Former senior director in the Caricom Secretariat’s Office of Trade Negotiations Carl Greenidge has demanded an explanation for the non-renewal of his contract.
Greenidge, whose sacking followed on the heels of a formal complaint about him from the Guyana government, told reporters yesterday that he wrote to then Caricom Secretary General Edwin Carrington last month, reminding that “there has been no process that I regard as consistent with what the lawyers might call due process.”
Carrington retired from the post at the end of December and former Deputy Secretary General Lolita Applewaithe is currently acting in the position. Greenidge’s contract was up on December 21. At his end-of-year news briefing on December 17, Carrington had said Greenidge’s rehiring would be based upon the availability of resources.
Noting that the damage has already been done, Greenidge said he is hoping for an explanation because he is unaware that any process in keeping with Caricom’s rules was followed in arriving at the decision not to retain him. “The point is that as the head of an institution as important as this is you have a right to show in the execution of your duties and particularly as it regards matters such as complaints from member states you deal with them in a fair and reasonable manner, you cannot simply want to keep governments happy because you like a comfortable life,” Greenidge declared. The Guyana government voiced its displeasure to Caricom over Greenidge’s remarks at the funeral of late PNCR parliamentarian Winston Murray.
In delivering his tribute, Greenidge said that he and Murray shared the view that “Guyana can, and with visionary leadership, be lifted from the nightmare in which it finds itself.” The administration subsequently wrote to Caricom, saying it had lost confidence in Greenidge’s ability to represent its interests and that of the country at the community and bilateral levels. But yesterday, Greenidge stood by his statements.
“I am quite satisfied, having spoken to others, having even had the lawyers have a look at the tribute, that it was well-worded,” he said, adding that they conveyed the message he wanted them to about Murray. “I actually said nothing about the economy, which was one interpretation. I didn’t mention economy. I was speaking about problems in general, problems of mayhem, problems of murder, and problems also of an economic nature,” he explained.
According to Greenidge, he found it “remarkable” that the use of the term “nightmare” could pose a problem when government functionaries also use it to describe the same periods that cover President Bharrat Jagdeo’s terms. He added, “My language was not specific to a president. It was actually not specific to any sub-period, within the period, let’s say the last two decades, post-1960s; it wasn’t pointed at anyone so it does appear that some people are perhaps excessively sensitive with language they find uncomfortable but it seems that their discomfort is only arising from who uses it …”
