Dear Editor,
It is time that someone, if such a person still exists, in the People’s Progressive Party call a meeting of the central committee and just ask them to acknowledge that the party has completely lost its way.
President Donald Ramotar’s address to the nation was so banally predictable that the only thing of note was the part of the message that read:
“Guyana deserves better than political games that serve to only benefit a select few while damaging the welfare of the people of Guyana.”
This (that “political games” comment) is from the same man whose most intelligent answer – when facing tremendous local and international pressure to hold a local government elections some twenty years overdue, all under the tenure of his political party – constituted his assertion that he had political considerations to take into account, including the fact that his party was now in a parliamentary minority position and that he would be foolish to commit to a date; notably, he still has not committed to an actual date for LGE, just the promise to hold them around a certain time, the same promise he made almost four years ago while campaigning for the presidency. Also, that “benefiting a few while damaging the welfare of the people” comment is also from the same man under whose leadership as General Secretary, the PPP established two luxurious housing enclaves, Pradovilles 1 and 2, for the exclusive use of their friends and families. This is also the same man whose predecessor, under an indecent pension package, one that he approved and also stands to benefit from when he leaves office, was able to fly to the US to receive treatment for a relatively minor condition, even as the maternal deaths at the country’s most advanced public hospital continue.
Then there was his reflective parroting of the statement that the recording of Anil Nandlall was “illegal,” a position that the Attorney-General, always one to fling statute and precedent to support his arguments, has curiously not committed to. Which brings us to Mr Nandlall himself – there was a small glimmer of hope on social media when on Tuesday afternoon there was the announcement that Nandlall would make a detailed public statement clarifying his comments heard on the recording. That hope was immediately extinguished when what we were treated to was a release by PR consultant, Alex Graham, which constituted a non-apology and a deliberately misleading allusion to the pending libel case that Nandlall brought against Kaieteur News which had no bearing on the authenticity or legality of the recording. I quote the relevant section:
“Unfortunately, this conversation was recorded without my knowledge, manipulated, distorted and made public. As you are aware, I have filed legal proceedings. It is my hope that these proceedings will examine and determine the legality and authenticity of the recording as well as the liabilities, if any, which arise therefrom. Additionally, I have no doubt that the appropriate authorities would send the recording for proper forensic analysis.”
In short, not only does Mr Nandlall fail to repeat his precedent-buttressed opinion in light of the Felix recording, he is deliberately and pathetically evasive on the ramifications of the only legal action taken so far in the wake of this incident, his libel suit. Secondly, he not only admits at least partial authenticity of the recording, but he fails to say which parts were distorted and in what way.
Of course, the intervention on this aspect of the incident by former Chief Magistrate Juliet Holder-Allen (‘The authorities are misleading a nation’ KN, November 5) goes directly to the masquerade that the government has decided to engage in. “What is of enormous concern to me is the serious act of misleading the nation that is taking place by the authorities trying to classify the recording as ‘Interception of a call,’ or a breach of the ‘privacy laws.’ In fact, the recording, if it was done by Mr Gildarie as the recipient, fell in none of the above categories of criminal offences.” Not only has Kaieteur News written that Gildarie recorded the conversation, but Nandlall’s repetition that the reporter betrayed his confidence, indicates that.
Another damning aspect of the AG’s PR-orchestrated statement concerns the part in which he addressed his admission to taking money from government and repaying it:
“Colleagues, the final issue I wish to clarify relates to a financial transaction to which reference was made in the impugned recording. This has been unfortunately interpreted to implicate me in some form of financial impropriety. I wish to set the record straight on that issue. The reference relates to the reimbursement I received for monies I expended on medical treatment. This reimbursement, was approved by Cabinet in a written Cabinet decision dated 20 June 2013. “
Not only does this imply PPP Cabinet knowledge and approval of a questionable transaction, it causes more confusion than it clarifies. If the money was reimbursement for medical expenses and approved by Cabinet, why would Mr Nandlall confess to returning it “months before” Lall apparently threatened to publicise it? And presuming that these supposed medical benefits are not uncapped, how much money was it, particularly considering that Mr Nandlall is a very wealthy man? And presuming that Mr Nandlall pays NIS like every government worker, what ailment was so dire that NIS couldn’t cover it? Mr Nandlall in essence would have us believe that he expended his personal money on a medical procedure and then sought ‘legitimate reimbursement’ from Cabinet as opposed to NIS, but then decided to reimburse the reimbursement in order to avoid public
exposure by a newspaper that has been exposing corrupt practices.
Finally, I’d like to address the issue of public outcry against this incident, or lack thereof. While several organisations have rightly condemned this incident and asked for Nandlall to resign, there is a deafening silence from several sections of this society. The business umbrella organisations for example have been quiet on a conversation that not only alludes to some shadowy sections of the local business community intent on causing harm to a newspaper owner and the journalists he employs, but one in which the government’s chief legal officer confesses to “taking money from government” and repaying it to avoid public scrutiny.
The Catholic Church that so vigorously opposed the excesses of Burnham has been completely silent, as has the Anglican Church. Silent as well are the Islamic organisations that congratulated Mr Nandlall on his ascension to the post of AG in 2011. The Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabha, now under the leadership of Dr Vindyha Persaud, PPP parliamentarian, has been silent, which is curious considering her staunch interventions on the decline of public morality in the past. The PPP’s two clergy MPs, Reverend Kwame Gilbert and Bishop Juan Edghill have not uttered a single word; and the Minister of Education, Priya Manickchand, who was moved to verbosity in defence of Carol Sooba, was not only silent in wake of Mr Nandlall’s crude and sexist comments condemned by the Guyana Women’s Law Association, but had Nandlall this week distributing money to families under her “Because We Care” initiative. Silent also has been Gail Teixeira, the other PPP Minister who has been quick to see sexism in any legitimate criticism of any woman that the PPP happens to support.
I’m disappointed also in the failure of the newly formed advocacy group, Blue CAPS to comment on this matter. The organisation led by Clinton Urling and otherwise helmed by other intelligent and socially conscious young people, has an agenda that is focused on promoting good leadership, particularly in public office. Here we have an example of abysmally poor leadership on the part of the AG being compounded by even more poor leadership on the part of the President in both supporting and retaining Nandlall’s services, and there has been no comment. While I understand that civil society organisations tend to be wary of politically divisive issues, this is one that transcends such partisan politics. As is in the case of the government’s individual parliamentarians and cabinet members, silence in the face of this issue doesn’t imply neutrality, it implies consent.
There is a time that people in dire situations have to add their voice to the chorus saying that enough is enough. We are long past that time in Guyana and people need to play catch up.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
