Dear Editor,
There is undue delay in the payment of my severance pay and other benefits by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA). I joined the Customs and Excise department on April 1, 1986 as a patrol officer (Customs Guard). On July 4, 1989 I was elevated to Customs Officer after applying to become same. I worked in this capacity until October 23, 2000 when I was wrongfully dismissed as well as being debarred from entering Customs House to further execute my duty.

I was on sick leave from August 23, 2000; this was communicated to my employers by me via telephone and I submitted my medical which was accepted, because I was paid by the National Insurance Scheme, vide voucher #8055970 on November 16, 2000. I resumed duty on September 20, 2000. On October 16, 2000, I was told to check with Mr Jameel Baksh which I did. On checking with Mr Baksh (Deputy Commissioner) he asked me if I knew that I was being dismissed by the Revenue Authority. I told him that I had heard such a rumour in the business sector but I had not received anything in writing, and I would not be guided by hearsay. Mr Baksh then showed me a letter stating that I was being dismissed with effect from August 23, 2000 for being absent from duty without leave or permission. On October 23, 2000 myself in the presence of Mr Andre Dummett (then Director Enforcement) was told by then Commissioner, Mr Lambert Marks that I was no longer with the revenue authority, had been sent a letter of dismissal and was to leave the compound forthwith. I tried to have this issue resolved departmentally but to no avail, so I had no alternative but to seek redress in the courts.

In the courts the Guyana Revenue Authority witness told the court that I had submitted my medical and the same had been accepted. This case was called up twelve times in the Supreme Court and had to be adjourned on ten occasions. The court ruled in favour of the GRA on the grounds that the authority can hire and fire as they see fit because it is an autonomous body. I then appealed, and the Appeal Court upheld the ruling. I then proceeded to the Caribbean Court of Justice which referred the issue back to Guyana saying the issue was too trivial and should not have reached the CCJ and could have been settled departmentally. I was offered a re-trial which was held in Chief Justice Carl Singh’s Chambers on May 10, 2007. There the GRA legal representative stated that the authority had no objection to compensating and paying me what they owed me. To date they have failed to compensate or pay me and up to now they have not issued me with a dismissal letter officially.

Yours faithfully,
Brent Griffith

Editor’s note

We sent a copy of this letter to the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority, Mr Khurshid Sattaur, and received the following letter from Legal Officer, Ms Hissaun S Yasin-Nandlall in response:

“I have received a letter purportedly written by Mr Griffith with a request for my comments.

“Mr Griffith’s matter was determined by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and a written judgment was delivered on the 12th May, 2006. The Caribbean Court of Justice ruled clearly and decisively that:

‘This Court is firmly of the view that the Revenue Authority is a new corporate entity distinct from the government although it is a public corporation. The employees of the Revenue Authority are not holders of any public office nor are they employed in the service of the Government of Guyana in a civil capacity.’

“In relation to the question of superannuation benefits, the Court had this to say: (parenthesis mine)

‘The applicant [Brent Griffith] has not succeeded in demonstrating that his intended appeal has any real prospect of success by showing whether either that he held public office during his service with the Revenue Authority or that he had an existing right to property in the form of superannuation benefits or that he had a constitutional right to natural justice in respect of the termination of his employment with the Revenue Authority. We therefore refuse to grant him special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Although we have carefully considered this application, we do not consider it to be a viable appeal worthy of a further hearing.’

“In June of 2006, Mr Griffith once again filed a motion in the High Court seeking an order for the payment of compensation by way of salary and superannuation. This was dismissed by the Chief Justice as an abuse of process and res judicata (the issues had already been determined by the Caribbean Court of Justice).

“Mr Griffith’s contention that the Caribbean Court of Justice referred the issue to Guyana again as too trivial and should be settled departmentally is entirely erroneous.

“Mr Griffith’s contention that a re-trial was offered and that a Guyana Revenue Authority representative stated that the Revenue Authority had no objection to compensation and paying Mr Griffith is also inaccurate and highly misleading.

“The courts have pronounced that Mr Griffith is not entitled to superannuation benefits while in the employment of the Revenue Authority and there seems to be little point in the unending and ongoing debate on this question. It is hoped that my response brings this matter wholly to an end.”