The expected debate of the contentious bill to legally set up a State Assets Recovery Agency was deferred at Thursday’s sitting of the National Assembly due to the sheer number of parliamentarians who were slated to speak, Minister of State Joseph Harmon said yesterday.
Harmon had previously told reporters several weeks ago that the debate of the State Assets Recovery Bill 2017 would go ahead despite concerns voiced by the Private Sector Commission (PSC) about its contents and their implication.
Speaking during a post-Cabinet press briefing at the Ministry of the Presidency yesterday, Harmon noted that the bill was on the order paper for Thursday’s sitting. “It was basically postponed to another date because the indication which government had was there is going to be many many speakers on that particular bill,” he said, while noting that there were other matters preceding the bill on the order paper. “They had several bills which had to be dealt with before, so you wouldn’t want to start a bill which had many speakers halfway into the night and then you have to go to another day,” he said.
According to Harmon, given the circumstances, it was felt that the bill would “take up almost an entire session of the National Assembly.”
Asked if the bill will come up at the next sitting of the National Assembly, Harmon said, “I am not the Parliamentary Management Committee. I can give you the assurance that the government will be ready for the debate.”
According to its explanatory memorandum, the bill 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. Towards this end, it 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 bill has been heavily criticized by the PSC, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) and the parliamentary opposition. The GHRA, among other things, warned that without political consensus, the draft bill ran the risk of “prolonging ethnically polarised politics.”
The PSC has written several press releases on the matter and last month wrote to Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland asking that the bill be taken to a parliamentary select committee for further deliberation before passage. Two days later, it urged that the bill be recalled.
Chartered accountant and attorney Christopher Ram, in an analysis of the bill, has argued 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 of 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.
Chief Executive Officer of the State Assets Recovery Unit Major (rtd) Aubrey Heath-Retemyer recently dismissed the criticisms and told Stabroek News that the bill before the House is the best version of the law.
