Discussions on the way forward regarding the controversial Red House lease deal will continue shortly, according to Attorney General Basil Williams who says that he would not want to reveal too much now.
His statements come even though the PPP had distanced itself from the representatives of the Management Com-mittee of Red House which had met with Williams to make proposals on the way forward. One of those representatives was also a PPP party member.
Approached last Friday, Williams said that he is yet to meet with the team which comprised former longtime PPP executive member, Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran and PPP Executive member Hydar Ally. The only meeting held was on October 12 last following a written request by Ally.
Asked for an update on the Red House lease Attorney General Basil Williams said that “we haven’t met again, we have to meet again”.
Following inquires from this newspaper as to when the meeting is scheduled he said “soon” before explaining that he has had a busy schedule recently and had only a few days ago returned from a meeting in Panama.
Asked what the meeting would be about, he said “to continue discussions”. Pressed for more information on whether the discussions had to do with the rescinding of the lease or its revocation, he responded, “the original position was that they make some proposals… and I had to go over back the proposals so when we meet again we will deal with that”. Among the proposals that was made was a suggestion that the building be used as a research centre for the nation and it should include the papers of other former presidents as well. However, the PPP rejected this outright saying that it would be anathema to have Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte in same building as Cheddi Jagan.
Williams told Stabroek News that he does not want to say too much on the issue as he does not want to “prejudice the discussions”.
Last August, it was Minister of State Joseph Harmon who had disclosed that the PPP/C administration had granted a 99-year lease of Red House to the Cheddi Jagan Research Inc, a private company, at a rate of $1,000 per month. The government had labelled the deal “criminal” and had signalled its intention to investigate it. It had also made it clear that it is intent on revoking the lease and possibly having the work of other presidents housed there.
The executive members of the company to whom the lease was granted were identified as senior members of the PPP/C.
The lease agreement was finalized some time in 2012 after the then government had spent millions to renovate Red House. It was only after the APNU+AFC government took office that the lease arrangement was discovered.
It would appear that the proper protocol involving a public advertisement was not followed. Within two months of the revelation which raised eyebrows, it was revealed by Harmon that if necessary, the government was prepared to take legal action to ensure that the lease was rescinded. Harmon was later given the task of looking at all available options.
Williams, according to what this newspaper was told, was informed that “he is to examine each and every way in which the lease can be terminated and that the Red House be returned to the people of this country out of the hands of a company to which it was, in our view, quite unreasonably transferred.”
Williams had explained that a civil settlement as opposed to criminal proceedings is being pursued at the moment. This however went against his earlier pronouncements that the arrangement could attract a criminal charge.
Among those who have criticised the deal is former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran who has called for its revocation. “Considering that this building was completely refurbished at enormous costs to the state, the shock was even greater to learn that the property was leased since 2012 to this company for a nominal sum of $1,000 per month for a period of 99 years. To add salt to injury, the staff of the centre continued to be paid by the treasury,” he wrote in his Stabroek News column on accountability.
“The agreement should therefore be rescinded, and those responsible should be held personally responsible for this abuse/misuse of public resources, which by definition constitutes an act of corruption,” he wrote.
