Category: Letters to the editor

Posted on

Nothing illegal about unincorporated bodies operating by the rules

Mr. Claude Raphael writing in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek `Government should be supported in its proposal re GCB’ as `Former Chairman Snr. Selection (cricket) Panel’ has written in support of President Jagdeo’s intervention in the on-going saga of cricket maladministration in Guyana. In so doing Mr. Raphael makes a number of sweeping statements including pronouncements attributed to Chief Justice (ag.) Ian Chang in a decision the latter handed down in the internecine Cricket Board dispute which came before him.

The status of unincorporated entities is far from the straightforward “non-entity” that Mr. Raphael says the Chief Justice deemed them, let alone being illegal, which is far from the case. In this coming Sunday’s Business Page I will review the court’s decision but for now I think it useful that we dispel the myth or fear created by Mr. Raphael’s letter that all those unincorporated entities which have been operating and doing excellent work in Guyana are somehow illegal.

Whilst there are certain juridical limitations imposed on unincorporated entities, once the directors or the management committee members, by whatever name called, are operating within the constitution or by-laws of their organization and the general laws of the country such as noise nuisance, taxation etc., there is nothing illegal about them. They need not fear the police coming after them, or being sued in a civil matter. Let me make a brief comparison: minors also have similar juridical incapacities but illegal they surely are not.

Finally, I wonder the extent to which Mr. Raphael may have been a directly interested party in the court matter and even more pointedly whether the cricket club(s) to which he belongs, or entities on which he would have served in a senior capacity for many years, were “illegal” unincorporated entities.

Posted on

Assent for Bill came 628 days after passage in National Assembly

On Wednesday we collected from the Office of the President the most recent batch of Official Gazettes. Included among these was a Legal Supplement to the Official Gazette dated October 12, 2010 and containing the Forest Act # 6 of 2009.

The Bill for that Act was passed on January 22, 2009 and assented to by the President on October 12, 2010 – 628 days after the passage in the National Assembly. Under the constitution the President has twenty-one days to assent to bills.

Not only does the President continue to show contempt for the country’s constitution which he has taken an oath to uphold, but it seems that he and his Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General are comfortable backdating of the Official Gazette, arguably the country’s most important legal publication.

One must wonder whether such questionable conduct and delay was Vaitarna related or is the result of some persuasion from Norway.

Posted on

Nandalall should direct his advice to Jagdeo, not Kissoon

In a letter appearing in Sunday Kaieteur News July 31 and captioned “Mr. Kissoon is treading on dangerous waters”, Mr. Anil Nandlall, signing as “MP and Attorney-at-Law for His Excellency, President Bharrat Jagdeo”, seeks to offer advice to Mr. Kissoon and threatens contempt of court proceedings over comments made by Mr. Kissoon in his Kaieteur News column.

Mr. Nandlall knows that Mr. Kissoon is represented in the relevant matter by two Attorneys-at-law, with a third soon to be added. As one of those attorneys I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Nandlall that he should spare himself and our client such gratuitous advice and instead direct it to his client, the President, who makes a habit of commenting, like Sir Oracle, on matters that are sub judice.

I wonder if Mr. Nandlall, as a regular attorney-at-law for the President, has cautioned his client of the impropriety of such interventions. If he has, it would be helpful to readers if Mr. Nandlall would comment on an article appearing in Stabroek News of July 30, in which the President makes loaded references to criminal charges against a person involved in a matter in which the President as Minister of Information is currently adjudicating.

Guyanese are aware of the numerous occasions on which Mr. Nandlall’s client has shown contempt for our courts as well as our constitution. His client now demonstrates in the complaint against CNS 6 unmistakable bias and rank abuse of Presidential power, a combination so egregious as to make any comment by Mr. Kissoon pale in comparison.

Finally while Mr. Nandlall seems unable to refer to Mr. Jagdeo without the title His Excellency, I would like to remind him that his instructions were to bring the action against Mr. Kissoon in the name Bharrat Jagdeo, which he did.

Posted on

SN letter did not contain any figure for the cost of the Enmore packaging plant

Mr M Maxwell is normally very careful with the underlying facts and assumptions in his letters and for that reason they are always worth reading. I am therefore surprised that in his letter to the editor in the Stabroek News of May 28, (‘Enmore’s packaging plant produces less than that of Kenya and costs more’) he would carelessly claim that “I provided an overall figure of US$12.5 million for the cost of only the Enmore packaging plant itself.”

I would appreciate if Mr Maxwell could indicate where in my letter in the Stabroek News of May 17, I made any such statement. Perhaps he is confusing the letter with a report carried in the Kaieteur News in which the journalist used some of the information contained in my Stabroek News letter. But clearly it could not be with respect to the price tag since that was not in my letter to the Stabroek News.

Mr Maxwell might recall that it was the Minister of Agriculture Mr Robert Persaud who following a January 2010 visit to the Enmore plant then under construction told the press that that government was investing $2.4 billion – roughly US$12 million – in the packaging plant.

This is not intended to be a criticism of Mr Maxwell since it is human to err.

Posted on

Acceptance of invitation from Agriculture Ministry and GuySuCo

I note in an article (Kaieteur News, Wednesday May 25, 2011) captioned “GuySuCo details US$12.5 expenditure on packaging plant”, statements emanating from Mr. Robert Persaud MBA, Minister of Agriculture and the Guyana Sugar Corporation. Both parties were reacting to a Kaieteur News article of the previous day, in which the newspaper raised questions about the cost of the plant.

I am sure that both the Minister and the Corporation are aware that my contribution to the discussion on the GuySuCo packaging plant was by way of a letter in the SN, of May 17, 2011.

In that letter I corrected President Jagdeo’s exaggerated pronouncement of sugar’s contribution to the GDP as 16% instead of approximately 6%. The focus of my letter was to caution that the packaging plant, welcome though it is, could not be a silver bullet for the serious financial problems of the Corporation.

In that connection I drew attention to the wave of packaging plants taking place across the world and specifically referred to a 300,000 tonnes capacity Plant by Mumias Sugar Company (MSC) with a daily capacity of 700 tonnes and a price tag of US$3M.

I challenge both GuySuCo and the Minister of Agriculture to show either in my letter or anywhere else where I referred to or questioned the cost of the Enmore Packaging Plant.

I note that Mr. Robert Persaud has challenged Kaieteur News and me “to conduct a forensic audit of GuySuCo and the Packaging Plant.” I herby accept this challenge to undertake a professional audit, the cost of which will be borne by Kaieteur News.

I hope this is not just bluff on Mr. Persaud’s part and that he has both the authority and the courage to carry through with his challenge. I now await word from him.