Tag: CLICO

Posted on

The Clico fallout – Duprey, Monteil and Geeta Singh-Knight

Introduction
The Duprey name is legendary in Trinidad and Tobago. Cecil Duprey, a member of an ordinary local family in a matter of decades rose from practically nothing to become a household name in his country. He founded a successful conglomerate, established a business that would probably have been considered too bid to fail and his grandson Lawrence Duprey had visions of taking the company global. He was street smart and while living his vision – first in the Caribbean and then further afield – played the political field as a major supporter of the corrupt Basdeo Panday government. Duprey seems to have won President Jagdeo’s confidence here in Guyana which seems to have made available to him and his company CLICO endless opportunities to invest in Guyana. For example, CLICO’s forestry subsidiary Caribbean Resources Limited was allowed to retain concessions over huge swathes of Guyana’s forests even though it had for years defaulted on its obligations to the Guyana Forestry Commission. Duprey was preferred to DDL for GuySuCo’s molasses and was negotiating for an investment in an ethanol plant.

Mr Lawrence Duprey surrounded himself with some bright accountants, including Andre Monteil, a classmate of mine at South West London College from 1970 to 1973. Monteil is credited with being a key architect of CLICO’s expansion and some of its more aggressive and possibly illegal activities. While Monteil’s role in some transactions made him quite unpopular in Trinidad and Tobago, for the better part of two years, it was felt the Mr Duprey was untouchable. That belief was shattered this past week in Trinidad and both gentlemen are now in some real problems.

Double whammy
Reports emanating from Trinidad and Tobago suggest that the government of that country is moving against Lawrence Duprey and Andre Monteil for civil and or criminal conduct in the collapse of the insurance giant CLICO and its parent CL Financial. A civil lawsuit was filed last Tuesday by Trinidad’s Central Bank and CLICO against Duprey and Monteil for alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of CLICO assets which led to the fall of CLICO in January 2009. Then one day later Attorney General Anand Ramlogan directed that all files coming out of the probe into the collapse of insurance giant CLICO should be forwarded to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard to determine if criminal charges should be laid against Duprey and Monteil. The two hundred page suit should make interesting reading indeed.

Under normal circumstances the authorities in Guyana and the former key officers in CLICO Guyana should be taking great interest in the developments taking place in Trinidad. While the architects of the financial misadventure that has placed our National Insurance Scheme at risk were those in Trinidad, they found compliant Guyanese to carry out the Guyanese leg of transactions, even willing to ignore the country’s laws and defy its regulator. This column had previously called on the Bank of Guyana which has taken over responsibility for regulatory control of the insurance sector to work closely with its counterparts in Trinidad in the investigations and prosecutions of the region’s most expensive financial failure.

Deafening silence
So far we have heard nothing but a deafening silence from the Bank of Guyana whose Governor has, probably dangerously, been appointed the company’s liquidator. I say dangerously because it is not unusual for legal actions to be brought against a liquidator and the person most likely to do so would be the regulator. That is not going to happen even as the liquidation has in essence been contracted out! Indeed my understanding is that CLICO’s former CEO Ms Geeta Singh-Knight is still playing a paid role in the liquidation. We are truly an incredible country.

The CLICO debacle in Guyana has been addressed to some considerable degree in these columns before. I do not intend to do so again. Suffice it to say that the company had breached the provisions of the Insurance Act which require companies carrying on long-term insurance business to invest a base of 85% of its statutory fund in Guyana. In clear contravention of that legal requirement CLICO took the billions of dollars in the Fund and placed it in a related party in The Bahamas, incorrectly claiming that it was invested in Fixed Deposits, a matter that appeared to have escaped the diligent notice of CLICO’s auditors. The directors and officers of CLICO did not comply with a demand/request by the regulator to repatriate the Statutory Fund.

Trouble
Enter the law. Section 19 of the Insurance Act provides that any person who contravenes any provision of the Act, or any of its regulations or any direction or requirement made by the Commissioner of Insurance, is guilty of an offence. Unlike the normal presumption in law where the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, the Insurance Act shifts the burden to the “person” to prove that s/he did not knowingly commit the offence of omission or commission.

