As more emerges about Minister of State Joseph Harmon, his trip to China and his appointment of Mr Brian Tiwarie as an “Honorary Ministerial Advisor” the murkier everything becomes. In the first place, there is the matter of a linguistic conflict, with the Ministry of the Presidency saying last week that, “Minister Harmon ‘appointed’ Mr Tiwarie as his personal advisor on business.” It went on to state, “This he is entitled to do and by virtue of Mr Tiwarie’s business acumen, such an ‘appointment’ can be seen as nothing else but [a] legitimate decision.”
Mr Harmon himself had let it be known that 34 honorary ministerial advisors had been appointed, their names having been selected in conjunction with the AFC. In our edition yesterday, however, Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, the leader of the AFC denied that his party had been consulted on the appointees, and that of the 34 government advisors appointed between October of last year and February of this only four had been chosen by the AFC. The persons concerned were not given diplomatic passports, he said, and significantly he described the engagements as “honorifics”, going on to say that these were certificates of appreciation for the party’s diaspora chapters.
In other words, while Minister Harmon was selecting ‘advisors’, the AFC was simply awarding “honorifics”. Clearly there is either some linguistic confusion here, a communication problem, or simply no coordination between the two sides thereby creating a situation where the AFC did one thing and APNU quite another. Since Mr Ramjattan has now named the four members of his party who were recognised at some level, exactly who are the “advisors” chosen by APNU, which officials are they advising and what is their field of expertise?
Where Mr Tiwari is concerned, Mr Harmon had stated last week that he had been appointed a personal advisor on the recommendation of the General Secretary of APNU. The absurdity of this apparently did not strike him, since he holds the latter post as well as being the relevant Minister, and would therefore have been recommending the appointment to himself. It has all the makings of a comedy script.
On April 1 the Ministry of the Presidency issued a statement to say that the purpose of Minister Harmon’s visit was in connection with the US$5 million balance owed by a Chinese company to NICIL since 2012 for GT&T shares. Exactly why a senior official whose limited business experience required counsel from a personal business advisor, should have been the one to deal with NICIL matters has never been explained. Whoever should have gone to China (assuming it was necessary at all) for this purpose, it was certainly not Mr Harmon.
But then that was not the only reason for the Minister of State’s expedition to the Far East as it turned out. Following the publication of a photograph in Kaieteur News showing Mr Harmon in a plane in the company of the NICIL attorney and Baishanlin officials, the Ministry of the Presidency was obliged to disclose a few more details in relation to his peregrination. This time, the public was told, the Chinese Ambassador, Mr Zhang Limin had arranged for four Chinese companies interested in investing here to transport him to the various locations. One of them was the Long Jiang Forest Industries Group, a state-owned concern which owns 55% of the shares of Baishanlin, and is due to take over the whole company this year. By May, the ministry said, the company’s officials would be in Guyana to complete due diligence for this, as well as to satisfy and expand on the obligations of Baishanlin to Guyana.
This snippet of information raised a whole host of further questions, more especially in the light of Minister Harmon’s own illegal actions in attempting to intervene in the seizure of Baishanlin vehicles by the Guyana Revenue Authority. He does not appear to have been sanctioned by President David Granger on that occasion, although the Head of State did make clear that in future only the subject minister should handle such matters. In the meantime, there has been no clarification as to why Mr Harmon intervened in the first place, or at whose behest. Whatever his motivation, at the very least it conveys an unsavoury impression which the Minister of State should be at pains to avoid.
Mr Harmon should have been particularly careful dealing with Baishanlin, given all the problems there have been here in relation to that particular company. Once again, with his lack of experience in these matters and with the Ministry of the Presidency to run, why was he the official pinpointed to conduct the negotiations? In fact, why was he the man dispatched (one assumes it was with the President’s approval) to deal with any companies seeking to make investments here? Were none of the plethora of ministers the Head of State has at his disposal qualified to go on the China trip? What about the Minister of Business? What about the new Head of Go-Invest whose mandate includes mobilising investment and meeting potential investors as a one-stop agency?
But the plane picture was not the end of the photographic exposures; there was another to come, this time in the form of a restaurant. On this occasion, Minister Harmon could be seen in the company of Mr Tiwarie, the NICIL official, Mr Clinton Williams, two Chinese businessmen and Mr Larry London. Mr Williams, among other things, represents a Chinese company in Guyana, and has been somewhat Delphic in his pronouncements about why he was on the trip. He is waiting, it seems, for the Ministry of the Presidency to speak first, and of course it hasn’t done so, so the public still needs clarification on that front.
There has been no explanation forthcoming either as to why former GDF officer and current employee of the Ministry of the Presidency Mr Larry London, who heads the celebrations committee for the 50th anniversary, was included in the complement, while Stabroek News has reported that two others, so far unidentified officially, were in the ministry party as well. Perhaps it is time that Minister Harmon identify who they were for the benefit of the public, and explain the reason for their presence.
As for Mr Tiwarie, questions have already been asked in the media as to why he was present, and his response has been that although he travelled along with Minister Harmon’s party, his business trip merely coincided with theirs. It is not a statement which is likely to reassure a sceptical public. Private businessmen simply do not tag along with official parties because they happen to be there at the same time; most governments will not tolerate uninvited private parties being associated with their trips because, among other things, they do not know what false impressions this might generate. So the question remains, why was Mr Tiwarie in China in company with Mr Harmon? Was he giving him business advice – at least up to the point where President Granger rescinded his appointment? Or were some of the investments Mr Harmon was pursuing to involve Mr Tiwarie as well? The Ministry of the Presidency has to offer a better explanation than the one we have heard so far to explain Mr Tiwarie’s presence in China in company with Mr Harmon.
Minister Harmon’s conduct as it concerns the China visit and other issues, and the fact that he is reluctant to answer questions to which people are entitled to have answers, only serve to undermine public confidence in his ability to discharge his functions. For the first few months there was a tolerance for ministerial mistakes, provided no illegalities were involved, but by this time it is assumed that ministers would have a grip on their portfolios.
Minister Harmon is the most powerful minister the President has, and he has not been coy about exercising that power. The problem is, he seems unfamiliar with critical rules and protocols, and even, perhaps, with certain legal provisions. In addition, he seems blissfully unconcerned about the promises the coalition made prior to coming into office, and as was said in last Monday’s editorial, his own criticisms of the previous government when they acted in the way he is acting now. President Granger has had little to say in relation to all the questions swirling around in the public domain, but it is time perhaps that he addressed the whole matter of the Ministry of the Presidency, its organisation, its functioning and the holding of its officials to account. Whatever else can be said, Minister Harmon is among those who should be held to account.
