On Thursday, the State Assets Recovery Bill is scheduled for its second reading and possible passage. Intense and heated debate has sprung up around this piece of legislation. At its core, it radiates twin anxieties which have galvanised various constituencies.
The first is the promise of the recovery of stolen state assets. There is no law-abiding citizen in these parts who would oppose any lawful efforts by the state to retrieve assets which were stolen from the state. Theft from the state should attract high priority and stiff penalties. Over the last decade of the PPP/C’s term in office there had been numerous allegations of the improper assigning of state assets and various dubious deals which would have resulted in the loss of assets. Many of these allegations remain untested as the PPP/C was notorious for shielding those connected to its administration who might have been engaged in such deals.
Despite having been in office for 21 months and having commissioned dozens of forensic audits, the APNU+AFC administration has not managed to bring charges over the filching of state assets save for charges against former public service minister Dr Jennifer Westford. The government has, however, raised expectations about charges through reckless statements by a number of its senior officials over the last 21 months.
Concerns about the foundation of these statements have also been fuelled by astronomical and questionable projections of the amounts of money and state assets that have been lost during the PPP/C years. Replete with giddying extrapolations, these statements have emanated from various officials of the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU) but without the slightest of substantiation and raising the obvious questions as to why the state is still unable to prosecute in relation to these blatant occurrences and expose networks of theft and fraud. In passing, it must be stated that the same fervour with which the government and SARU are denouncing acts of theft and fraud under the previous administration is the same manner in which it should be examining similar occurrences under this administration. For example the crude and questionable arrangements for the D’Urban Park project and the profligate spending of more than a billion dollars on it and the sweetheart deal for the Charlestown bond with someone who should never have been considered for such.
The second area of general interest is whether the bill when enacted will infringe upon the rights of the people and whether it derogates important institutions such as the Chambers of the DPP and the police force. There are also concerns about whether a super agency will be created which can wantonly seek into the business of targeted persons and whether sufficient checks exist on the proposed State Assets Recovery Agency. A number of concerns have been raised by the Private Sector Commission (PSC), the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) and commentator Christopher Ram. Although Attorney General Basil Williams did convene a consultation on the bill, the revised version of the bill did not incorporate any of the substantive measures proposed by the PSC.
Mr Ram has noted that as drafted, the State Assets Recovery Bill enables the Director to assume the powers of the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority and the Police, and brings the DPP – an independent constitutional office – within his influence.
He has further argued that the bill makes the Director of the agency a corporation sole. As a corporation sole, the Director is accountable to no one, although his actions will be open to judicial review. His/her only reporting obligation is an annual report submitted through the subject Minister. He pointed out that APNU and the AFC while in opposition lobbied successfully against the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit being a de facto corporation sole and caused the introduction of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority. As an aside, this Authority is still to be set up by the administration.
Mr Ram also argued that the “…proposed Bill seeks to achieve far too many objectives: the reduction in crime, recovery of State Assets and the introduction of a system of civil asset forfeiture. The consequences of this over-ambitious approach are a frightening array of overlapping laws, concentration of power, violation of the Constitution and constitutional principles and a potential reduction of …civil liberties, due process and the presumption of innocence.”
Given the concerns raised by the PSC, the GHRA and Mr Ram and the lack of substantive changes to the bill following the public consultation, it would be the most appropriate course of action for the government to send this bill to a Select Committee. It would give substance to the commonly held standard that all controversial bills should go to a select committee, that the government is prepared to consider compromises to nettlesome bills such as this one and that in its desire to pursue the recovery of state assets the government recognises that this could be further held up if the largely unamended bill is forced through the House on Thursday.
