Author: Christopher Ram

This was Published on July 3, 2020

Dear Editor,

The lull in election letters as we move towards the election defeat staring the APNU+AFC+WPA, allows me the opportunity to react to the responses to my letter of June 13, 2020 edition of SN, `A movement once famous for its values and Rodneyite principles is now deeply involved in attempts to rig the 2020 elections’. Readers will probably recall that a response came first from Tacuma Ogunseye, then Desmond Trotman and latterly Eusi Kwayana.  I will ignore the innuendoes and attempted attacks by Ogunseye and Trotman as unworthy of both the WPA we all knew, or a reply and merely seek to correct Kwayana who seemed to mix-up, unwittingly I hope, my reference to our conversation when he was leaving Guyana in the heat of the Buxton troubles with when he returned for the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry. I would like to maintain my respect for Kwayana and the privacy of our conversations even as he chooses to highlight a narrative reflective of an obviously evolved view of events and key actors.

I was both surprised and amused at the lengths to which Ogunseye would go to fabricate facts. He accused me of being a major shareholder in a company of which Ram & McRae is the independent auditor a statement which an Editor’s note forced him to retract. That was not his only fabrication. His letter also stated that “What Ram has failed to tell readers is that it was under the PNC/Burnham regime, aided by his buddy, Elvin McDavid, who at the time was a powerful politician in the ruling party and government that “opened” the door for Ram to emerge as a successful businessman and now an economic power in the country. The genesis of his economic empire lies in the support he received from Mc David’s organised “state patronage”.

As the following shows, and he can confirm this with Kwayana, the facts are quite different.

I left Guyana as an employed person in 1978 for Grenada where I worked first with Coopers & Lybrand and then the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) led by Maurice Bishop. After the invasion, I returned to Guyana with my young family to set up home. Among those returning were Freddie Kissoon, Ms. Denise Cossou and economists Claremont Kirton and Eddie Dewar. The latter two and I set up the ambitiously named Management and Economic Consultancy Services Limited along partnership lines. After a few months of struggle and no work, they packed up and left. I was determined to stay on and set up an accounting practice which Ogun refers to as an economic power.

Miles Fitzpatrick who had also worked with the PRG rejoined the law firm de Caires and Fitzpatrick and persuaded David de Caires to give me “a brace”. I would visit their office every Friday afternoon to balance the partnership’s books. I supplemented my meagre income by doing some moonlighting accounting work with an old friend from South West London College who had an accounting practice in Central Trinidad. Because I had written in 1980 as Purpose of Visit on my immigration landing card “To attend Walter Rodney’s Funeral”, a complete search of person and luggage on arrival had become obligatory. I soon discovered however that an offer of a copy of Time magazine as good an explanation as any to ease the entry process!

In the meantime, I had reconnected with Paul Chan-a-Sue, my old boss from Bookers Stores Limited Guyana. Paul offered me a small engagement to set up an accounting system at National Printers Ltd. Shortly before the commencement date, Paul informed me that he had been “advised” by Mr. Elvin McDavid, Chief Political Advisor to President Burnham, to withdraw the offer on the instructions of Burnham. (Mr. Chan-a-Sue who is still around has consented to my use of his name in this letter). During that time when the State boasted of controlling the commanding heights of the economy, all State audit and accounting work was reserved entirely for Thomas, Stoll and Dias. Even crumbs were not available to the few private accounting and audit firms around and the period witnessed the exodus of some of our brightest accountants.  

Sometime after McDavid’s removal by Hoyte as Chief Political Adviser to the President following Burnham’s death, Mrs. Doreen de Caires called to tell me that McDavid, whose house in Queenstown had been rented by the Stabroek News, was concerned about his tax affairs and requested her to inquire of me whether I would assist him. I agreed and brought his affairs up to date, all at no cost.

Anyone who knows Elvin would tell you he was not a shy man and even while we were meeting to finalise his work, he requested similar work for Mrs. Viola Burnham on the same terms which he enjoyed! I agreed and I have to say that I have met few women with Mrs. Burnham’s charm, elegance and humility. Elvin and I did become friends in the late eighties, and he as the pioneer of the Burnham Foundation invited me to deliver the feature presentation at one of the early anniversary events for Burnham. But money or work from Burnham, McDavid and Viola? – definitely never.      

I do not need any further apology from Mr. Ogunseye. What is important to me is that the public must not be misled or deceived by those in support of our new riggers.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram   

This was Published on June 22, 2020

Dear Editor,

There appears to be a mistaken view that any decision by the Court of Appeal in the case brought by Eslyn David seeking to stop the declaration of the results of the March 2 elections is unappealable. That view is simplistic and wrong. Put shortly, the view is that the term “exclusive jurisdiction” used in Article 177 to describe the powers of the Court of Appeal, makes any decision by it unappealable.

Holders of that view may even consider that section 4 (3) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act supports their position. That sub-section contains another exclusion of jurisdiction with the following words: “Nothing in this Act shall confer jurisdiction on the Court to hear matters in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal which at the time of entry into force of this Act was declared to be final by any law.” In other words, cases before the CCJ Act came into force constituted settled law and outside of the reach of the CCJ.

