Dear Editor,
Keith Lowenfield remained at GECOM for 527 days after the General and Regional elections of 2020, political parties are supposed to submit campaign expense statements at least 35 days after elections; Yog Mahadeo and Article 13 had 192 days to raise the question with Lowenfield but did not. Lowenfield was fired and is facing charges of electoral fraud, however, Article 13 saw it fit to upbraid Lowenfield’s successor, Vishnu Persaud, for failing to find those submissions (if any exist). The tone of Article 13’s criticism of Persaud seems to suggest that Persaud is somehow responsible for Lowenfield’s failures. I find this opportunistic and asinine and would suggest that Article 13 find a legal mechanism to force answers from where they should be found, namely Mr. Lowenfield. The phenomenon of deliberately shifting blame is trending and not confined to the social butterflies of ‘civil society’.
In 2017, under David Granger’s APNU+AFC coalition administration, two ‘stale-dated’ checks were accepted as Bonds by the Staff of the Ministry of National Security (now Home Affairs) however, the newly appointed Permanent Secretary was somehow expected to explain how this occurred over three years before she took the job. It was reported “After PS Thomas as the Chief Accounting Officer shifted almost every question to her subordinate officers, M P Vishwa Mahadeo introduced a verbal motion to have the agency “go, sort themselves out, and come again.” Seemingly placing the blame on PS Thomas for the failures of her predecessor.
However, these incidents pale in comparison to the transgressions against logic and fact contained in the USAID report which was prepared by three Guyanese women.
Consider this statement “National elections were held on March 2, 2020, and won by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) led by Irfaan Ali; although the election results were delayed due to the litigation of numerous fraud allegations and other legal challenges.” One would be hard-pressed to discern that there was a blatant attempt to steal the elections via the Mingo Bedsheet method in favour of the incumbent APNU+AFC. An ambiguity of language wherever APNU+AFC transgressed is the theme throughout the report and a cherry-picking from news and agency reports to cast doubts on the PPP/C administrations (past and present).
Editor, despite the abundance of verified corruption in the Granger administration, the report is oblivious to the Drug Bond, Demerara Harbour Bridge Feasibility Study, Bangles, Beds and et al. scandals, the USAID report shockingly states as fact “The (PPP/C) administration’s goal is to shed its party’s previous reputation for corruption and influence by its relationship with China”. Having read the PPP/C manifesto which includes promises of house lots, schoolchildren cash grants and reversal of over two hundred onerous taxes imposed by APNU+AFC among others, I have failed to find any assertion similar to the one made in the report; it renders the entire report flawed. USAID must be cognizant of the flaws in its report (presented with a disclaimer) and may find it prudent to broaden the ethnicity and gender of future consultant teams to ensure the credibility of the organization is maintained; problematic areas are correctly identified and solutions proposed are pragmatic.
Questioning and criticism of those in the administration of our country remain an important part of the democracy we enjoy, but those questions must also come from a clean and honest place. Seeking to muddy waters and blame Peter for Paul is the work of those seeking to conflate and dissipate the dishonest deeds of the APNU+AFC for partisan purposes.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
