The debate on an opposition motion on Government’s handling of the disposal of national assets through the Privatisation Unit and National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) had to be adjourned because of time last evening.
The debate on this motion will continue today but not before the completion of the regular agenda since yesterday was considered a private members business sitting.
At the time of the adjournment, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh had been speaking on the Motion and was voicing his disdain at it, calling it unnecessary and an excursion into the politics of innuendo.
“The motion engages in vague speculation in the very first whereas clause. It has no specificity whatsoever,” Dr. Singh said.
The clause in question states, “Whereas in their recent reports on transparency and corruption the international community, including the World Economic Forum, Transparency International and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment have rated Guyana poorly; and whereas Guyanese are concerned about the widely reported acts of lawlessness in the guardianship of our national resources and assets as well as the lack of transparency and accountability associated with the disposal of those assets…”
The motion in the resolve clauses goes on to call on the National Assembly to request the responsible ministers of Government to provide a report on the disposal of all state lands and the terms under which they were disposed and the criteria used. It called for details of transactions between October 9, 2011 and December 31, 2011 and between January 1, 2000 and October 9, 2011.
Further, the Minister dismissed the motion on the grounds that it breaches the Constitution and Standing Order 25 in that it is calling for an independent audit of NICIL, an act that if completed would mean a charge to the Treasury.
In putting forward the motion, A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) MP Carl Greenidge said that the motion is seeking to address the problems in the management of national assets. “We are calling on the Government to have certain ministers report on the sale of a range of assets,” he said.
Greenidge said that the Government needs to bring information on the disposal of assets and the basis on which they were priced. “We call on the House for arrangements to be made for an independent financial audit of NICIL,” he said. “In addition to a special audit we need a report on the sale of assets and the terms and criteria used in their disposal,” said Greenidge.
Speaking after Greenidge, Prime Minister Sam Hinds said that much of what the mover of the motion spoke about is encapsulated in a booklet that the Privatisation Unit published in 2008. Hinds made the point that as soon as the Government came to power in 1992 it put in place its Privatisation Policy Paper.
“Much of what is in the motion is ill-advised,” Hinds said, adding that the Economic Services Commit-tee of the Parliament is there to address some of the concerns expressed.
Keith Scott of the APNU said that the motion seeks to bring some accountability to NICIL and its transactions. He wanted to know where the “huge sums” of money that NICIL was purportedly holding were hidden.
Rising to speak, Minister of Housing and Water Irfaan Ali said that Greenidge was in charge of NICIL in the early days and hence he himself ought to be accountable for transactions that the entity would have been involved in at the time. Ali said that the same standards of accountability that the Opposition demands of Government must be demanded of Greenidge as to his stewardship of NICIL.
Ali said that the premise on which the motion is based is wrong.
Alliance For Change’s Khemraj Ramjattan said that the motion seeks to ensure that certain revenue streams are given scrutiny. “If there is nothing wrong then you can show us the books,” he said. Commenting on the reaction by many of the Government speakers, Ramjattan said, “Now we are getting suspicious that there may be a cover up involved.”
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall questioned the whereas clauses in the motion saying that they were vague. He said that that vagueness was disrespectful to the National Assembly. He said further that there was no law that dealt with the disposal of state assets. According to Nandlall, the motion constitutes a breach of the parliamentary process.