Sub-section (2) of the section provides that where an offence is committed by a company – in this case CLICO – and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, principal officer, or other officer or an actuary or auditor of the company, he, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. Ms Singh-Knight was both a director and principal officer of the local company and most certainly it would have been to Ms Singh-Knight that the Commissioner of Insurance would have been addressing correspondence and directions.

There is no doubt in my mind that as the new regulator the Bank of Guyana should have long initiated action against the officers and directors of CLICO Guyana, and that the failure by the BoG amounts in my view to a serious dereliction of duty. Now when the regulator fails, for whatever reason, to protect the public interest, there is trouble indeed. That is the situation we face.

Duprey and Monteil
The question has been posed to me whether Guyana can take similar action here against Duprey and Monteil. That is a question for really seasoned attorneys to answer. The Insurance Act recognizes that insurance may be offered in Guyana by persons who are not in Guyana. In fact the Act defines a person as including “a natural person and any corporation or other entity which is given, or is recognized as having legal personality by the laws of any country or territory.”

The challenge is that the laws of Guyana are generally only enforceable in the country’s courts and the question is under what law can the courts of Guyana compel Mr Duprey to submit to its jurisdiction. Article 38 of the revised Treaty of Chagauramas imposes an obligation on member states of Caricom, within defined limitations, “to remove discriminatory restrictions on banking, insurance and other financial services.”

Oddly, the treaty created a single economic space but left territorial jurisdictions intact, impervious to each territory’s domestic laws. The Caribbean Court of Justice only has original jurisdiction in relation to the treaty and the CSME and appellate jurisdiction from national courts. It may seem commonsensical that crimes or contraventions of provisions of the treaty committed in any territory should be dealt with in that territory. It is certainly worth further consideration and one only has to look at how the US used the long arm of its laws to bring to justice ‘Sir’ Alan Stanford for financial crimes committed in Antigua which defrauded Americans back home.

Local directors
But back to the directors of the local company and in particular Ms Gita Singh, its CEO who was at the centre of the questionable and disastrous transactions. In addition to the infractions of the Insurance Act there were clear breaches of the Companies Act (CA) which governs all companies incorporated or registered in Guyana. S 96 of the Act imposes on every director and officer of a company a duty to (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interest of the company; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

In the discharge of their particular duties which they have assumed, directors are bound to take reasonable care. Failure to exercise such care constitutes negligence. While the normal legal principle is that directors owe their duty to the company and to no one else, directors may be liable to outsiders for their own wrongs. This means that directors who are parties to a fraud or the commission of any other wrong are personally liable on the general principle that a servant or agent who commits a wrong is liable for damages resulting therefrom as well as the company.
Time to act

We should long ago have started an enquiry into CLICO for possible criminal conduct and the Bank of Guyana should, like their counterparts in Trinidad and Tobago, have begun civil action against them and their Trinidadian masters. This would have been an excellent opportunity to expand on our jurisprudence while penalizing those who break our laws and cause our people and country huge losses.

It may be that the Bank of Guyana is afraid to take action because President Jagdeo has stood by Ms Singh-Knight while he throws red herrings about investigating Globe Trust and CLICO. There must be some good reason for him to want to do so but his failure sends the wrong signal that some people can do no wrong and if they do, there will be no consequences.

Posted on

NIS annual report does not provide any evidence of a guarantee of the $5.7B CLICO investment

Dr. Ashni Singh, Senior Minister of Finance last week tabled in the National Assembly the annual reports and accounts of the National Insurance Scheme for the years 2008 and 2009, late to extremely late under the law but quite normal for this Minister.

Business Page in this coming Sunday Stabroek will place these reports under the microscope but for now there is one egregious matter which I think deserves the widest exposure and that is risk to the Scheme of losing $5.8 billion invested by the NIS in the failed CLICO Life and General Insurance Co (S.A.) Limited. At December 31, 2009 the NIS had invested in CLICO’s so-called annuities the sum of $5.748 billion, in addition to $90 million of income earned but not yet received from CLICO. The reality is that because of this reckless and possibly unlawful investment by the board in a Jagdeo-favoured company, 20% or $1 of every $5 of the accumulated fund of workers’ contributions in NIS is now at grave risk, earning nothing in income. The board and its auditors TSD Lal & Co. do not seem particularly concerned.

