Saying that there have been no talks between the two opposition coalition partners on naming a nominee to the National Resource Fund (NRF) Board, the Alliance For Change (AFC) yesterday announced that once given an opportunity it will identify a competent and qualified person for the position as it would not be giving up the opportunity to scrutinise how the country’s oil monies are spent.
“I want to say this: good politicians that like good governance will then realise that although we oppose the Act it doesn’t necessarily mean the content of the Act cannot, as best as possible, be fulfilled,” AFC Leader Khemraj Ramjattan told a virtual press conference.
He was also supported on this point by senior AFC members, David Patterson, who is also the party’s General Secretary, and Cathy Hughes.
This position by the AFC differs from that outlined by Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, who told this newspaper on Sunday that the opposition will not participate in any parliamentary selection process because it is adamant that the enabling legislation was not lawfully passed.
“In keeping with our position with the NRF Bill — that it wasn’t given sufficient consultation and in our view the Bill wasn’t properly passed — we won’t be participating in the process to identify a parliamentary representative for that board,” Jones said. “We can’t have … people in an illegality, so to participate in that would be supporting it in the breach,” he had added.
However, the Parliamentary Committee on Appointments, according to Jones, had not yet been asked to initiate a selection process for the nominee.
“The AFC is not willing to give up the very important role of scrutinising how Guyana’s monies are spent. We have a responsibility to ensure we can scrutinise regardless of the way we may be treated or how we come to the table. But primarily we have to ensure that that money is put to good use because it belongs to each and every Guyanese,” Hughes told members of the media when questioned on the issue.
According to Ramjattan, although the coalition has been very vociferous in its opposition to the new NRF Act, it does not necessarily mean that “if all things being equal… [and] we are given an opportunity to nominate a competent capable person we will not do that.”
“I think it would be bad politics on our part,” he added.
Earlier, he indicated that the Parliamentary Commit-tee on Appointments would have to start the process and he said he would want the opposition to be there to ensure that there is thorough scrutiny and interrogation of those proposed nominees.
“I, quite frankly, believe that we should participate in that process and take it from there,” he maintained.
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 Act at 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.
The controversial law, which was rushed through a chaotic sitting of the National Assembly on December 29, does not 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.
‘Not invited’
According to Patterson, neither the AFC nor APNU has been invited to make any nomination to the Board.
“I don’t even think we have seen the technical qualification or the blueprint for selecting or recommending a nominee. I do hope it goes through the process that the committee meets just as we did with the Public Procurement Commission and all commissions…,” he said.
Ramjattan is of the opinion that the opposition can propose names of persons they believe can do a good job and “be very independent unlike what is happening at EITI [Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative], we can find a name”.
Recently, the government replaced GY-EITI head Dr Rudy Jadoopat with Dr Prem Misir, who is seen as a PPP/C supporter.
Two weeks ago, following a statement by the AFC, the government confirmed that Misir was replacing Jadoopat and said that it had been as a result of a transparent hiring process. It also went on to accuse Jadoopat, who had been at GY-EITI for five years, of being a member of the AFC.
Meanwhile, Patterson noted that some US$607 million has already been allocated from the NRF though there is no Board in place and he argued that this means the government’s claim that the Board will have oversight is just talk.
He said during the budget debate the government claimed that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) can review the spending of the NRF but it failed to state where the money will be spent. He added that at the PAC the audit office takes a sample of the country’s spending as they do not audit every capital project due to a lack of capacity.
“So we don’t even know where the NRF funds are going to be placed in. There is a suspicion but the government has not answered the questions,” he said.
“…You have a board that will be appointed but all they would be doing is reviewing what already was done by the government. The 2019 Act had them being given oversight while they are now being reduced to review,” he noted.
Ramjattain pointed out that the mockery is the fact that there is still no functioning Board and the opposition asked in Parliament as to where the NRF money would go but was given no answers.
During questioning the government stated that the sum is now mixed with monies in the Consolidated Fund, which includes taxation and levies and all other revenue streams.
“Right now what will that board do? Even the government does not know where the NRF money is and what projects it went into. It is all a sham as it is all hidden up with the revenue stream in the Consolidated Fund,” Ramjattan added.
On December 30, 2021, President Irfaan Ali assented to the controversial NRF Bill, paving the way for the extraction of the entire amount to be deposited in the Consolidated Fund for budgetary use. On December 31st 2021 Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for finance Dr Ashni Singh promulgated an order setting the commencement date for the Act as January 1st 2022.
Questions have been raised about the implications of injecting this large sum into the economy at one time.