The situation changed radically after the Act came into force, opening the doors of appeal from a wide array of cases and matters. Exclusivity was no longer assured as Article 133 of the Constitution makes clear. That Article provides that “Parliament may make such provision as it deems fit authorising any court established or to be established, as the final court of appeal for the Caribbean to be the final court of appeal for Guyana.”

And Parliament did just that. Section 6 of the CCJ Act states that “an appeal shall lie to the [Caribbean] Court from decisions of the Court of Appeal as of right (emphasis added) in [among other things], any civil or criminal proceedings which involve a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution or in in any proceedings that are concerned with the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court relating to redress for the contravention of the provisions of the Constitution for the protection of fundamental rights.”

In my view therefore, there is no question that any decision by the Court of Appeal in the David case is appealable to the CCJ as of right. 

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

This was Published on June 19, 2020

Dear Editor,

I read with surprise a social media post alleging that “tons of documents” were removed from the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) and destroyed.

The GRA has procedures for the disposal of documents and records and I find the story that several trucks were escorted by GRA enforcement ranks during broad daylight more than a bit implausible. What I can respond to directly however, is the statement in the post that staff were instructed to leave the building at 4 PM. It just so happens that I arrived at the Camp Street building at 4:10 PM and witnessed there numerous staff when I arrived and a lesser number when I left at about 4:45 PM.

Even making allowance for the liberality of social media, I think it is really sad that the careers and reputation of anyone, including professionals like Commissioner-General Godfrey Statia, could be so easily impugned. It makes me recall how badly the  former Commission-er General, the late Mr. Khurshid Sattaur was treated by the Granger administration on its assumption of office and how unceremonious was his departure. I understand that as an act of fraternity and professional courtesy, Statia, on his assumption to the top position in the GRA, sought to rectify the injustice done to Sattaur. 

For this country to move forward, we have to discourage character assassination and personal spite. And importantly, I would caution against any attempt to discredit and undermine the country’s main Revenue agency which is an inevitable consequence of the type of post we witnessed on Wednesday. 

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram 

This was Published on June 16, 2020

Dear Editor,

Fifteen weeks following the March 2, 2020 general and regional elections, it seems that the process is coming to a close. This is despite the release of two conflicting reports submitted to the Guyana Elections Commission within the space of two days: the first by the Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield who has a statutory function under the Representation of the People Act and the other by the CARICOM Scrutinising Team. Guyana owes a debt of gratitude to the three individuals who slogged away for thirty-three days without interruption or any sign of flagging to help restore trust in our electoral system. President Granger praised then as “the most legitimate interlocutor on the Guyana situation” and the members of the team as competent to produce work of an international standard. Granger publicly expressed the wish that he would like them to succeed.

It was clear that Keith Lowenfield went way outside of his remit as set out in the recount Order and made findings and conclusions that had no legal basis, even though his report was endorsed by no less a luminary than Attorney General Basil Williams. I want to believe that Lowenfield made an innocent mistake in failing to understand what a summary is or the scope of his report. Mr. Lowenfield is not an attorney and is probably not aware of the provisions of Article 163 which makes the High Court the exclusive arbiter of matters relating to elections. More troublingly however is that Lowenfield felt it was in his power to disenfranchise close to 275,000 voters or 60% of those who voted. He does not understand the principle of presumption of legality and the onus and burden of proof. Had he been better advised those legally elementary mistakes could have been avoided as well as the ridicule being thrown at him.

The CARICOM Scrutinising Team has now made his own report into a series of amateurish mistakes and it is now up to GECOM how to reconcile the two. Both reports are now being “deliberated on” by GECOM whose chairperson coincidentally is a retired judge. Despite the origin of their appointments, she and the other six commissioners are under oath to honour, uphold and preserve the Constitution. She more than they would recognise that they do have a fiduciary obligation to the electorate and to conduct themselves without fear or favour, affection or goodwill.

As it is the Commissioners are political appointees under an independent chairperson. It would be truly unfortunate and unhelpful to our democracy if the chairperson is forced to use a casting vote and it would go some way in restoring trust in the factions of the electorate if the chairperson can persuade her fellow commissioners to avoid a vote and rather come to an agreement by consensus. As a long-standing Judge she no doubt has years of experience in the adversarial court system and persuading rival sides to compromise. 

But there is one person who carries an even greater role and influence and that is the APNU+AFC Presidential candidate David Granger. The elections were hard fought but it is time to bring it to an end. It is in the nature of competitive politics that one side seeks to persuade the electorate that it is more deserving of their vote than the other side. While defeat is always painful, it must never be dishonourable and Granger will go a long way in restoring his credibility and the dignity of the high office he holds if he would call the PPP/C’s presidential candidate to congratulate him, wish him well but signify to him that the Opposition is a legitimate part of the head table called the National Assembly.

Granger must rest assured that all the young people whose voices came to the fore were fighting not for the PPP/C but for democracy.

