Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

In today’s sitting of the National Assembly, the Minister of Parlia-mentary Affairs and Governance will table the Ethnic Relations Commis-sion’s audited financial statements for the years ended 31st December 2015 to 2023. This tabling is wrong in several respects.

The ERC was established under the Constitution. Article 212 E requires it to submit to the Speaker of the National Assembly an annual report on the Commission’s activities for the preceding year. That report must then be laid before the National Assembly as soon as practical after the end of the year. The ERC must also prepare and publish an executive summary of its annual report and every special report in widely accessible media within forty-five days of submitting such a special report to the National Assembly.

The spectacle the nation is about to witness is ten years late, and incomplete. Audited financial statements are part of, not a substitute for, the required report or the executive summary. It is incredible, unacceptable, and disgraceful that successive Speakers of the National Assembly – Raphael Trotman and Manzoor Nadir – have been so delinquent in reminding Shaikh Moeenul Hack, Chair-man, and Gomin Comacho, CEO, of their egregious violation of the Constitution and the principle of good governance.

What is troubling is that neither the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee nor the Auditor General has flagged this shocking violation. It raises questions about the management and usefulness of Parliament, which was allocated over $2 Bn, including statutory expenditures, in 2025, and of the Clerk of the National Assembly, whose performance seems to match that of the National Assembly.

The information on the National Assembly website is so outdated that it is useless, violating the Access to Information Act. No one can hold anyone else accountable when every relevant person and agency is derelict in their duties. And of course, fitness, competence and professionalism have long been cast aside as a requirement for public service.

But this in no way exonerates the Chairman, CEO, and members of the ERC from their gross negligence, dereliction of duty, and violation of oath. It is unthinkable that Mr. Shaikh Hack does not know the relevant provisions of the Constitution under which he is appointed. He is paid over $400,000 monthly plus attractive benefits as the part-time chairman of a barely functioning Commission. As a respected religious leader who has violated the sacred oath to observe the Constitution of Guyana, he should do the decent thing and resign.

When these audited financial statements are laid before the National Assembly, the Speaker should demand an undertaking from the Minister that the constitutionally required reports will be tabled within 21 days, along with a credible explanation for the non-compliance.

Editor, I want to point out that the ERC is not alone in not submitting reports. This is true of other bodies like the Demerara Harbour Bridge and the Central Housing and Planning Authority, which perform essential functions and handle billions of public funds but fail to prepare or publish annual reports.

I have called before: any government agency that fails to meet its basic reporting obligations under the Constitution and the law should not receive public funding until it demonstrates proper accountability.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Letter by Charles Ramson Snr. (Stabroek News 24 -4-25 refers.)

It defies all logic – common sense, even – that Charles Ramson Snr., a former Court of Appeal judge, cannot grasp one of the most elementary functions of his office: to gather and provide the very information that enables the tabling of the annual Report in the National Assembly on the work of the Commissioner of Information.

Contrary to his mistaken belief, he is not a passive bystander in this process. His office must actively compile, organise and submit the necessary data for the annual report. If the President’s office is to produce a report, it can only do so if Ramson first does his job. Worse yet, as the statutory authority on access to information, he should be drafting the report himself, not waiting for the President’s office to do the work he was appointed (and paid millions) to perform.

That a former judge and Attorney General – someone who should understand statutory obligations better than most – fails to make this elementary connection is disturbing. It suggests either  deliberate obstruction or staggering incompetence, neither of which is acceptable for an office meant to safeguard democracy.

Ramson’s continuing failures and stubborn refusal to perform his duties are not just negligence and arrogance but a gross dereliction of duty. His failure shows that he is unfit to understand, let alone perform, the Commissioner of Information’s most basic responsibilities and functions. It seems irrational that the holder of the country’s second highest award is proud of a record of no information and no report tabled.

It is not enough that he resigns – he should be fired for non-performance, conflict of interest, obstruction to democracy and an embarrassment to the country’s image and reputation. 

Ramson can then re-convert the Office of the Commission of Information to his private residence. There he will be free to wallow in his thessaurian world of formal and complete retirement with full justification for doing nothing. By his measure, any replacement will provide value for money and citizens’ constitutional right to information. 

That is what the protests outside his residence/office were about.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I write to clarify the statement attributed to former President Donald Ramotar in your story “Gov’t does not intervene in work of Commissioner of Information – President,” which appeared in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. This is what Mr. Ramotar is quoted to have said on being contacted by the Sunday Stabroek: “I appointed him [Charles Ramson, Snr.] on the insistence of the Opposition because they put in the constitution this aspect of Access to Information,” and that [like the current President], “he too was not aware of protests against Ramson.”

Editor, it is against my personal values to share private conversations publicly, and I do so now only because a constitutional matter of public interest is at stake. When public figures make statements that directly contradict the truth, personal preferences must give way to broader interests.

I speak with Mr. Ramotar several times per week, sharing views on international and national matters and about our respective activities and can categorically state that the protests over the past three weeks have been a regular topic of our conversations. In the latter regard, Mr. Ramotar specifically explained the origin of the Access to Information Act, stating that pressure from the diplomatic community forced the matter to the Cabinet and that it was Dr. Roger Luncheon, then Head of the Presidential Secretariat, who put forward Ramson’s name, without objection from anyone present.

As an aside, the Access to Information Act was to give effect to Article 146 of our Constitution. It speaks volumes that the Former President admitted to me that the Act was introduced at the behest of the international community. This admission leads me to infer why the current administration is so dismissive of civil society’s call for the Government to act on the gross failure over several years of the Commissioner of Information, Mr. Ramson, to do his job. 

