Dear Editor,
In your September 17 headline story, ‘$3.6B set aside to fully repay Clico policyholders,’ President Bharrat Jagdeo committed himself and, by extension, his government to initiate a probe of Clico (Guyana) and Globe Trust and asserted that “if there are culpable people, we should take action against them.”
Let me see if I get this right. This stands in stark contrast to the President’s stance in March this year when he said a “Probe into Clico would serve no purpose,” (SN, March 28, 2010), because it was clear that “bad investments” were responsible.
At a press conference in April 2009, he reportedly said his government would also support an opposition parliamentary motion to have a criminal investigation into Clico (Guyana) as long as it was extended to Globe Trust. Following that announcement, the PNCR indicated that it was in support of such an investigation.
But since Thursday’s a meeting was specifically related to Clico depositors, who were specially invited to meet with the President to discuss promised payments on their deposits that Clico (Guyana) lost, why did the President wind up announcing the twinning of Clico (Guyana) and Globe Trust for probes? Why weren’t Globe Trust depositors/investors invited to the meeting?
Unlike the Clico (Guyana) collapse, which happened in February 2009, the Globe Trust turmoil happened so long ago many of us don’t even remember the month or year and we literally gave up on government stepping in to try and help bring closure to the turmoil. So the President’s sudden mention of twinning the Clico (Guyana) collapse with the Globe Trust turmoil in government-sanctioned probes can only be seen as an attempt to deflect attention from the culpable role of the government in Clico (Guyana), which is where the focus of people’s attention is right now.
But could it be a case where the President is bluffing given that his government stands culpable right now in the court of public opinion? A precedent for bluffing was set when the President promised to launch a probe of the Roger Khan drugs and extra-judicial sagas in Guyana once local police got information from US authorities in New York in the Khan court case, but the Khan case has been over more than a year now and the government is yet to start its probe of Khan.
Anyway, based on the amount of money involved in this massive loss, and given that the government-run NIS is among the big money losers, how could the Insurance Commissioner, by her own admission after February 2009, know about this anomaly but the Finance Minister and the President be left out of the loop?
A quick review of the facts and actions prior and pursuant to Clico (Guyana)’s massive loss shows that 1) the Insurance Commissioner was aware that Clico was in violation of the Insurance Act limiting overseas investments to 15% of local funds, and even reported that she wrote the CEO of Clico (Guyana) to correct this incongruity, to no avail; 2) when Clico (Bahamas) went belly up, it was not the Insurance Commissioner or even the CEO of Clico who went public about the local insurance company’s status, it was the President of Guyana, an elected public official whose appearance and pronouncements on behalf of a wholly private company raised a few eyebrows; 3) bonds for the Berbice Bridge (a government project) held by Clico (Guyana) were sold to the New Building Society before the insurance company collapsed; 4) the government placed Clico (Guyana) under the Insurance Commissioner; 5) the Insurance Commissioner survived what appeared to be a hit job when a gunman rode up next to her car and opened fire on her; and 6) the government used its parliamentary majority to place Clico (Guyana) under the Bank of Guyana but did not order a public probe of Clico (Guyana).
Based on the foregoing six points, it was disingenuous for the President to claim that his government was the only one in the region that moved to protect all of its citizens affected by Clico (Guyana), because the truth is, his government failed in its responsibility to the depositors and all Guyanese for causing depositors to lose all that money and then turn around and dig into public funds to make up for the loss. Is that presidential leadership?
And when he said he does not have to apologize for calling the meeting, because “there is a human face to this all. There are people whose lives have been put on hold because they don’t have access to their money.” He and his government should have known this fact when Clico (Guyana) was violating the Insurance Act.
Finally, the President’s outburst against Mr Christopher Ram continues to be a reflection of his inability to engage in a straightforward debate, where he substitutes rage for reason and brawn for brain. He alleged that Mr Ram’s bad advice to Globe Trust caused depositors to lose money, but then his government turned around afterward and failed to ensure Clico (Guyana) exercised fiduciary responsibility with its clients’ money. This is unacceptable and unforgivable, and it may well be indicative of how he is actually running his government with taxpayers’ money.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin