Author: ChrisRam

Posted on

Postings on website were misrepresented on TV programme

Stabroek News of January 16, 2015 carried a letter captioned ‘Informed speculation,’ in which Mr Kit Nascimento, sought to respond, in defence of Mr Winston Brassington, Chairman of Atlantic Hotel Inc, to an editorial in the newspaper of January 6, 2015 titled ‘Questions continue over Marriott deal, opening date.’

Mr Nascimento, who did not disclose any interlocking relationships with Mr Brassington, with the hotel company and with Guyana Power and Light of which Brassington is chairman, or with NICIL of which Brassington is the CEO, accused the Stabroek News of “introduc[ing] a new practice of journalism, the reporting of ‘informed speculation,’ to justify unsubstantiated, undocumented, unsupported reporting published as fact by his newspaper.” That accusation, language and all, would be quite appropriate to Mr Nascimento himself.

In a recent television programme ‘moderated’ and described by him as the “third broadcast programme on the progress and development of the Marriott Hotel,” Mr Nascimento in introductory remarks, said, “This week Tuesday … Mr Christopher Ram, on his personal blog, which was reported in the Kaieteur News …” The programme, clearly initiated and manipulated by Mr Brassington, included, in addition to him, the unsuspecting Project Manager of the Marriott Hotel construction and the Marriott representative in Guyana.

Having as his premise this fictitious blog, Mr Nascimento then proceeded to ask a series of leading questions, no doubt prepared with the extensive assistance of Mr Brassington, with Nascimento casually throwing in words like Ram “suggested” and Ram “implied.”

Had Mr Nascimento taken the elementary, responsible and professional step of verifying his assertions and allegations with my website he would have noticed (a) that the articles to which the Kaieteur News referred were posted in February 2013 – nearly two years earlier; (b) that never in the four-part series did I make any allegation, let alone a “serious allegation” that Marriott Hotel was a “cut price” hotel; and (c) that I did not say that the construction agreement did not provide for supervision.

I would not waste my time or that of readers to repeat the text of the four-part series of articles on chrisram.net beginning February 17, 2013 under the caption ‘Soul for Sale,’ which incidentally was a pun on the hotel and not Mr Brassington. Sadly, I am unable to describe Mr Nascimento’s moderation of the programme in the way that he sardonically did the Stabroek News editorial as “a new practice,” but would prefer to use his own formulation and describe his/Brassington’s programme as based on false, fabricated and fictitious information presented in a disgraceful, malicious, unethical and unprofessional manner.

Editor, everyone has a right to earn a living. But I am sure that accounting is not the only field that requires engagements to meet basic ethical and professional principles and that asks its practitioners to refuse contrived, orchestrated assignments regardless of the size of the fee dangled. When individuals violate these principles they devalue their profession. And when a profession is devalued, the wider society is also devalued.

Mr Brassington is aware that the Marriott articles on my website were two years old. But like the Stabroek News editorial they are as relevant today as they are factual. As an officer of a government company, Mr Brassington has a duty to respond to legitimate concerns and questions asked of his actions involving public resources. The use of ventriloquists using evasive tactics is not only cowardly but totally unacceptable.

Posted on

Spending by government tests the limits of the Constitution

Introduction
Even as Chief Justice (ag.) Ian Chang considers one major case alleging unauthorised public expenditure of over $4.6 billion between January and early June 2014 involving one article of the Constitution, another case is probably in the making over spending of further billions in violation of another article of the Constitution.

In the current action Leader of the Opposition Mr. David Granger seeks an order to halt unauthorised spending by the government and also for spending on programmes disapproved by the National Assembly to be stopped. The question has been raised why the action was not brought immediately when it became known in June last year that the Minister of Finance had authorised the spending of moneys expressly disapproved by the National Assembly. It is obvious that several billions more would have been spent since June 14 in similar circumstances.

The Attorney General Anil Nandlall, in defending the unauthorised spending by the Government has sought refuge in procedural points, and according to a press report claims that “the court cannot issue an order to stop all government spending not approved by the National Assembly as requested by APNU leader David Granger as there is no allegation that anyone’s fundamental rights have been breached.”
Continue reading “Spending by government tests the limits of the Constitution”

Posted on

Guyana as a nation of laws

I was more than a little bit surprised by the statement in Mr. Lincoln Lewis’ letter that “[Guyana] is a nation of laws”: (Stabroek News 08-12-14, Constitutional Conversation). At best, it is a compendious articulation of one of the aspirations in the Preamble to the Constitution of Guyana to forge a “… harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.”

