In recent days, criticisms of the actions of the Chairman of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Rawle Lucas in the media have reached a crescendo. Such heated and vigorous debate is usually redolent of one of two things or shades in between. It is either there have been significant transgressions by the Chairman and his governing board in relation to the business of the GRA or that their actions, in light of the relative newness of their tenure, threaten to upturn an entrenched and discredited order.
It is difficult for the outsider to gain a full measure of the purported grievances. Most of the correspondence that has appeared in the Kaieteur News criticising Mr Lucas has been indirect, rambling and lacking in specificity. It has an engineered feel to it.
If one were to take the criticisms by the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) reported in Saturday’s edition of Stabroek News one would hardly be more enlightened as to the specific grouses of the staff there and the aggrieved. The union spoke generally of what it said was the “external interference” of Mr Lucas having created a “hostile and insecure” environment for staff at all levels leading to “low morale and motivation”. It further said that “The actions taken by the Chairman, particularly those recently executed may be deemed excessive and above that authorised” by the governing act. It also spoke of a culture to terminate and dismiss staff at will and without due process. No examples were provided and none has reached the public domain with arguments. Undoubtedly, the GPSU should stand in solidarity with any employee of the GRA who has been wronged and seek to elicit remedies on their behalf but at some point real cases and examples have to be presented. Otherwise, the various complaints would come across as a fishing expedition targeting genuine attempts to improve the performance of the GRA and enhance the welfare of all of its employees.
The functions of the Governing Board as set out by the Guyana Revenue Authority Act include “the monitoring of the performance of the Authority in carrying out its functions; and the discipline and control of all members of staff of the Authority appointed under this Act.”
Subject to provisions of the Act, the Governing Board may also regulate its own procedure. Further, a decision of the Governing Board on any question shall be by a majority of the members present and voting at the meeting and, in the event of an equality of votes, the person presiding at the meeting shall have a casting vote in addition to his deliberative vote. The Governing Board may, for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act establish committees of members and of officers of the Authority and delegate to any such committee such of its functions as it thinks fit.
Broad powers have been assigned to the Governing Board under the Act. If there are instances of transgressions of the Act in the recent dismissals, re-assignments and disciplining of officers then those affected should certainly be availed access to appropriate remedies and the GPSU would be able to assist in this area. There would certainly be mechanisms through which the complaints of staff and managers could be channeled via the Commissioner-General to the board. There should be no circumstance under which employees should feel constrained or intimidated in pursuing grievances and one expects that the Governing Board will be receptive.
Given the vast revenue and licensing functions of the GRA and its long existence in an environment where there is perceived to be a high level of corruption, it isn’t hard to imagine that within the Authority there are well-protected structures that are of great value to those in society who would seek to undermine the lawful behaviour of the body’s employees. Over the years, there have been widely publicised cases where there was no doubt that deep-seated corruption existed such as the Polar Beer scam which went wholly unpunished perhaps because of these well-protected structures and their political sponsors. While the gravamen of the matter was not pursued, it would be recalled that the Ministry of Business recently defended its Trusted Trader initiative on the grounds that well-established businesses had been menaced for bribes by customs officers. The GRA’s penchant for settling gross violations of the law rather than pursuing prosecutions to the end may well explain why there isn’t a public record of convictions for the violation of relevant laws and the scourge of corruption continues.
In an environment where a new Governing Board was appointed last year and the previous Commissioner-General was terminated, there must surely be changes that those now in charge feel are necessary to make to fulfil their mandate and they must be allowed to do so unhindered. Where those changes violate the laws or rights of employees they should be forthrightly challenged.
