With criticism mounting over his powers of appointment to the controversial Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Board of Directors, President Irfaan Ali yesterday dodged questions on how he would be selecting one and possibly three of the directors.
On the sidelines of an event at the CARICOM Secretariat Headquarters in Liliendaal, the President was approached by the media on the appointment of the Board and its members. He said that the nation would be “shocked” by how soon the Board would be constituted.
The Natural Resource Fund Act, which was made law on December 30, 2021 despite calls for greater participation by the political Opposition and sections of civil society, repeals the Natural Resource Fund Act of 2019 which was assented to by former President David Granger during a period where his government should have been in caretaker mode after it was defeated by a no-confidence vote in Parliament.
Section 5 (1) of the new Act states “there shall be a Board of Directors of the Fund which shall comprise of not less than three and not more than five members who shall be appointed by the President, one of whom shall be appointed Chairperson by the President.”
The bill in Section 5(2) speaks about who the directors shall be explaining that they “…shall be elected from among persons who have wide experience and ability in legal, financial, business or administrative matters, one of whom shall be nominated by the National Assembly and one of whom shall be a representative of the private sector.”
It means that the President can select one director and possibly three in his own deliberate judgement.
Nowhere in the controversial bill which was rushed through a chaotic sitting of the National Assembly on December 29 does it outline who determines the eligibility of the directors for selection. This has been a sore point of contention since the government published the bill and a point that it has consistently failed to address during its defence campaign.
When asked about whether he has commenced the process of selecting the directors, the President said that he has been looking at names and that the appointment of the Board is considered to be a matter of urgency.
Following his response on the examining of names for the board, Stabroek News pressed to get clarity as to where the members would be coming from.
President Ali responded “I am the President. I am entrusted with a responsibility. I was elected by the people of this country and if I was elected by the people of this country, I was elected based on a programme, on the manifesto that I have to implement because that is a social contract between myself and the people. I think that the people have entrusted me with responsibility and I intend to execute (that) responsibility with great honour, dignity and integrity and you would see that in the Board.”
The President dodged the question as to the process to be employed for the directors coming from outside of the National Assembly and Private Sector.
The bill says nothing about the selection process or selector rather it says in Section 5(3) and (4) “the Directors shall be appointed for a period not exceeding two years and shall be eligible for reappointment. (4) The appointment of the Directors and every change in the appointment shall be published in the Gazette, on the website of the Ministry and in two daily newspapers circulating in Guyana.”
According to the bill, the Board shall be responsible for the overall management of the Fund; reviewing and approving the policies of the Fund; monitoring the performance of the Fund; ensuring compliance with the approved policies of the Fund; exercising general oversight of all aspects of the operations of the Fund, and ensuring that the Fund is managed in compliance with this Act and all other applicable laws.
Additionally, the Board is responsible for preparing the investment mandate while reporting to the Minister of Finance.
“The Minister may give to the Board of Directors such general policy directives in accordance with this Act with respect to their functions as the Minister considers necessary and the Board of Directors shall give effect to such directives,” Section 5 (8) of the bill reads.
Critics have expressed concern that the PPP/C government will appoint cronies and supporters to these board positions. It has also been pointed out that since the PPP/C has a majority in Parliament, the National Assembly appointee will be someone the ruling party is comfortable with. It has also been contended that the private sector will also yield a candidate who will do the bidding of the PPP/C.
When asked yesterday why the government did not explicitly provide for an opposition nominee to the Board, Ali said that his administration believes that the Board should be free of politicians.
“The Board would be free of politicians. Politicians are not only in the government, since when politicians are only in the government? This is a Board that would be representative of Guyana with certain specific skillsets and you would see that,” the President informed.
The NRF Bill was first published in the Official Gazette on December 15 and came up for its second reading on December 29, 2021. Since being published the criticisms have been heavy and the government’s seeming need to rush its passage without consultation or review has raised questions.
The Opposition and some civil society organisations had been calling for it to be sent to a special select committee so as to facilitate greater involvement of the public which would result in a bill that received bipartisan support. However, this call was ignored.
In an effort to derail the passage of the legislation, the Opposition attempted to seize the Speaker’s ceremonial mace while protesting in the chambers of the National Assembly. They have been contending that the Bill was not legally passed because the Mace was not in the National Assembly and some members of the government were out of their seats when it came to the vote.
In his column in the last Sunday Stabroek, economist Tarron Khemraj said that the PPP/C’s version of the NRF Act was just as flawed as the APNU+AFC’s as it pertains to the concentration of powers.
“The degree of perceived independence from or control by a politician is not significantly different from the APNU+AFC’s version of the Act. The latter gave substantial power to the Minister of Finance, while the PPP/C’s version hands significant power to the President and subsidiary power to the Minister of Finance. While the President gets to determine the majority of members who will serve on the Board, the Minister of Finance has significant authority over the Investment Committee”, Khemraj said.
