Having inexplicably been without an Ombudsman for nearly 10 years, Guyanese got a flavour last week of the breadth of work that can be undertaken by this office in pursuit of alleged injustice at the hands of public officers. There will undoubtedly be skirmishes over jurisdiction and inevitable overlapping of investigations. However, these will all pale into insignificance compared to the real work that can be done by the Ombudsman in pursuing complaints by Guyanese from all walks of life. The brief of the Ombudsman is wide. Article 192 (1) of the Constitution says “Subject to the provisions of this article, the Ombudsman may investigate any action taken by any department of Government or by any other authority to which this article applies, or by the President, Ministers, officers or members of such a department or authority, being action taken in the exercise of the administrative functions of that department or authority”.
More work should be done by the office of the Ombudsman to educate the public on the types of complaints that can be handled by the office and the procedures involved. Those with grievances should be encouraged to come forward.
The Ombudsman, Justice Winston Moore must be complimented on his report on the complaint lodged by Mr Maurice Arjoon over his dismissal from the New Building Society (NBS). It has shed much light on the sequence of events that led to the dismissal of three managers and the arcane dealings behind the scenes. The NBS had maintained that the dismissals were a result of the finding that the managers were grossly negligent and delinquent in the loss of $69m from the account of a NBS customer and this matter continues to be in the purview of the courts.
That said, Mr Moore’s investigation led to startling disclosures that still haven’t been satisfactorily addressed. Among these are the contention that there may have been an exculpatory Bank of Guyana report on the NBS account loss which has been suppressed. In the course of his investigation of this matter, Mr Moore enquired of the Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh about this report. Dr Singh surprisingly did not favour the Ombudsman with a response. He must now publicly state why he has not responded to the inquiry and make the report available.
This disclosure and others in the report amplify the state of opacity that attends government business and the unwillingness of the executive to be open to public scrutiny particularly where it can infuse vitality to constitutional institutions like the Ombudsman’s office and aid in the delivery of justice to those who seek it. The government’s pretensions to access to information legislation make the silence of the Minister of Finance on this matter even more bewildering.
The Ombudsman report also addressed the allegation by Mr Arjoon that the real motive for his dismissal was his stance on ensuring that any investment in the Berbice Bridge complied with the tenets of the Financial Institutions Act. This position resulted in an investment of $350m by the NBS whereas President Jagdeo was reported to be looking for an investment of $2B from the institution. Minister of Labour Dr NK Gopaul in the Ombudsman report and again on Friday denied that he had had a conversation with Mr Arjoon in which he had stated the former President’s displeasure with the sum assigned and that there would be consequences.
The Berbice Bridge was a prestige investment for the Jagdeo government and the one that probably stands out best in the former president’s tenure. It was clear that it was not the easiest project to attract investment for and this in part may explain the high tariffs that Berbicians are now saddled with and other occurrences such as the shadowy arrangements for the purchase by the same NBS of the bridge bonds held by CLICO (Guyana) shortly before its dramatic collapse here. There is likely a lot more to learn about what transpired during this period and former President Jagdeo should also be heard from on his own personal involvement in mobilizing investment in the bridge.
Interestingly, the period that Mr Arjoon mentioned was also the period in which instructions were issued from within the Office of the President for a cessation of advertising to Stabroek News. The decision was then made to look as if it came from the Government Information Agency. There is little doubt that the Office of the President loomed large during that period with respect to big and small decisions.
Of deep interest would be the finding by Mr Moore that the three NBS managers were done a great disservice as there was insufficient evidence to have fraud-related charges brought against them. Mr Moore’s perusing of the police file determined that there was a key section missing, one that suggested that there may have been ministerial interference in the investigation. Why police files would be missing key sections on a case from not so long ago is bewildering. Apart from sloppiness, it would point in the direction of foul play considering the controversy that surrounded this case. The police force should be held to account for this. In this age when digitization is par for the course, the file should have been complete so that the Ombudsman could get as close as possible to the truth. As if to add to the bizarreness surrounding this case, the investigating rank has died.
Also very troubling was the Ombudsman’s view that the police investigation should have pursued several supervisors at the NBS who had seemed to play innocent roles in the $69m transaction but who may have been the very masterminds and have gotten off scot free. The integrity of police investigations has always been a cause for public concern but where the focus in criminal matters is misplaced to the extent that those against whom there is little evidence are targeted there must be cause for grave concern. This is particularly so as assurances are routinely given by the law enforcement authorities about improvements in a range of investigative capacities. The charges which had hung over the heads of the three managers for several years were eventually thrown out by the court. However, theft of the $69m remains unsolved like so many other cases.
Numerous other conundrums have arisen from Mr Moore’s work including the mention of the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana in the proceedings and the decision of the complainant not to testify in the case where a loss of $69m had occurred, eventually settling for a payout of $74m. The alleged intervention of former President Jagdeo in 2010 in offering a pension settlement to Mr Arjoon and the murky transactions of non-bank cambios also pique interest.
The three managers, who have borne the weight of these charges and the stain of the dismissals, have now won a significant victory in the form of Mr Moore’s report and it is now left to be seen how their claims are addressed at the conclusion of extant court proceedings.
Watchdog institutions like the Ombudsman’s office have a crucial role to play in justice challenged societies like Guyana’s and it is essential that they be given the room and resources to discharge their duties.
