Despite the many objections to the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) bill, Minister of State Joseph Harmon yesterday said stressed that all the concerns raised during wide reaching consultations on the proposed law were taken into consideration before it was tabled in the National Assembly.
“Clearly the recommendations that have been made by the private sector, those recommendations were taken into consideration and so now for them to say that it should go to Select Committee…when a matter goes to Select Committee it is really giving the public and other organisations another opportunity to comment on it and we have given them that opportunity,” Harmon said during a post-Cabinet press briefing, where he said that government will go ahead with a parliamentary debate on the proposed law on March 9.
The Private Sector Commission recently wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly outlining its concerns and asking that the bill be sent to a Select Committee before it was debated. Two days later, the commission called for the bill to be recalled. Following the preparation of the draft bill and a public consultation session at the Pegasus Hotel, the commission had objected to it, saying that it was flawed and would trample upon fundamental rights.
Stabroek News yesterday asked Harmon whether the concerns have been discussed by Cabinet or with Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams.
In response, he said that the bill, before going to Cabinet, was subjected to wide consultations that were led by the AG himself. He said persons had concerns about some aspects of the bill and these were “taken into consideration before the Bill got to the point of being laid in the National Assembly.”
It is expected that the bill will be debated on March 9. Harmon indicated that if at the end of the process there were issues arising that propel government to “go in a certain direction, whether it goes to select committee or whether we pass it as it is then that’s a decision that will be made then.”
Harmon expressed concern that persons wait until things are finalised before raising objections.
“When we have an opportunity to comment on things … do not stay silent until you get a chorus and then decide you don’t want this thing to go here. When you have an opportunity ensure also that your membership get an opportunity to comment on these things because you cannot keep legislation moribund just waiting and waiting and waiting,” he said.
Both the PSC and the Guyana Human Right Associations (GHRA) criticised the draft bill and had outlined what they disagreed with. However, when the bill was tabled in the National Assembly, it was the exact same draft bill that was presented. No changes were made to it in keeping with the views expressed by both organisations.
Harmon told reporters that the country has to move forward and that the legal apparatus has to be put in place to go after those who have stolen state assets.
Asked if he was saying that the matter will be left in the hands of the National Assembly, he responded “the bill is a government bill and the government will determine what happens to its bill…. We are a consensus people, we build consensus and if at that point in time it is recognised that there are some issues with the bill that still require clarification, then that can be a motivator for us to go that way [to a Select Committee].”
According to its Explanatory Memorandum, the bill is intended to give effect to the non-conviction-based asset recovery recommendations contained in the United Nations Convention against Corruption 2003, which was ratified by the Government of Guyana in April 2008. “The Bill therefore introduces legislation to combat unlawful conduct and corrupt practices in relation to property and other assets owned by the State, or in which the State has an interest,” it said.
It added that the bill provides for the establishment of the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA), which has as its primary function the civil recovery of state property obtained through the unlawful conduct of a public official or other person, or any benefit obtained in connection with that unlawful conduct, by way of civil proceedings taken in the High Court for a civil recovery order.
The PSC had said that the draft bill was deeply flawed, while the GHRA, among other things, warned that without political consensus, the draft bill ran the risk of “prolonging ethnically polarised politics.”
Chartered accountant and attorney Christopher Ram, in an analysis of the bill which was published in Stabroek News, concluded that some aspects were excessive, faulty and dangerous.
“Regardless of the intentions and motives behind this Bill, it has all the ingredients for the making of a Police state. It should be referred to a Select Committee with access to the best possible legal inputs from persons versed in a range of laws,” he wrote.
Ram stated that the model for the bill was “an extreme form of asset forfeiture wherein presumption of innocence may no longer apply,” while noting that such a presumption was a bedrock principle and underpins the rule of law.
