Dear Editor,
I like a lot of provisions in our Local Content law and support its much-needed presence. It does have its loopholes, though, as was pointed by an overseas-based Guyanese attorney, and which I think even the Attorney General (AG) would agree with some of those identified. Now the AG came out with a position, a kind of rebuttal, to some of what was placed in the public domain, namely, that the law can be gamed, but that those doing so run the risk of being exposed (“Local Content Law…Police can be called in to probe false declarations by the oil companies -AG”, KN September 26). Frankly, I am surprised that this came from the AG, definitely disappointed that this was his line, since he should and does know better.
In his own words, this is what the AG said, “if the Registrar of Deeds gets information that suggests that the documents filed at the registry is false or contains false information, all the Registrar has to do is report the matter to the Police and the Guyana Police Force has all the investigative powers to investigate the veracity of the information.” I agree that “the Guyana Police Force has all the investigative powers to investigate…” There can be no questioning or pushback on that score. But I do not think that the GPF has the talent, the skills, and the competence required for these kinds of sophisticated probes. Our own people outside of the GPF, well-seasoned by a lifetime of dedication and engagement in white-collar work encounter difficulty in drilling down and deciphering what companies bent on violating laws are really up to.
To expand, these Guyanese would include attorneys versed in company law, and accountants and auditors, who know what to look for, and where to go. I mean, it is mazes with mazes and in clever layers aimed at concealing or sidetracking, and getting away with the equivalent of financial murder. It is certain that the AG knows this, for he is no ‘poke’ where certain matters are concerned, having been around, and gotten very good at getting around smartly. The outsiders who go around our Local Content system (law) are not going to do so openly and, moreover, leave a paper trail that can be easily picked up. This is where I part company with the AG because I do not believe that the GPF has what it takes. Indeed, it has made some strides in the detection of crimes that don’t involve blood, street crimes, and run-of-the mill financial shenanigans, but my position is that the GPF is still severely shorthanded where company acrobatics can be brought to play and succeed.
Whatever we have for a dedicated Fraud Unit in the GPF has a long way to go, which is why there are these continuing rounds of exposure and training that we hear about from time to time, and those who play tricks with our Local Content Law would likely make rings around what we have. Like I said, the AG is believed to know all of this, so it perplexes that he placed his bets on the capability of the GPF, even as he knows its quality better than I do. In sum, power to probe potential violations, yes; but after that, all is up for grabs, and likely downhill. It should be noticed that today I left alone any articulations about the openings for corruption on both sides of such investigations, viz., investigated and investigating. Still, I wish both the AG and the GPF the best in their endeavours.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
