In the face of criticisms of the decision to temporarily convene Cabinet meetings at the Guyana Defence Force’s headquarters at Camp Ayanganna, State Minister Joseph Harmon yesterday defended the move, while reiterating the need for confidentiality.
“If we will remain there for the four months? Yes,” Harmon told reporters at a post-Cabinet press briefing, when asked if government plans to continue holding the meetings at the army base for the entirety of the four-month period in which renovations would be done at the Ministry of the Presidency.
“A Cabinet meeting is not a place where you go by a barbecue as [in] some cases that used to happen in the past; you go to Linden to the Watooka [House], you sign two documents and you keep the rest of the meeting at the poolside. That is not how you deal with the business of the people of this country. We are a serious government and we will take the business of the people’s business very seriously. Therefore, we have looked at all the options and that was the best choice in the circumstance. It is a temporary measure until such time as the work on this building is completed,” Harmon added.
Government’s announcement of the decision, which was due to the repairs at the Ministry of the Presidency, saw an immediate backlash from the opposition leader and former president Bharrat Jagdeo, who said it signaled “a blurring of the line” between the security forces and the political directorate of the executive branch of the government.
“The fact that the government chose to have them in the army compound gives credence to the view that not only is this government becoming more and more secretive but it is ominously being dominated by a military mindset,” he added.
Jagdeo also said Cabinet meetings can be held anywhere as he had held them in almost all the regions of the country. “Cabinet meetings can be held anywhere. I have had Cabinet meeting in almost every region of this country. There is nothing special about these meetings. If I can hold a Cabinet meeting in Anna Regina and Lethem and they have less facilities, then what is the need for this?” he questioned.
Criticism also came from immediate past president Donald Ramotar, political analyst and former politician Dr Henry Jeffrey, political scientist and executive of the Working People’s Alliance Dr. David Hinds and scores of persons on social media.
Ramotar has reasoned that because of the negative public perceptions that would and can come from a decision such as keeping Cabinet meetings at a military base, he would not have advised such a move by any government.
Ramotar rubbished the government’s argument that the GDF location was chosen because of the need for security and confidentiality of the meetings, while saying other venues could have been used without added costs.
“Look, he could have gotten protection in any building they chose. You can always move in security there. You can use presidential guards and so forth and secure your place. If it wasn’t secure, I would make it secure, but there is no way I would have gone to the army barracks to hold Cabinet meetings, never. Their argument that it is for security and confidentiality purposes don’t hold ground, [it] cannot hold ground. Look around and let us take for example the [Arthur Chung] Conference Centre,” he said.
But Harmon yesterday emphasised the importance of keeping Cabinet’s records secret, while noting that there is provision for such in the law. “We would have recognised also that there is an Act called the Freedom of Information Act, signed and assented to President Bharrat Jagdeo in 2011, the same gentleman that is talking about Cabinet being here and Cabinet being there. In that Act, it provides for the security of Cabinet, the security of documents that have to deal with Cabinet, and it exempts any Cabinet document from public disclosure, unless it is specifically cleared by the responsible minister. The section of the Act is very elaborate,” he said.