Perhaps the board and the auditors, which by an unfortunate coincidence are/were also the auditors of CLICO, did not consider the investment bad or doubtful. TSD Lal & Co refers unambiguously in their audit report to a guarantee by the government of the NIS’s investment in CLICO and directs the reader to Note 22 in which the directors too, refer to a guarantee, but in looser language but which appears to have escaped notice by the auditors. The further information provided in note 22 does not by a long stretch provide any evidence of a guarantee but rather proof of a clear conflict of interest between Roger Luncheon, M.D. Chairman of the NIS Board and his position as Head of the Presidential Secretariat, a conflict that would put any careful auditor to great care and, in the circumstances of CLICO to extreme notice. Instead, the auditors and the Board were so impressed and reassured by a mix of quasi-legal/accounting “Luncheonese” that they accepted the following as constituting a guarantee.

“The Chairman of the National Insurance Scheme who is also the Head of the Presidential Secretariat at the Office of the President made the following representation in a letter dated 10th. August 2009:

“The Board of the National Insurance Scheme wishes to advise that it has noted the undertakings made by the President concerning the recovery of NIS investments in CLICO. The Board is also mindful of the unanimous Parliamentary Resolution guaranteeing state support for recovery (emphasis mine) by NIS of its investments in CLICO. As such, the Board has the utmost confidence that the undertaking would be honoured and the investments of NIS in CLICO will be recovered.”

Had the Board not included long-serving and experienced directors like Maurice Solomon FCCA and Paul Cheong, a top director of the Beharry Group, I would have said that it was a case of Luncheon taking the workers of Guyana for a $5.8 billion dollar ride. That he managed to take others along with him is a feat that only a Luncheon would contrive and succeed with.

Other than in note 22 – not Catch 22 – the directors did not even bother to refer to its CLICO exposure in their annual report. A serious Minister of Finance should have referred the report and its undated transmittal letter back to the Board for major revision. Dr. Singh accepted it.

If the investment is not recovered in the very near future, it will be drastically discounted (reduced) by the actuaries in the periodic evaluation on the viability of the Scheme due later this year, with the workers as contributors, bearing the cost. And if it is “recovered” from the public purse, the workers will still bear the cost, this time as taxpayers. In either case, that would leave President Jagdeo, Ms. Gita Singh-Knight of CLICO, Drs. Luncheon and Singh, the entire board of the NIS and its auditors, with varying quantities of red ink indelibly oozing from their hands, without having to bear any other responsibility for the consequences.

Posted on

Advice by the Clico liquidator for continued payment of premiums is legally questionable

In Business Page of October 3rd, 2010 I expressed the hope that those who were entrusted with powers and duties for the liquidation of Clico would ensure full compliance with the laws. For the several hundreds of persons who have so far received their cheques, the law and its processes are not important. But spare a thought for all the others who are in limbo, uncertain of their fate and funds and getting information from Mr. Lawrence Williams, the Court-appointed liquidator, that conflicts with commitments given by President Jagdeo. Let us remember that those in limbo include the NIS which is owed about six billion dollars by Clico and for which one way or the other we the taxpayers will have to bear the cost.

So far the liquidation has gone according to the script written by the President, a script that sets out a process and scheme of preference not consistent with the law. During the time, I have received many complaints and copies of correspondence and policies from persons who were told that because their policies did not have any cash surrender value they have nothing to get. There is merit in that. But what I find most uninformed, irrational and unlawful is what appears to be a circular-type letter sent by Mr. Williams to one policy holder earlier this month.

In the letter Mr. Williams identified eight types of policies sold by the company and encouraged the holders of those policies “to continue payment of premiums to avoid losing contracted benefits.” Whatever might be his intentions – and I know him well enough to know that these are well-meaning – what he is trying to do is legally questionable, unnecessary and unlikely to benefit policyholders.

The principal duty of the liquidator is to call in the assets and ascertain and pay off the liabilities of the entity. He can only carry on any business with the approval of the court.

Of the eight types of policies at least two are not susceptible to cash surrender value so his advice to pay premiums on those is ill-conceived. It would be silly for the holder of one of these policies to put further money into Clico. Find another insurance company and get another policy.

