Before proceeding with today’s column, the recently announced 50% increase in the salaries of Ministers has created, quite justifiably, a tsunami of criticisms and condemnation from all sections of the Guyanese society. While there was some anticipation that there would be some adjustment to the salaries of Ministers in recognition of the fact that there are now two categories of Ministers and three Vice-Presidents, one is alarmed at the extent of the increase. Ministers also enjoy a range of benefits, including duty-free concession on a motor vehicle by virtue of being Members of Parliament; chauffeur-driven State vehicle(s); housing allowance or the provision of free accommodation; free electricity, telephone and internet services; 24-hour guard service; a gardener/handyman; and maid services. When one places a value on these benefits, it is not difficult to consider that a Minister’s total monthly compensation package is in the order of millions of dollars.
To make matters worse, the Minister of State, in true style and behaviour reminiscent of that of the former Head of the Presidential Secretariat, proclaimed that he had no apologies to make for the Government’s action. How arrogant and high-handed could one be, considering that it is the people’s money that is being used to provide for what must now be deemed extravagant lifestyles of our elected representatives? The Minister further asserted that this action was necessary to avoid Ministers being tempted into indulging in corrupt behaviour. This is quite an extraordinary statement, considering that Ministers are policy makers, and it is the public servant in the execution of policies who is more exposed to the prospect of indulging in corrupt behaviour.
Citizens who aspire to hold political office do so because of the felt need to make a contribution to the public good and the public interest. They are not motivated by financial rewards. If that were the case, the wrong persons will be attracted to political office. This column joins in condemnation of the Government’s move, and calls on the Government to rescind its decision to grant Ministers a 50% increase in salaries. If there is going to be an increase, it should not exceed that which has been given to public servants. After all, Ministers in a general sense are also public servants, and there should therefore be no discrimination between them and the regular public servants in this regard.
Last week, the newly appointed United States Ambassador to Guyana disclosed that a permanent US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) office will be set up in Guyana by mid-January next year and that the person to lead it has already been identified. This a welcome development considering that successive US State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Reports (INCSRs) have identified Guyana as a transit country for the shipment of cocaine to the United States, Canada, the Caribbean, Europe and West Africa.
Previous efforts to set up the DEA office were not successful, and the evidence suggests that the then Administration had no interest in having a DEA presence in Guyana. There were allegations of official links with drug lords, as the Roger Khan case would bear out. Convicted and serving a 15-year jail sentence in New York for drug trafficking, witness tampering and gun-running, Khan was allowed to keep all his assets including properties in Guyana without any effort being made to seize and confiscate them, despite provisions of the law and the various treaties and conventions to which Guyana acceded. The US Ambassador has spoken about how the Guyana Government can gain access to Khan to facilitate an inquiry into the operations of the “death squad” of which Khan was reportedly the head and other matters. The present Government should not hesitate to seize the opportunity to gain access to Khan so as to bring closure to one of the darkest periods in the history of this country when some 300 persons were reportedly killed under mysterious circumstances.
According to the 2014 INCSR Report issued in March of this year, “cocaine originating in Colombia is smuggled to Venezuela and onward to Guyana by sea or air. Smugglers also transit land borders with Brazil, Venezuela, and Suriname. Cocaine is often concealed in legitimate commodities and smuggled via commercial maritime vessels, air transport, human couriers, or various postal methods”. The report goes on to state that the influence of narcotics trafficking is evident in the country’s political and criminal justice systems and that traffickers are attracted by the country’s poorly monitored ports, remote airstrips, intricate river networks, porous land borders, and weak security sector capacity.
The report cited various pieces of legislation in place to enable the Government to provide for an effective response to the threat posed by drug trafficking. These include: the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act of 2009, the Interception of Communications Act of 2008; and the Criminal Law Procedure Act (revised in 1998). They are all designed to enhance the investigative capabilities of law enforcement authorities and prosecutors in obtaining convictions of drug traffickers. The report, however, lamented the fact that there were no prosecutions under these laws. It also cited concerns raised by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) about significant weaknesses in the AML/CFT Act.
The previous Administration had wanted changes to the Act only to the extent of the deficiencies identified by the CFATF. On the other hand, the then combined Opposition was in favour of a comprehensive overhaul of the Act in view of the threat posed by drug trafficking, and its links to money laundering and organized crime as well as corruption. Precipitated by the unnecessary hysteria created by the stalemate as if doomsday had arrived, it was indeed a huge sigh of relief when amendments were eventually passed in July of this year. The amendments provide for a strengthened regime of legislative measures to deal with money laundering and terrorist financing. We will, however, have to await the pronouncement of the CFATF when it meets next month as to whether Guyana is now fully compliant with the CFATF requirements.
The AML/CFT Act and the seizure and confiscation of property
The AML/CFT Act provides for, among others, the unlawful proceeds of all serious offences to be identified, traced, frozen, seized and forfeited as well as for comprehensive powers for the prosecution of money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) may apply to the Court for a restraining order against any realizable property held by an accused, or realizable property held by a person other than the accused in the following circumstances:
Where the accused has been convicted of a serious offence; or
Where the accused has not been convicted of a serious offence for which the accused is charged, or about to be charged, or is being investigated.
The restraining order, once granted, remains in force until it is discharged, revoked or varied; or a forfeiture order is made in respect of the property. On application by the DPP, if the Court is satisfied that the property is tainted property in respect of a serious offence for which the person has been convicted, the Court may order that the specified property be forfeited.
Where the Court makes a forfeiture order against any property, the property is vested in the State by virtue of the order. If after an appeal, the order has not been discharged the property may be disposed of, and the proceeds applied or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the directions of the DPP.
The Inter-American
Convention Against
Corruption
According to the preamble to the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC), there are steadily increasing links between corruption and proceeds generated by illicit narcotics trafficking which undermine and threaten legitimate commercial and financial activities, and society, at all levels. IACAC provides for offences established under the Convention to be included in any extradition treaty between and among Member States. In this regard, a request can be made to a Member State that is party to an extradition treaty with another State. If the Requested State is satisfied that the circumstances so warrant and are urgent, it may take into custody a person whose extradition is sought and who is present in its territory, or take other appropriate measures to ensure his/her presence at extradition proceedings.
Member States are also required to afford one another the widest possible measure of mutual assistance by processing requests from authorities that have the power to investigate or prosecute acts of corruption described in the Convention, to obtain evidence and take other necessary action to facilitate legal proceedings regarding the investigation or prosecution of acts of corruption. They are also to provide each other with the widest measure of mutual technical cooperation on the most effective ways and means of preventing, detecting, investigating and punishing acts of corruption.
As regards property, Member States are to provide each other with the broadest possible measure of assistance in the identification, tracing, freezing, seizure and forfeiture of property or proceeds obtained, derived from or used in the commission of offences established under the Convention.
United Nations Convention Against Corruption
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) provides for the confiscation of proceeds of crime or property that corresponds to such proceeds. Member States are to cooperate with each other in initiating civil actions to establish titles to or ownership of property acquired through the commission of offences under the Convention. In this regard, the competent authorities are to give effect to an order of confiscation by a court of another Member State including the confiscation of property of foreign origin in relation to an offence of money laundering. There is also provision for mutual legal assistance and for the confiscation of property without criminal conviction where the offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death, flight or absence.
The Convention reiterates the role of a Financial Intelligence Unit responsible for receiving, analyzing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. It also provides for Member States to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements or arrangements to enhance international cooperation in the fight against corruption and money laundering.
