Dear Editor,
I refer to the statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 13 April, 2016 in connection with my claim against the Government for damages for breach of contract. I am reluctant to engage the Government in the public domain with regard to my case but blatant misrepresentations need to be corrected.
I am of the firm opinion that the issuing of the statement is due to the realisation by the Government of Guyana that it has no defence and has resorted to the media and the consistent pro Government bloggers, in the hope of garnering the support of the public despite its unlawful conduct towards me.
I was appointed Ambassador to Brazil in November 2008 on a one-year contract. My contract was renewed annually in November. I was appointed High Commissioner to Canada in February 2011, again on an annual basis, and which contract was renewed annually in February of 2012, 2013, 2014 and in February 2015, the last such renewal being three months before the May 2015 elections, not a few weeks as alleged by the Ministry, except if the Ministry regards 13.57 weeks or 26% of the year as “a mere few weeks”. The course of action advised by the Ministry that my contract should have been for a short period, having regard to elections was not followed by a previous PNC Government in 1992 when it signed a contract shortly before the 1992 elections with Ambassador Cedric Grant for three years. His contract was terminated. He sued and won.
I wrote Minister Greenidge on 1st June requesting “to be guided as to the preferred course of action to be utilized with respect to my employment with the Government of Guyana.” I received no reply to this nor to the numerous reminders to the Minister and Director General and others in the hierarchy of the Government. I met the Minister on 9th September at Parliament Building and he assured me that I would be receiving a response. None came. I therefore had no alternative but to seek legal redress for the violation of my contract by the Government.
Regrettably, I was unaware that when the APNU+AFC campaigned on the platform of change, it meant that it would change the State’s policy of honouring its contracts with its employees to one of unilaterally and unlawfully terminating those contracts without regard to their terms.
I am aware that the usual suspects, who “know it all” would jump at this, my response, to earn some more media “coverage”.
I would await my day in court.
Yours faithfully,
Harry Narine Nawbatt