And for those policies that are so susceptible, there is no reason why any negotiations for the sale of a portfolio of policies to another insurance company – the rationale for his “encouragement” – cannot include policies that have already earned cash surrender value and those that have not. Why is he encouraging people to gamble on whether or not the belated efforts will succeed? Insurance is about covering risks, not taking a gamble.

But once again the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance that should be looking after the interest of the policy-holders and advising on technical issues has allowed itself to become a bystander.

The acting Commissioner Ms. Tracy Gibson now has taken up office at Clico, apparently appointed by Mr. Williams, along with Mr. Maurice Solomon, to carry out the liquidation on his behalf. Might I add that under section 375 of the Companies Act, Mr. Williams needed the permission of the court to make those appointments.

Unlawful action and poor supervision have played no small part in the substantial losses the country, its taxpayers and policyholders have suffered from the Clico fallout. Even if the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance makes the doubtful assumption that its obligations with respect to Clico ended with the appointment of a liquidator, the office holder should not abandon policy holders and become associated with actions that can bring the Office into question.

Posted on

Liquidating Clico: Avoiding the pitfalls

Introduction
When I started this series on the failed insurance company I chose the title because of a sincere belief that those who were entrusted with powers and duties for the liquidation of Clico would act responsibly and professionally, and would ensure, at a minimum, full compliance with statutory requirements and ethical standards. Part 1 appeared before the court amended its original order making the Bank of Guyana the liquidator, the amendment appointing in its place, Mr Lawrence Williams in his personal capacity. The significance and ramifications of that change did not seem to affect the conduct of Mr Williams and the Bank of Guyana who together have operated not in accordance with the law but as a cheque-writer seemingly carrying out the publicly announced wishes of the chief politician. That was what the President seems to have expected of Mr Williams as Governor of the Bank, acting as the court-appointed liquidator. He and his team appear to have acted on those wishes rather than in conformity with Part V of the Companies Act under which the liquidation was ordered.

This effective impunity exists because of the way the court normally operates. Once it has pronounced on a matter, either by an order or a decision, it has no further role in the matter. Lawyers, who have historically and almost invariably used Latin to encapsulate major legal principles – and to sound learned – refer to the judicial officer becoming functus officio. The Chief Justice could cringe at how the law in the case of Clico is being abused, but he has little power to do anything about it. The law has detailed provisions regulating the conduct of the liquidator, mechanisms for accounting, accountability and oversight, and a role for the Official Receiver. None of these is being observed. In fact as I pointed out in a letter to the press earlier this week, the process has been handed to or taken over by unauthorised persons who legally have no role in the matter.

Just pay the cheques
It is not that any of these is being done surreptitiously or under the radar. No, they are done in the full glare of publicity and with a disdainful disregard for the law, even by lawyers. And condoned and encouraged by well-meaning individuals arguing that persons have waited long enough to get back their money so the law or some columnist must not get in the way! Just pay the cheques.

The major starting point for the liquidation after due notification would be the statement of affairs summarising the assets and liabilities of the company and indicating their relative ranking. This has not been done and the liquidator has failed to carry out his first major duty. Unauthorised persons have been inserted in the process while the Official Receiver has either been shut out or has stayed out. That is more than personality or formality. It has to do with reporting to the court and investigating into conduct, including frauds.

So what might the financial picture have looked like in the statement of affairs, a document that is required to be filed on the public records? The reality is that the public will never know since the liquidator has chosen not to file one. The Judicial Manager did present to the court a statement of net assets as at February 28, 2009, more than eighteen months ago. The picture presented then was as follows:

Value of net assets
The difference between the carrying values of the liabilities and their best and worst case scenarios is that the liabilities of $4.9 billion did not include the actuarial values of the outstanding policies, those that were genuine insurance policies and those high interest earning instruments that were being sold Ponzi-like and bought by unthinking but often educated individuals looking to make more than an average buck. Those so-called policies were described in the recent court papers as illegal.

Measuring of the loss
What the figures mean is that if assets are sold for the values shown as best case and liabilities met at those values, Clico’s depositors and policyholders would lose $8.1 billion. If they realise and are met at the amounts shown as worst case, the loss climbs to $11.9 billion.

We got lucky and received roughly $3 billion from the Caricom Petroleum Fund, thereby reducing the potential loss on the best case scenario to $5.1 billion and $8.9 billion on a worst case.

