Dear Editor,
Why would the government seek to take a statement intended to assist them and use it as a piece of blatant political propaganda of the worst kind? Should they not have sought permission for its use given the circumstances? These days no thinking person in Guyana bothers to ask why the PPP Government would so often turn to miscreant and unethical behaviour. This was uppermost in my mind when yesterday my attention was drawn to page two of the Sunday Stabroek (April 5) which carried an advertisement entitled ‘APNU-AFC Greenidge Speaks on his legacy.’
I should be grateful if you would let me know which agency and person solicited the publishing of the advert. I wish to point out that although this piece carried a note saying that it was a paid advertisement, that latter fact was not easily discerned due to the size and location of the note. Secondly, the piece is false and malicious. It does not contain anything I said about my legacy and most of the material is on Guyana bauxite industry and the indebtedness of the country arising from the poor performance of the bauxite industry. At no point did I ever address my legacy as part of an affidavit to a tribunal. The material is also inconsistent with the headline.
I am surprised that SN would publish submitted material not only purporting to have been spoken by me but intended to convey the impression that it was my case and my submission.
May I urge that the paper make it clear that this was not the case. It is not a speech by me or a case on my behalf either by me or anyone else. The headline suggests that the contents represent my assessment of my legacy when in fact it is taken from a recital of a very long piece that set out to explain what occurred in relation to the bauxite companies, the IBRD and its conditionality as well as Green Construction Inc. It dealt with the terms of the bauxite bond and a Government Order protecting the industry from destructive litigation in circumstances where Guyana had no Chapter 11-type protection for companies in financial difficulties, especially liquidity difficulties. The entities defending themselves were Linmine, Guymine, BIDCO, etc, not Carl B Greenidge. I am and was never responsible for bauxite and most of the matters mentioned in the advert.
What does this statement have to do with the APNU/AFC? Nothing. Neither party was in existence at the time of the case of the 1983-1992 period.
The advertisement is even more outrageous when account is taken of the following facts:
- the affidavit, if indeed this is part of it, was prepared by the lawyer representing the interest of the GoG in fighting a case against Green, the foreign company. It had nothing to do with presenting my legacy and it represented but one part of the material made available to the Tribunal – this would have been a part of the witness statement and there was also a direct examination, ie, cross-examination.
In 1996, a year after the Cariom Heads refused Dr Jagan’s attempt to have me replaced at the ACP, the US-based law/lobbying firm Paul Reichler, retained by the PPP Government sought my assistance. The assistance was needed in preparing submissions in defence of Guyana’s position in the case brought by Green Construction Inc, a foreign entity operating locally. The complaint against the Government of Guyana and its bauxite companies, was to be heard at the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration. After assisting in the preparation of written material and documents for the case, the firm asked me to attend the hearings. When I demurred, at the firm’s request, Dr Jagan had Mr Jagdeo write to me formally to solicit my attendance to give evidence in Washington. Nothwithstanding what had transpired previously, I obliged.
In handing down judgement in favour of Guyana, the panel of distinguished judges, including Judge Carl Hudson Phillips of Trinidad and Tobago, observed in their decision that, “Mr Greenidge was a most candid and impressive witness, and we have much relied upon his testimony to dispel the disquiet which at first surrounds the 1992 Order” (para 73, International Chamber of Commerce Tribunal Report, Sept 11 1996 No. 7630/CK).
I wish to add further that that very candid approach is evident in the statement at issue and has as well provided over the last 22 years a platform for the PPP to attack the PNC. Over the years since 1992 every PPP finance minister and other ministers including Mr Irfaan Ally, Mr Nadir and Dr L Ramsammy, etc, have been at pains to find and quote my analysis.
- The submission to the ICC Tribunal should have been covered by the practice of confidential client-attorney/court material, even if they might not have otherwise have felt constrained about unethical use of the material.
In closing please permit me to point out that as may be seen from the conclusion and the decision of the Tribunal, my evidence and witness statement were pivotal in securing a favourable decision on behalf of the GOG. In view of Mr Jagdeo’s claims about his great and sole contribution to the reduction of Guyana’s external indebtedness, it is quite surprising that the PPP Government sought my advice in this matter rather than ask Mr Jagdeo or Mr Ally. All of this makes the PPP’s falsification of the nature of my submission and its intent despicable, if not surprising.
iii. May I add that the words carried in the advert may well have come from an affidavit prepared by the lawyer representing the interest of the GOG in the case tabled by Green Construction against the GOG in 1992. I have, however, never assented to the use of the material including the affidavit for any other purpose. I have not assented to this abuse of trust.
This is a clumsy, dishonest and dishonourable act and I am surprised that the paper would be caught by this PPP misadventure. The action is a breach of trust and it is especially reprehensible because my contribution at the request of the government was extended in the national interest. The document has not been published by the Tribunal and is not therefore public. Its publication in this manner is a breach of protocol and practice. It is unfortunate that the paper should be party to this shameful episode.
In closing I ask that you publish an explanation or correction of the advert, if not an apology. Since the damage is hardly likely to be significantly undone by such a simple device I also ask that you publish the basic information on the context as explained above and display the government’s note verbale and bio which the Government submitted to the UN in support of my application for the post of Chief Executive of the UN’s largest financial agency, the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2007.
Yours faithfully,
Carl B Greenidge
Editor’s note
In order to make clear this was a PPP advertisement, the words “PPP Paid Advertisement” were inserted by the Stabroek News in the bottom right-hand corner.
It is not for this newspaper to censor a political ad on the basis of what its context might presumably be; it is for the affected parties to respond to any distortions if they deem it necessary.