To suggest that Guyana has attained the status of a nation of laws is not only dangerously misguided but a complete contradiction of all that Mr. Lewis has courageously argued for decades. In fact, I do not think that Mr. Lewis believes that the rule of law prevails in Guyana.
Continue reading “Guyana as a nation of laws”

Posted on

Bacchus’ excursion avoids the real issues concerning Nandlall

Attorney-at-Law Murseline Bacchus (S/N November 27), to defend Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, against irresistible inferences of illegality from his infamous telephone conversation with Kaieteur News (KN) senior reporter, Mr. Leonard Gildarie, takes us back to a case 184 years ago in feudal England.

Mr. Bacchus was purportedly responding to a report in the Kaieteur News of Thursday November 6, 2014, under the caption “The world is watching police investigation – APNU”.

In the article, Mr. Joseph Harmon, an Opposition frontbencher and himself an attorney-at-law, raised concerns about the capacity and integrity of the authorities to undertake an independent investigation into the telephone conversation in which Mr. Nandlall objectified women; solicited for sexual purposes, on behalf of an uncle, a reporter of the newspaper; confessed to restraining the same uncle from taking serious criminal action against the newspaper proprietor; admitted to corruption involving public funds, drew attention to the increased activity against KN following the accusation by KN’s proprietor that his vehicle (Nandlall) was engaged in taking photographs of the newspaper building; declared knowledge of [an] impending armed attack[s] against the newspaper and its staff, and referred to a deal involving the President with the proprietor’s wife over a tax evasion matter.

This was, of course, the same conversation in which Nandlall boasted of his blood descent from the ancient Hindu warrior caste, Kshatriya, and encouraged Mr. Gildarie to leave his current employer and join the “elitist’ press unit being set up by the Government.
Continue reading “Bacchus’ excursion avoids the real issues concerning Nandlall”

Posted on

Prorogation and its consequences

Introduction
Today’s column looks at the implications and consequences of the prorogation of the Parliament as promulgated by President Ramotar. Given the widespread unfamiliarity with the prorogation power and its use, it is not surprising that the development has generated such wide ranging and at times contradictory views in the media. There are two such views which though peripheral, warrant some comment: one on the description of the Constitution and the other the spending authority of the Executive during prorogation.

Some persons take objections to the prorogation powers being attributed to what many describe as the Burnham Constitution. They are being over-sensitive. The reference is eponymous and descriptive, not political or pejorative. The Munroe Doctrine is not any less the Monroe Doctrine because John Kennedy applied it or Obama modified its practical application. Certain documents are so path-breaking that they take on the name and the character of the perceived author such as the “Kaldor Budget” of the PPP Government in 1962, even though Kaldor was not even a member of the Government, let alone the Minister of Finance.

Rather than defending the Constitution these writers and commentators should address their minds to the governance model underpinning the Constitution and offer their comments and recommendations for enhancement. This prorogation has strengthened the conviction, among supporters and critics of the Government that the model is not only not working but is counterproductive.

The other is the opinion expressed by Member of Parliament and of the Shadow Cabinet Mr. Ronald Bulkan who argues that the Executive has spending authority only up to December 31, 2014. Unfortunately Mr. Bulkan did not say whether he was expressing a view shared by the Shadow Attorney General Mr. Basil Williams and the Shadow Cabinet even as he suggested that any public expenditure after that date (presumably other than direct charges on the Consolidated Fund), would be unconstitutional and illegal.

If that view is shared by Mr. Williams, it begs the question whether Mr. Williams is in the process of seeking an interpretation by the High Court or whether he will have his legal challenge ready come December 31, 2014. If on the other hand, Mr. Bulkan’s opinion is entirely personal, it seems more than a little irresponsible for any MP to be saying to all public employees – teachers, nurses, police, etc. – that any payment to them for services rendered after December 31, 2014 will be unconstitutional and illegal until sanctioned by the National Assembly. This is time for political education and action, not unjustifiable scare mongering.
Continue reading “Prorogation and its consequences”