Category: Letters to the editor

Posted on

In the final NCN debate on institutional corruption Ashni Singh committed the same error of which he accused Nagamootoo

In the final NCN debate on institutional corruption broadcast recently, Senior Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh accused Mr Moses Nagamootoo of the AFC of “pretence,” “misrepresentation,” “opportunism” and “making false charges of corruption” against the PPP/C.

In an attempt to show how far the government has gone to remove the opportunities and possibilities for corruption, the Minister said on the programme that in the case of the tax laws, his government has “removed opportunities for discretion, imposed rigid rules-based system over all aspects of the corporations, rules have been framed for the granting of incentives …” The facts show otherwise.

What makes the Minister’s accusations so contrived is that he could not have forgotten the infamous case of the Ramroop group in which he and Mr Jagdeo rushed to grant illegal tax concessions to the group. And when confronted with the embarrassment of the illegality – which Dr Singh missed not once but thrice – he spearheaded a change in the law to legalise the concessions to the government’s friend. That cannot constitute a rules-based system.

What was ironic about the accusation is that by his false boast of removal of discretions, the Minister committed the same error of which he seeks to accuse Mr Nagamootoo. A tax holiday under the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act is easily the most valuable tax concession available, and its award is substantially discretionary. This is how the relevant section of the Act begins:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Income Tax Act or the Corporation Tax Act, it is hereby provided that the Minister may grant an exemption from corporation tax…” (emphasis added).

Readers might be aware that by law once an entity is exempt from Corporation Tax, it is also exempt from Property Tax (section 6) and Capital Gains Tax (section 5). These combined concessions can run to ten years and cost the country billions of dollars in lost revenues. Spin it how much one wants, the language and the power are clearly discretionary.

A less known but certainly not inexpensive concession is contained in the Value-Added Tax Act. By regulations made by the same Minister, any supply of goods and services under an investment agreement entered into on behalf of the government is zero-rated. This means that while the entity does not have to charge VAT on its supply of goods and services, it can recover any VAT it pays on its inputs. The Minister responsible for that Act (Dr Singh) has not indicated the criteria, if any, which a company must meet to qualify for an investment agreement or, that it is he who has the final say on whether or not a person qualifies.

And to go back to the tax holidays, the Minister of Finance who confidently makes such statements that “it is a matter of public record” and that this or that person “ought to know,” must himself know that the Investment Act requires him to publish information regarding tax holidays incentives under the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act. Would the Minister say how transparent and compliant the government has been?

To compound the institutional silence and dereliction, the Act also requires the Audit Office to carry out annually a process audit of the concessions and to make a report to the National Assembly “within six months of the end of each of the financial year.” June 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 have come and gone since the Investment Act became law. Would the Minister say for which year any such a report was made to the National Assembly?

Posted on

Teixeira’s position was absurd and disgraceful

I was invited to make a keynote address to the UG Students for Social Change on the topic ‘Legislating as a means of Effecting Policy Changes.’ It is not important that the invitation to me did not indicate that there would be four panellists comprising the Government, the PPP/C, the APNU and the AFC. Nor that ‘certain politicians’ had insisted that they would only participate if they were given the same time to speak as I was given.

What is important for the purposes of this letter is that in the course of the question-and-answer session following the presentations, Ms Gail Teixeira, Presidential Advisor on Governance was categorical that her government did not wish to be distracted by copyright laws and was only interested in reducing the cost of school books. Displaying an enormous insensitivity to Guyana’s obligations under the rules of the World Trade Organisation/WIPO; and under the Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU and the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, she dismissed authors’ rights as property and questioned why copyright had to last more than a few years.

Even if the governance czar does not know that the rule of law is the first requirement of governance, I had hoped she would understand that her economic and political case could be met by the government contracting for the writing of the required textbooks. The government could then be free to grant the right to any and everyone to copy as they please.

The issue of respect for the intellectual property of writers was strongly supported by Mr Khemraj Ramjattan of the AFC. But I was extremely disappointed that Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, who like Ms Teixeira is a member of the Council of the University of Guyana, did not offer a comment on Ms Teixeira’s absurd and disgraceful position.

Posted on

Dangerous fabrication

Please allow me to use your column to highlight a dangerous piece of mischief circulated this past Sunday on the internet (Facebook) by someone using the name Tamara Deokumarie.

The person claims that I made a cheque payment of one hundred and twenty thousand ($120,000) to the Mark Benschop Foundation three days before the Linden protest. The person also claims that I was overheard talking about “things going well at Linden” on the cell-phone.

Of course I knew that no such payment was made or that any such conversation took place. Yet to satisfy myself I reviewed not only cheque but cash payments as well for the entire month of July. It confirms that no payment was made to the Mark Benschop Foundation for any amount.

Whoever, Tamara Deokumarie is, s/he is nothing but a dangerous fabricator and mischief-maker. Her/ his claim about the cell-phone conversation is as imaginary as a cheque payment to the Mark Benschop Foundation.

Posted on

The Attorney General completely disregarded the principles and authorities on bias in the matter of Mrs Singh’s position

Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s letter SN ‘The squabble over conflict of interest in the Audit Office is much ado about nothing’ July 13, 2012 refers. Mr. Nandlall accuses those who have taken a position on what he dubs as a “concocted” and “politically inspired” matter involving Dr. Ashni Singh as Minister of Finance and his wife Mrs. Gitanjali Singh of the Audit Office of not subjecting the relevant facts and surrounding circumstances to mature analysis.