This direct contradiction between what Mr. Ramotar stated privately in our conversations and what he has now claimed publicly raises disturbing questions about the credibility, integrity and moral values of those who serve at every level of government.

The importance of truthfulness from presidents, vice presidents, ministers, heads of government agencies, and other government functionaries cannot be overstated. The higher we go, the greater the duty. Public trust in our institutions depends fundamentally on the honesty and integrity of those who lead them. When public figures deliberately misrepresent facts, they undermine the very foundation of public confidence in our democratic system, erode institutional credibility, damaging the social contract between government and citizens.

If we are to build and maintain trust between the government and citizens, statements made by current and former officials must reflect the truth, not convenient narratives that shift with the political winds.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I am writing concerning the announcement of a “one-off cash grant” by the NIS for persons who have attained pensionable age but with between 500 and 749 contributions, one short of the number for a lifetime pension. The “award” was posted on the Facebook page of Dr. Ashni Singh, a Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, including the National Insurance Scheme. These awards reveal the government’s startling insensitivity and callousness toward our nation’s retired workers.

For workers who have between 500-549 contributions recorded by NIS (representing approximately 10-11 years of labour at 50 contributions per year), the government offers $260,000. This sounds substantial until one realizes it amounts to just $84.80 per day when spread across the average 8.4-year pension term (from age 60 to the average pensioner’s age of 68.4 years). Continuing with these derisory awards, we note the following:

– Those with 550-599 contributions receive $390,000 ($127.20 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

– Those with 600-699 contributions receive $520,000 ($169.60 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

– Those with 700-749 contributions receive $650,000 ($212.00 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

These individuals dedicated over a decade to formal employment, dutifully making their NIS contributions, “awarded” what can only be described as a pittance in return. Many have contributed far more than what appears in their official records, victims of an inefficient system that has repeatedly failed to document workers’ contributions properly. This administrative failure represents 28 years of abysmal oversight – 24 years under PPP administrations and 4 years under the Coalition Government. For nearly three decades, successive governments have allowed the NIS to deteriorate, ignoring actuarial recommendations, neglecting their responsibility to ensure proper record-keeping of workers’ contributions while expecting these workers to fund the system.

What makes this situation particularly galling is its presentation and timing. The government’s announcement features the President’s image more prominently than the actual awards, suggesting that these meagre sums should be received as generous gifts rather than the rightful entitlements they represent. Although these payments were announced several months ago, the timing of their implementation now – with such prominent political imagery – can only be interpreted as an undisguised attempt to bamboozle voters, using pensioners’ rightful entitlements as political currency for the upcoming elections.

Adding further insult to injury, these paltry payments are financed from a $10 billion allocation in the 2025 Budget. This substantial sum represents about 40% of the total amount paid to all 40,327 full pensioners by the NIS in 2022. Rather than using these funds to improve the lives of all pensioners meaningfully, the government has chosen to distribute them as politically timed handouts, creating the illusion of generosity while shortchanging those who have contributed to our nation’s development.

Rather than taking responsibility for successive governments’ collective failure to provide proper oversight and implement necessary reforms, the current administration now presents these derisory payments as some gift when they represent a tiny fraction of what workers are rightfully owed after decades of governmental incompetence.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I am writing regarding Vice President Jagdeo’s recent attacks on the GHRA and the Red Thread at Babu Jaan and Minister McCoy’s subsequent defence of these partisan statements.

As we aspire to be “One Guyana”, it is counterproductive for government officials to vilify organisations dedicated to advancing human rights and transparency for all Guyanese. In any circumstance, political leaders – junior and senior – have a responsibility to unify rather than propagate division. When the Vice President labels respected civil society organisations or individuals as “haters,” they undermine the collaborative spirit necessary for our nation’s progress.

Mr. Jagdeo’s characterisation of GHRA and the Red Thread as “PPP haters” misunderstands their vital role. What the Vice President labels as “hate” is the necessary work of independent oversight that these organisations provide, regardless of which party holds power. Their critical stance does not make them enemies of the state; it makes them essential participants in our democratic discourse.

I also note the profound irony in Minister McCoy’s accusation of “duplicity” when defending statements made at an explicitly partisan political rally. This blurring of lines between party and state is precisely what civil society organisations stand against. Sadly, this is not the first occasion on which Vice President Jagdeo has used the Babu Jaan gathering for pointed attacks on perceived enemies, nor is this Jagdeo-McCoy dynamic an isolated incident.

The hypocrisy extends to financial accountability. NGOs operate with minimal funding from credible international sources, for which they provide comprehensive accounting and reporting. Contrastingly, political parties in Guyana face no such scrutiny, receiving funds from undisclosed sources without any legal requirement for transparency. More concerning, those who finance the ruling party are frequently rewarded with lucrative government contracts – a more significant threat to our democracy and our society than the operations of civil society organisations.

I have two simple questions for Mr. Kwame McCoy.

One, why is it that in the more than 25 years of the PPP government since 1992 they have never introduced legislation for regulating political parties?

And two why have they not triggered campaign financing legislation? Is it to hide the sources and disbursement of moneys?

This moment demands unity as Guyana faces territorial threats from Venezuela. National cohesion is not achieved by attacking or silencing critics but by embracing diverse voices that strengthen our democracy. Civil society organisations foster the democratic culture, a critical element in our national defense against external threats.

President Ali’s “One Guyana” initiative can only succeed if it embraces rather than alienates independent voices. A genuinely unified Guyana requires substantive respect for diverse perspectives, including those that hold power accountable.

Mr Jagdeo can make a more significant contribution to the country by moving beyond divisive rhetoric and embracing the inclusive dialogue that “One Guyana” purports to represent.

Respectfully,

Christopher Ram