Dear Editor,
The recent strange statement by the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development, Ms. Sonia Parag against the Georgetown City Council’s decision to grant a 25% waiver on interest accrued on the rates of One Communications (formerly GTT) stands as yet another glaring example of the growing tension between local governance and the central government in this country (Local gov’t minister slams city over tax concession to One Communication SN/12/11/2024; Minister Parag blasts M&CC for unlawful 25% tax waiver to GT&T GC/12/11/2024). The Minister’s statement is not just a question of bureaucratic overreach, but a direct, very crude assault on the principles of separation of powers that underpin our fragile democracy.
At the very core of this matter is the City Council’s decision to offer a concession to One Communications, a major telecommunications company in Guyana, in an effort to ease its financial burden. The waiver was aimed at allowing the company to settle its outstanding taxes, an initiative that was both pragmatic and potentially beneficial to the city’s revenue stream. In fact, the City Council and One Communications have been discussing this matter for some considerable time. Since 2016, under the then administration led by Town Clerk, Royston King, the company raised this matter with the council and intimated its concerns about the valuation of some of its properties, more particularly the property at 69 Brickdam Georgetown. We agreed to have them seek the necessary valuation and to approach the relevant agencies and Government ministries to plead their case. Those attempts straddled the previous and current governments and the current Minister should seek advice and counsel before going off on such ill-advised frolic!
Since that time there was a commitment, by the council, to allow the company to seek revaluation of those properties. Recently, the company met with the Mayor, members of the Finance Committee and staff of the City Treasurer’s Department to find a way forward and a solution to this issue. Section 228 (1) (a), (b), (2) and (3) of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chap. 28:01, confer authority on the council to review the rating status of such properties, in its rating district, in that context. The company has obtained a revaluation of those properties in question, and the council has agreed to review, and grant a waiver of 25% of interest accrued; the company will pay the demand and 75% of all interests accrued on that particular property
Also, I must point out that this company (and there are others) has been a good corporate citizen to the city. I recall that, for many years, it paid its taxes in advance of the stipulated tax pay period, to help the council fulfill its financial and other obligations to its employees and its citizens, in local communities. However, statements attributed to the Minister, on this matter, were swift, and dismissive, signaling a concerning trend in the government’s handling of local government issues. The character, scope and tone of those statements demonstrate not only that the Minister has no knowledge of the history of this matter but also she has been misinformed,
misguided, is a rookie and therefore, cannot appreciate the decision of the council. It is unfortunate that the Minister rushed to make spurious statements without knowing all the facts involved in this matter. Worse, the Minister seems unbothered and unconcerned about the potential damage of her inaccurate statements to cause reputational damage to that blue collar corporation. I shudder to think – what is happening in local governance (Towns, NDC’S and even village councils) if this is the way, this particular minister is approaching other aspects of her official assignments.
This is not the first time that the incumbent regime has attempted to interfere in the City Council’s decisions. Citizens would recall that a few months ago, when the council attempted to grant amnesty to defaulting businesses that a certain minister attempted to prevent us from moving forward with that assistance for local businesses. It was a complete violation of our collective right and authority as a municipality. This pattern of interference, in the internal affairs of the council, is becoming increasingly evident and speaks volumes about the wider political intentions behind such dictatorial actions by ministers. In any democratic system, the separation of powers is not just a theoretical concept but a crucial practice that ensures no single entity or branch of government holds excessive control over the state apparatus. Local governments, including the city council, are ELECTED bodies with specific mandates to govern within their jurisdictions. The City Council of Georgetown, like all local authorities, is accountable to the people it serves who elected them and is constitutionally empowered to make decisions on matters that affect the welfare of its citizens. Not Central government through its ministers relegating authority to themselves which they don’t have!
For the central government to repeatedly attempt to, and, at times, actually intervene in local decision-making is not only undemocratic but undermines the very essence of local autonomy. It raises questions about the extent to which the central government is willing to tolerate dissent or independent action by local authorities, especially those that may not align with the broader national political agenda. By attempting to prevent the City Council from offering concession/s to a local company, individual or citizen, the government is effectively eroding the local authority’s capacity to manage its affairs. This is a dangerous path to tread. If local governments are unable to make decisions independently then they become mere appendages of the central government, devoid of the authority and autonomy necessary to function effectively. Perhaps, this is what the government wants but I promise it would be resisted! This would facilitate domination and control by the government and its agents of every facet of our country. Such interference not only harms the immediate financial interests of local businesses but also weakens the trust between elected officials and the people who put them in office.
However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the government’s actions are part of a subtle plan to control, undermine, and discredit the City Council. In a democracy, there is room for disagreement and debate, but the constant undermining of the City Council’s autonomy signals a troubling desire by the central government to assert its dominance in every aspect of governance. Perhaps, even more troubling is the apparent contradiction in the government’s stance. While it has consistently been willing to grant major tax breaks and concessions to foreign companies, especially those in the oil and gas sector, when it comes to local businesses, particularly those that are not part of the government’s preferred corporate class, it seems to act with a different set of rules.
The government is quick to offer generous tax reliefs and incentives to multinational corporations. Yet, it appears very unwilling to extend similar courtesies to local businesses, even in situations where such assistance would be in the interest of the city and its residents. This dual approach creates an environment of inequality, where local businesses are made to struggle while foreign companies are given preferential treatment. The City Council’s decision to grant a tax waiver to One Communications – a local company- should be seen as a measure aimed at supporting key players in the economy. But instead, the government’s reaction suggests a deliberate effort to stifle local business growth, further deepening the divide between foreign and local economic interests.
An important question that citizens should ask is: why is the government so determined to prevent the City Council from assisting local businesses? Is this an ideological move designed to keep local governance weak and malleable, or is it simply a calculated effort to embarrass and neutralize the City Council? Whatever the answer, the reality is that such actions harm the city’s economic prospects and further entrench the central government’s control over matters that should be in hands of local officials. The City Council’s decision to waive some of One Communications’ interest charges may not have been without complexities, but it was a decision made with the intention of supporting a local business and generating revenue for the city. Statements by the minister, therefore, sends a chilling message not only to the city council but also to all local governments: that any attempt to take independent action or support local businesses will be met with public negative statements and resistance from the central government. Finally, the Minister stated: “This decision comes at a time when the Council continuously laments its financial woes and requests bailouts from Central Government …”
As Mayor, I have to say categorically that this council has never asked the incumbent government for a bailout; we asked that government pay its taxes to the city. If we are building a truly democratic society, we must support and protect the independence of local governance structures. Local governments must have freedom to make decisions that best serve the interests of their constituents without fear of retribution or interference from the central government. Utterances by the Minister on this matter is a worrying sign of a government more interested in consolidating power than in supporting the autonomy of local governance. It is a reminder of the need to defend the principles of democracy and the separation of powers, which ensure that no branch of government can dominate or dictate the actions of another. The government’s ongoing practice of granting concessions to foreign corporations, while denying local businesses the same level of support, only underscores the growing disparity between the interests of multinational entities and the needs of Guyana’s small and medium-sized enterprises. In this environment, local businesses are left to struggle, while the government continues to bend over backwards for foreign investors.
Sincerely,
Alfred Mentore, J.P.
Mayor of the City of GeorgetownTop of Form
