ABOLISH THE GOLD BOARD


The recent publication of the forensic audit into the Gold Board has raised concerns about its operations. The forensic audit revealed that “poor management of gold in its possession resulted in losses of over $10 billion for the period 2012 to 2014.” The report found that the losses were due to the maintenance of high stocks while the price for gold declined. The Board “seemed uncertain how to respond to changing market conditions and continued to hold large quantities of gold even as the price declined further.” The report, which is damning in several other respects, comes while reports of the smuggling of 450 pounds of gold to Curacao in November 2012 and Minister Trotman’s estimate of 15,000 ounces of gold being smuggled out of Guyana every week are still resonating as unresolved problems.

The Gold Board was established under the provisions of the Guyana Gold Board Act 1981 in the era when capitalism in Guyana was under official attack and nationalization of large foreign owned companies  had been executed with zeal. Foreign trade, if not nationalized, had become heavily regulated. And so the Guyana Gold Board Act was passed to establish the Gold Board as the body which would take over all trade in gold. Section 8 says that “no person shall sell any gold to, or purchase any gold from, any person other than the Board…”

Continue reading “ABOLISH THE GOLD BOARD”

A PAEAN TO CENSORSHIP


It takes a certain mindset for a person to believe that he or she has the right to determine what information, otherwise lawful, that the citizens of Guyana should receive. Inculcated among some media practitioners and political operatives during the 1970s and 1980s, and pursued with vigour and venom between 2001 and 2015, this mindset is clearly alive and well in Guyana. State-owned media has long been seen as a party asset to be utilized for the benefit of the Government and Party in office.

Given the opportunity to reject censorship, the Guyana Chronicle did the opposite. In justifying its failure to publish its own columnist, Dr. David Hinds, because it did not agree with the views he expressed on two occasions, it embarked on a paean to censorship in its editorial of April 20 entitled “The state newspaper.” It reiterated an earlier statement that “this newspaper is an arm of the state and will give primacy to the government’s agenda.” How is this different to the policy of the Chronicle during the eras mentioned above? The Chronicle is not an arm of the State. The State is merely a trustee of its owners who are the people of Guyana. I am a part owner of the Chronicle.

Continue reading “A PAEAN TO CENSORSHIP”

MERCY MUST BE TEMPERED WITH JUSTICE


The Advisory Committee, recently appointed by the President, has constitutional responsibility only in relation to persons who have been sentenced to death. But article 190 of the Constitution, which provides for its functions, omits to state what exactly in relation to the sentence of death the Advisory Council is to advise on, even though as a matter of practice it is known that the Advisory Council advises on the commuting of death sentences.

In article 188 the President is given extensive powers in relation to prisoners. After consultation with the Minister, the President may grant to any convicted prisoner a free or conditional pardon, an indefinite respite or for a prescribed period, a less severe form of punishment or a remission of the whole or part of a punishment.

Continue reading “MERCY MUST BE TEMPERED WITH JUSTICE”

THE CULTURE OF DOMINANCE IN GUYANA’S POLITICS


The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, told the press that he and Minister of Social Cohesion, Minister Amna Ally, with the objective of resolving the political impasse that occurred as a result of the PPP and APNU obtaining an equal number of seats in five NDCs and one township elections, had agreed that the mayor and chairs of the NDCs should rotate annually. According to Jagdeo, he was told that President Granger had approved the agreement. He further asserted that the decision was revoked by the Government, which proposed that three of the six bodies should be led by APNU and three by the PPP. Minister Bulkan made no comment on the alleged agreement but appeared to have confirmed the Government’s position of three/three. He said that since the PPP rejected the compromise he proceeded to appoint APNU members as heads of all six bodies.

No one should be surprised that our two main political parties cannot agree on anything. In relation to regional elections the parties tried on two occasions in the past to cooperate without success. In 1994 the parties agreed to share the position of the mayor of Georgetown. When the PPP’s turn came the PNC reneged on the agreement. In the 2006 regional elections the parties obtained an equal number of seats in region 7. An agreement to share the post of chair was discarded by the PNCR when the elections for chair took place a few days later. It is to the credit of the PPP that even with these experiences it sought to address the current impasse by compromise.

Continue reading “THE CULTURE OF DOMINANCE IN GUYANA’S POLITICS”