The liquidator needs to go after every asset of the company but he may find that there will be pluses and minuses. For example, there are some 4,285,224 shares in Banks DIH Limited valued G$51,422,688 not in the name of Clico and therefore excluded from net assets. Similarly excluded from the value of net property is a property located at 19 Smythtown, New Amsterdam, Berbice with an estimated value of $2 million.

On the other hand, the Judicial Manager has optimistically included a forced sale value of the Camp Street palace at $1.2 billion on a best case and a value of $750 million on a worst case. In fact it seems that the realised value on an arm’s length forced sale may be more around $500 million. President Jagdeo, an economist who has found novel and sometimes illegal means of granting subsidies, has suggested that the government might be interested in buying the asset at a premium!

Another source of inflows is from the various inter-company balances with companies that may have assets on which the liquidator can put his/their hands. Clico Bahamas is dead while CRL, a Clico subsidiary located in Guyana, owes Clico Guyana some $2.2 billion on a loan on which neither capital nor interest was being paid but which the auditors Deloitte and Touche have shown at their unimpaired values. In the statement of net assets at February 28, 2009 prepared by another accounting firm, the CRL balance is shown at nil value, because of doubts about the guarantee. But the loan is secured by a guarantee from the parent CL Financial and a first debenture over the assets of CRL so there may be some assets which can be sold and some money recovered by the liquidator. And on the other side of the balance sheet, Clico Guyana owes Clico Trinidad $941 million, which I think it is safe to say they will not have the gall to claim and which in any case should not be paid.

Priority of payments
Where the assets of a company being wound up are not sufficient to pay the liabilities, the order of payment is crucial. In such a case, who should be paid first is governed by the Companies Act which provides that in a winding up, there shall be paid in priority to all other debts (emphasis mine):

(a) all local government rates and all public taxes of every description due from the company within the period of twelve months before the relevant date and not exceeding in the whole one year’s rates and taxes;

(b) all wages and salary of any employee in respect of services rendered to the company during the period of four months before the relevant date;

(c) all wages of any employee, whether payable for time or piece work, in respect of services rendered to the company during the period of four months before the relevant date; or [sic]

(d) contributions payable under the National Insurance and Social Security Act.

The GRA
These persons/entities including the NIS and the GRA have statutory priority, but indications are that the liquidator is ignoring this, and it has gone unchallenged by these statutory bodies. In fact, the GRA is doubly affected because its staff pension scheme which is administered by Clico is in no different position from the other schemes with Clico. It has been told that the liquidator and the team to which he has unlawfully delegated his statutory function will look at them after the first set of money has been exhausted. And to make the bad worse, the first cheques that are being written are not to entities such as the legal and proper pension schemes with possibly tens of thousands of members but to unsecured creditors whose policies even the company now admits were illegal.

The NIS
The amount of the deficit in the best case scenario is within the range invested in Clico by the National Insurance Scheme whose 2008 financial statements show close to one hundred million dollars in accrued income and six billion dollars of unimpaired assets. Admitting that this six billion dollars investment is no longer earning any income for the Scheme, NIS chairman Dr Roger Luncheon is quoted in the Stabroek News as expressing confidence of full recovery since that is what the President promised. It might have been useful for Dr Luncheon to consult with another of his board members, the delegated liquidator Mr Maurice Solomon to get some idea if and when this money will be recouped.

The reality facing the NIS is that its fund is now impaired even as the President tries to fill the hole created by the unlawful conduct of the directors of Clico. Does it matter to him and those who so carelessly invested in the Ponzi-like scheme offered by Clico that they are being rewarded at the expense of the NIS? No wonder then that several months after its completion, the Minister of Finance is contravening the law and withholding the tabling of the 2008 NIS Annual Report in the National Assembly.

No legal sanctions
It is all now history and the public is willing to forget that the NIS was part of the arrangement with Mr Lawrence Duprey, our own Allen Stanford, under which the NIS would invest in Clico to allow the latter to invest in the Berbice Bridge Company Inc (BBCI). Some ghosts do come back to haunt us even as Clico’s director Ms Gita Singh-Knight remains not only an integral part of Clico but also chairperson of BBCI.