The impending end of the electoral cycle solves only one of our country’s problems. We still have to deal with the coronavirus and now we are told that our Treasury is empty. The World Court will soon be engaged in our long-festering issue with Venezuela. Our differences should end at our borders and both President-elect Irfaan Ally and outgoing President Granger as nationalists must both work towards the preservation of our sovereignty and territorial wholeness.

There is a lot resting on the shoulders of the GECOM commissioners and they need to put political differences aside and put Guyana first. But with Granger rests the opportunity and the duty to place the national interest over partisan interest. 

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

This was Published on June 14, 2020

Dear Editor,

Forty years and one day ago, the people of Guyana witnessed the assassination of one of the country’s greatest sons, Dr. Walter Rodney, the inspirational voice of the WPA. The unmistakeable hands of PNC Founder Leader Forbes Burnham, through the instrumentality of the Guyana Defence Force, were found on the figurative trigger. What caused Burnham to proceed to such an extreme measure was that his series of rigged elections had been exposed internationally, much to his embarrassment. With the security of unchallenged power, Burnham and his PNC pursued policies which ruined the economy of the most resource-rich country of the Caribbean. It required the support of the Americans and the British to facilitate the return of democracy in Guyana. It required the intervention of the IMF, the World Bank and other donor agencies and countries to restore viability to the Guyana economy.

We seem destined for another assassination. This time not of a single or a few persons, but of a nation, of democracy, of the right to vote and to have that vote counted. In an act of extreme cynicism, historian David Granger and wannabe heir to the Burnham curse, chose the anniversary of Burnham’s assassination of Rodney to make his own mark on history.

In the culmination of a move by Granger four years ago to hijack the elections machinery by the unlawful installation of former judge James Patterson as the head of GECOM, the Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield gave Granger his wish by declaring that he could not ascertain that “the recount results meet criteria of fair, credible elections”. Here is a man who has been employed by GECOM for approximately two decades, who has supervised the spending of around fifteen billion dollars ($15 billion), admitting that he is incapable of carrying out his basic function. His incompetence however has implications beyond $15 billion. It will cost this country its democracy. 

From the top, there was Vincent Alexander who steered through the recount Order that made APNU+AFC agents into unsworn witnesses and Lowenfield the one-man tribunal. And there was the Deputy Elections Officer brought in by Patterson to carry out the `work’ from the inside with able assistance from Aubrey Norton and others from the outside. Of course, Lowenfield and his deputy were not short of cues from Granger and his paid defilers of democracy.

A cursory read of Lowenfield’s report could easily have been taken from Granger’s hymnbook. Just one night before Lowenfield chose to submit his report – he was working on it for an almost forty biblical days – Granger had told a radio interview that there were 7,929 instances of irregularities – approximately three per polling station – and that those directly affected the validity of 257,173 votes or more that 56% of the votes cast in the elections! This is precisely Lowenfield’s line as the following extract from his report shows:

“A total of eighty-six boxes stand affected due to a total of three hundred and thirty-eight anomalies and/or alleged voter impersonation. In other words, approximately 75% of all votes cast for general elections are associated with boxes that stand to be impacted due to either anomalies and/or voter impersonation. Specifically, 3% of the votes cast were impacted by anomalies, while 55% were impacted by voter impersonation, and 17% impacted by both anomalies/irregularities and voter impersonation”.

Lowenfield thinks that his outlandish findings that 56 out of every 100 votes have been tainted by impersonation are more credible than the outstanding work on Elections Day by all the GECOM officials, APNU+AFC officials, party officials and domestic and international observers. According to Lowenfield, APNU+AFC has 125,000 untainted votes while the PPP/C has 56,000 votes! In a mathematical act of insanity, Lowenfield is disenfranchising about six out of every ten voters. He was Granger’s man and like Gregory Smith did for Burnham, he has worked beyond the call of duty. Mingo is now the lesser of two mischief makers. He made the APNU+AFC the winner via a fraudulent declaration of Region 4. Lowenfield has made the APNU+AFC the winner based on the entire country. Based on Lowenfield’s report, his APNU+AFC actually earned more untainted votes than the PPP/C: 125,000 to 56,000. He has disenfranchised 60 per cent of the voters in the elections. Lowenfield was part of the Mingo fraud by elevating to the Commission Mingo’s fraudulent Region 4 declaration to which the world was exposed. Mingo’s place in the hall of infamy remains assured, now, Lowenfield has joined him, unmasking the real deal.

To show his unashamed bias, Lowenfield accepted without evidence or inquiry, every single allegation or challenge made by the APNU+AFC during the recount. At the same time, his report does not even acknowledge that the other contesting parties had objected to or rebutted many of those spurious and unfounded allegations. In fact, there are reports that many GECOM officials refused to include on the Observation Reports the rebuttals to the APNU+AFC’s made-up allegations. 

If GECOM Chair Claudette Singh does not intervene to stop Lowenfield’s inchoate attempt at assassinating elections in Guyana, Guyana will suffer from the absence of free and fair elections perhaps for decades to come. Unless she and her commissioners act to reverse Lowenfield’s finding, June 13’s claim for being a day of national disgrace in Guyana is doubly assured.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram