Some years ago, when I was at the Audit Office, a letter was mistakenly sent to the Attorney General. Upon opening the letter, he quickly realized that it was meant for me. He then penned the following words on the envelope: “This is for the AG, not the Honourable AG”! In the vein of English tradition, we confer upon our Ministers of the Government and Members of Parliament the title of “Honourable” as a mark of respect for the high offices they hold. In exchange, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their public and private lives, in a manner that will not bring disrepute to themselves and to their offices.
While all of us should be guarded in our thoughts, speech, writings and actions, elected officials are under greater pressure to do so. They have to carry themselves in a manner befitting of the positions they hold. Elected officials are accountable to the citizens of this country. The electorate is constantly watching and observing their behaviour. When such behaviour becomes unacceptable, citizens will demand their removal from office and their relegation to private life. When this happens, the elected official must do the honourable thing and demit office. The citizens would have lost confidence in that person to represent them, and accordingly he/she must go. The elected official must not await the action of those in authority to dispense with his/her services.
Those in authority, for their part, have a duty to promote integrity, fairness and ethical behaviour among their elected officials. When such behaviour is found lacking, they must of necessity impose appropriate sanctions, including removal from office, if found necessary. If any law is broken and/or a criminal offence is committed, the prosecuting authorities must investigate the matter thoroughly and institute charges if there is enough evidence to support such charges. They must not await instructions from those in authority to do so. The Constitution confers upon the prosecuting authorities the level of independence necessary to discharge their duties with impartiality, and they should not allow any form of political interference to influence their work.
The Taped Conversation
Much has already been reported about the taped conversation between the Attorney General and a senior reporter of the Kaieteur News. I have had the privilege of regularly interacting with Leonard Gildarie since I returned to Guyana in February 2012. Like other reporters, from time to time, he would seek my views on matters of public interest. We have so far enjoyed a very good relationship. He has come across to me as a genuine and sincere journalist concerned about the public good and the public interest.
Months before the story broke out about the employment of the children of the Commissioner- General at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Mr. Gildarie spoke to me about the matter. He was concerned that if the Kaieteur News carried the story, there would be a serious backlash for the newspaper and its owner. It is now public knowledge as to what happened when the matter was eventually reported. We also discussed the re-employment of the Commissioner General on a contractual basis the very next day that he retired after receiving a hefty retirement package. At the United Nations, when an official reaches retirement age, he/she has to demit office and make way for the next in line or a new recruit. In exceptional circumstances, a person can be rehired as a “consultant” after a “cooling off” period. He/she cannot, however, occupy any of the authorized positions, and there is a limitation on the number of months in a year that he can serve, otherwise his/her pension is stopped.
A reporter’s first duty and foremost duty is to his/her employer and to the newspaper for which he/she works. Therefore, notwithstanding any friendly relations I might have with a reporter, if I try to make disparaging remarks about his/her boss and/or and the newspaper concerned, the reporter has a duty to caution me against doing so. If I insist, then the reporter is obliged to inform his/her boss and the editor. The issue at hand, however, goes beyond making disparaging remarks. It involves the issuing of threats and the suggestion of a plan in place to inflict violence against the proprietor and staff of the newspaper. One is reminded of the massacre that took place some years at the Eccles Industrial Site where four staff members from the newspaper lost their lives when gunmen invaded the building housing the newspaper and sprayed bullets all around. Against this backdrop, what should Mr. Gildarie do? Is the action of the reporter a betrayal of friendship? Certainly not, because not only the very existence of the newspaper is being threatened but the lives of Mr. Gildarie and his professional colleagues will also be in danger should any violent and armed attack on the newspaper’s premises once again take place.
Reporters are always on the lookout for stories they can carry in their newspapers. Although they would make notes during interviews, reporters would use the tape recorder as a fall back to verify what they have written down. In many cases, they would be unable to keep up with note-taking. It is also a regular feature for reporters to quote the persons being interviewed, and this is where the tape recorder becomes indispensable.
Going through the tape recording, the Attorney General was heard to have expressed concern about Kaieteur News’ disclosure of the duty-free concession that was granted to a relative on the importation of luxury motor vehicle. The Attorney General had denied knowledge of his home address being used in the application for remigration status. Even if that were so, how does one explain the person reportedly stating that he was not aware of the requirement to reside in Guyana? A prospective remigrant must present a sworn declaration to reside in Guyana for at least three years when he/she applies to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for remigrant status? Was this procedure bypassed? That apart, periodic visits to Guyana do not meet the residency requirement since one is expected to settle in the country and live in it, usually at least six months of the year.
In relation to the conversation about the female reporter, we are yet to hear from two of the advocates of women’s rights from the Government’s side – our Advisor on Governance and our Minister of Education. When confronted with irrefutable evidence of conflict of interest between the Ministry of Finance and the Audit Office, they had quickly turned the issue to a women’s rights one. Today, they are silent on an issue of such grave concern.
As regards the offer to Mr. Gildarie to be part of an “elitist press team” being put together, the fact that he declined the offer and chose to report the whole episode of the conversation to his employer speaks volumes about the individual. He has not allowed the lure of money, prestige and position to influence him in any way. Mr. Gildarie has set aside his personal interest in favour of the broader interest i.e. his allegiance to his boss, the organization he works for and the welfare and well-being of his professional colleagues.
Circling the Wagons
Not surprisingly, in what has become its modus operandi, the Administration was quick to go on the defence of its Cabinet colleague. It has once again circled the wagons. The defence came from no other than our President, the PPP/C General Secretary and the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, among others.
The Administration’s view was that there was an illegal recording of what was a casual and loose telephone conversation between two friends and that the recordings were somehow manipulated. However, the Attorney General has not denied the contents of the tape recording. In order to divert attention from the real issue, the Administration went on to accuse the newspaper of being unprofessional in its reporting and of targeting key officials. However, the State-owned and other pro-government media outlets are guilty of the same practices that they are accusing Kaieteur News of, without a word of condemnation.
The Administration would do well to reflect on the following words of Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister on the dismissal of one of 13 Ministers for a minor misconduct involving disorderly behaviour while on a domestic flight, despite the fact that the Minister had apologized for his action.
There is no privileged escape, no allowance for arrogance, no forgiveness for indiscretion. Those days are gone, such compromise has expired. The responsible leadership which we promised to usher in a dawn of a new era is the new political currency.
It is time that the Administration frees itself of the undesirable practice of circling the wagons in the midst of overwhelming evidence of serious misconduct on the part of elected officials. It should do the honourable thing now before it is too late.