I respond to make the following points not because I think Mr. Nandlall’s letter has any validity or merit but because of the position he holds as leader of the Bar of Guyana, and to counteract the mischief his letter created.

1. I wonder if the Attorney General considered the propriety of his public intervention in the matter, citing some weak and discarded legal authorities, while the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana is considering formal complaints over the same issues.

2. If Mr. Nandlall had apprised himself of the relevant facts he would not have misled the country about Mrs. Singh’s service at the Audit Office. She could not and did not commence her career at the Auditor General’s Office in 1992 and worked continuously since then in that office. Mr. Nandlall and his colleagues might wish to believe that everything began in 1992 but the fact is that in 2001/2, Mrs. Singh was Director, Internal Audit at the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation.

3. And for Mr. Nandlall’s further information, Mrs. Singh left that position because a conflict of interest question arose.

4. For someone who prides himself on accurate and precise language, not once in his several references to Mr. Deodat Sharma did Mr. Nandlall acknowledge that the current Auditor General is an acting appointee – no trivial matter. As the country’s Attorney General tasked with advising the President and the Government, Mr. Nandlall may wish to confirm whether the holder of that important constitutional office was appointed to the acting position in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution which require the advice of the Public Service Commission.

5. Completely disregarding the principles and authorities on bias, Mr. Nandlall asserts that there is no scintilla of evidence of an actuality of conflict. May I respectfully refer Mr. Nandlall to the Pinochet extradition case in which a decision of the House of Lords was overturned after it emerged that Lord Hoffmann was a director of Amnesty International, a party to the case. A second strong House of Lords court, without Hoffmann, came to the same decision during which time the senior law lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and four other law lords criticised Lord Hoffmann for flouting the basic principle that “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”.

6. And as for Mr. Nandlall’s “actuality of bias”, may I refer him to the case of Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company Limited No. 13-M/1999, in which Justice Carl Singh as he then was, said “whenever a test is required to be applied for the determination of allegations of bias, the test [is] whether a fair minded observer might reasonably suspect the existence of bias”. I assume Mr. Nandlall knows about Justice Singh’s ruling but I prefer not to speculate about his reason for disregarding it.

7. Amazingly and with no legal foundation to support him, Mr. Nandlall seeks to apply the practice of one profession by analogy with the written Code of another, a sin of commission that is beyond legal heresy. As an accountant and attorney-at-law I submit that Mr. Nandlall’s analogy between the legal and accounting professions is misinformed, misconceived, misleading and unworthy of the learned Attorney General. Practitioners of the two professions are subject to entirely different Codes of Ethics. Lawyers describe the circumstances under the rubric “bias”: for accountants, it is an independence issue.

In penning his letter, Mr. Nandlall must have recognised that it would be seen as self-serving and opportunistic. With that burden, he could at least have taken the time to better inform himself of all the relevant rules and apply them to the factual circumstances, as he erroneously and misleadingly accused others of not doing.

Posted on

Canadian auditor’s suggestion that Sharma be appointed Auditor General was tantamount to improper interference in Guyana’s affairs

Mr Deodat Sharma may not be a proper Auditor General but he surely knows how to play the political game. Last week, the Audit Office which he heads hosted a team of two from the Audit Office of Newfoundland and Labrador (AONL) with which the Guyana Audit Office claims a “twinning partnership.” The website of the AONL indicates no such partnership.

I understand from persons who attended a workshop conducted by the two visitors from Canada that one of them actually sought to advance the case for the confirmation of Mr Sharma who for seven years could not be substantively appointed because of lack of qualifications.

Mr Sharma’s lack of qualifications would likely prevent him from being appointed Audit Manager, much less Audit Principal or Auditor General, in the Newfoundland Audit Office.

In my view, the attempt by the Canadian gentleman was insulting, inappropriate and tantamount to improper interference in the operations of Guyana’s national financial watchdog which no Canadian Audit Office would accept and tolerate for itself.

Here are some interesting statistics. The Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador is appointed for a 10 year non-renewable term by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and confirmed by a resolution of the House of Assembly. (Term limit for Auditors General is a common feature in other countries as well, but not in Guyana.) The Newfoundland Office has less than a quarter of the staff of the Guyana Audit Office – 36 compared with 150 – but while 28 of their staff hold professional accounting designations (78%) only 2 or 3 persons (1.33% or 2%) in the Guyana Audit Office are similarly qualified.

In its work, the Office of the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador complies with the professional and ethical standards established by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. And according to that Audit Office, they adhere to professional codes of ethics and independence standards; exhibit independence in fact and in appearance; and avoid perceived and real conflicts of interest. In Guyana we aspire to and apply low or no standards.

I do not for one moment however believe that it is only because of lack of qualifications throughout the Guyana Audit Office that it has failed so miserably in unearthing the kind of frauds which the reporters from Kaieteur News and to a lesser extent, the Stabroek News, have been uncovering.

Rather, it is because some of those who hold senior positions cannot afford to jeopardise their position or embarrass the Minister of Finance and the government.