe is a member of the National Democratic Party and a resident of Nickerie. Brigadier Granger welcomed the Ambassador to his Office and to Guyana. The Opposition Leader was accompanied by APNU Parliamentarians, Mr. Joseph Harmon, Mr. Ronald Bulkan, Ms. Africo Selman and Policy Adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. E. Lance Carberry. Ambassador Kurban-Baboe, who previously served at the Surinamese Embassy in Brazil, replaces Ambassador Manorma Soeknandan.

President of the CCJ pays courtesy call on Leader of the Opposi-

tion

President of the Caribbean Court of Justice Sir Charles Michael Dennis Bryon today paid a courte-

sy call on the Leader of the Opposition Brigadier David Granger MSS MP at the Office of the Lead-

er of the Opposition, Hadfield Street, Georgetown.

The Opposition Leader and a team of senior officials from A Partnership for National Unity wel-

comed the Kittitian born Jurist to his office, and to Guyana. The APNU team and the CCJ Presi-

dent then engaged in a very amicable and productive discussion on local and regional issues. The

APNU Team at today‟s meeting was; Dr. Rupert Roopnarine MP Deputy Leader of the APNU, Mr.

Basil Williams MP Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Ms. Amna Ally MP Opposition Chief

Whip, Mr. Joseph Harmon MP and Mr. Ronald Bulkan MP.

Trade Union representatives met with A Partnership for National Unity Leader, Da-

vid Grander and Shadow Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams to discuss the Anti-

Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill.

Visit our website for more information—www.apnuguyana.com or follow us on

facebook-APNU GUYANA and twitter-APNUGuyana