Despite all the laws and the rules governing liquidations, nothing will come out of the illegalities that have characterised Clico’s operations over the past several years. There are too many secrets to hide and personalities to protect. Breaking the laws by the Jagdeo administration is commonplace, and if the President can delegate his immunity as he seems to have done at the cultural centre, what is there to prevent Mr Lawrence Williams delegating his in personam duties? After all, this is how things operate in Guyana and this region.

Bet
Without placing anything on the table, I would bet that no one will be brought up under section 446 of the Companies Act 1991 dealing with fraudulent trading and operating Clico “with reckless disregard of the company’s obligation to pay its debts and liabilities; or with reckless disregard of the insufficiency of the company’s assets to satisfy its debts and liabilities.”

Or under section 447 of the Companies Act which provides in part that if any past or present officer or liquidator of the company is guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company, the court can order the person to contribute such sum to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust as the court thinks just.

But it is section 448 that provides the reason why there will be no investigation into Clico’s affairs. It would mean that the court, either on the application of any person interested in the winding up or on its own motion, direct the liquidator to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sections 446 to 448 clearly do not apply to Clico.

All that is being done illegally could with some imagination have been done legally. For now, Business Page will give up on thinking that it can persuade those involved to mend their ways. It will turn its attention to other things.

Posted on

Bank of Guyana disposed of Clico assets on Friday

I learnt to my consternation that at the Clico Head Office last Friday, the Bank of Guyana (BoG) purported to dispose of assets of the beleaguered insurance company. Consternation because by that time the BoG and its attorneys should have been notified or ought to have known that it was unlawful for it to act as liquidator, and that under section 449 (b) of the Companies Act 1991, it was guilty of an offence.

Consternation too because among the high officials participating in the activities last Friday were Ms Marcia Nadir-Sharma, attorney-at-law and Deputy CEO of NICIL, which should have no hand in matters relating to the liquidation of Clico assets, or any other Clico matters, period. Instead Ms Nadir-Sharma acted as the co-ordinator of the proceedings. Commissioner of Insurance (ag), Ms Tracey Gibson, also an attorney-at-law, and Mr Maurice Solomon, Chartered Accountant, were also among those present.

My understanding is that the government might be interested in the huge building in Camp Street to house government ministries, and NICIL which has earned quite an unfavourable reputation over the past few years, would be in a conflict of interest. This building has a market value of $1,503M. I understand, however, that the highest bid was $450M.

Ms Gibson has been unavailable to perform her statutory duty under section 150 of the Insurance Act to allow members of the public to inspect documents filed under that act, but presents herself at a liquidation process in which her office has no legal, statutory or moral role. In fact, had her office acted as the law required it to in relation to Clico, we would not now be in this eleven billion dollar mess. It must be said, however, that Ms Gibson was not Commissioner while policyholders’ money was being shipped unlawfully out of Guyana and took no active part in Friday’s proceedings. If she was there at all, then it ought to have been to see that no hanky-panky took place. Now, let us see what she is going to do about the improprieties she witnessed.
For his part, Mr Maurice Solomon is a long-standing director of the board of NIS which is responsible for the ill-advised and poorly supervised multi-billion dollar investment in Clico, the timing, probabilities and consequences of full recovery of which are in considerable doubt. My information is that at the proceedings, Mr Solomon was variously described as the “BoG representative” and as “the Liquidator.” Interestingly, Mr Solomon’s firm is also the auditor of the New Building Society to which Clico sold its shares and which is now to be brought under the FIA!

At the apex of this, is the Bank of Guyana and its Governor Mr Lawrence Williams, prepared to ignore section 449, other provisions of the law and an order of the court.

Today, days after the issue of the amended order by the Chief Justice (ag) revoking the appointment of the Bank of Guyana as liquidator, the Deputy Governor of the Bank is quoted as making official pronouncements regarding Clico’s liquidation, not only compounding the section 449 offence but acting in contempt of the order by the court. But this is Guyana – where the law is routinely, casually and flagrantly breached, where professionals abandon the rule of law in favour of silence and profits, where the press is missing at crucial times, and where all of this is sanctioned or permitted by those responsible for upholding and enforcing the law. It is time to say that Guyana ‘really gone,’ that there is no hope for our bleeding country.