Dear Editor,
The best of civil society activism is engendered in Jonathan Yearwood’s request for information on the “contract(s) entered into by the Ministry of Housing and Water with Impressions Inc, particularly relating to the organizing of the ongoing International Building Expo”; conversely, the worst is seen in the call by Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI) for a Commission of Inquiry “as regards the disclosures by VICE News on suggestions that there is an organized system of bribery of officials of government at very high levels and systems to provide money-laundering services”.
There is a vast difference between the two seemingly similar actions and these should be explained to give guidance to those seeking better governance through activism. In requesting the Office of the Commissioner of Information, Yearwood is putting the system to the test and two things can happen; the Commissioner can deliver the contract or he can stymie delivery. If the contract is delivered, Yearwood can proceed to make a case for an open tender of services such as those involved based on the contents of the contract, if stymied, Yearwood can make the case that the Office of the Commissioner of Information is useless and of no effect and mobilize local and international support to force a fix. This is a well-thought-out and logical approach to activism that has clear pathways to better governance that must be applauded.
TIGI would do well to think before jumping on COI bandwagons, to date, Guyana’s COIs have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and have not provided a single finding of legal value; to ask us to pay for a COI based on the spiel of a con man is patently ridiculous, the other claims of systems to provide money laundering services are more than adequately addressed by the Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act of 2009 (and amendments), all Guyanese know the horrors of dealing with the banking system where even Bank of Guyana checks are treated with suspicion by local banks. I believe those systems to be stringent and well-enforced enough to curb any money laundering schemes. The APNU+AFC/ Granger administration used every local and international agency to dig into Bharrat Jagdeo’s finances without adverse results; what then would TIGI have us pay to inquire? What are the clear issues and/or criminal acts?
If Su took money from persons and made promises then asked for favours to get the same done, would that be illegal? Bharrat Jagdeo has met hundreds of thousands of Guyanese, made promises, and delivered most of them; is that not the purpose of a life in politics? TIGI is free to source funds and finance any inquiry of their own but I urge restraint in splurging the taxpayers’ dimes.
Editor, I reiterate support for the approach taken by Jonathan Yearwood to activism and look forward to seeing him (and others) progress using logic and legal methods available to expose weakness in our system and possible corruption. Conversely, I find the thoughtless, illogical approach used by TIGI nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt that is beneath the dignity of their illustrious moniker, this is more suited to the Opposition benches in parliament where bombast has permanent residence.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
