Posts

Posted on

The tabling of a ten years’ late, incomplete Ethnic Relations Commission’s audited financial statement is wrong in all respects

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The information on the National Assembly website is so outdated that it is useless, violating the Access to Information Act.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

Posted on

The NIS Cash Grant: A solution that is not a solution – Part 24

Business & Economics Column

Attorney General Anil Nandlall recently conceded that the NIS cash grant “is not the solution” – yet proceeds to promote it anyway. This telling admission encapsulates the government’s approach to the NIS crisis: politically expedient band-aids rather than principled reform.

The proposed one-off grants, ranging from $260,000 to $650,000 for contributors with 500-749 contributions, suffer from critical flaws.

 The NIS Act already provides an Old Age Grant for persons with 50-749 contributions, and it would have been a better solution to amend the Benefits Regulations under the NIS Act for consistency and some degree of permanency.  Second, the flat-rate payments ignore earnings history, violating the principle that benefits should reflect contributions. Third, the arbitrary cutoffs are particularly unjust: contributors with 749 contributions receive substantially less than those with 750.

I have proposed an alternative to the government: calculate benefits as a percentage of what contributors would have received with full contributions, based on their last insurable earnings.

This maintains that benefits should reflect contribution history while providing immediate relief. A crucial virtue of this approach is that it offers continuing benefits for life, rather than a one-off payment that necessities will soon consume amid our high cost of living. My proposal would make this a permanent feature through amended regulations, avoiding future ad-hoc interventions. Almost a week later, the proposal has gone unanswered.

Particularly concerning is that two governments have done little with two consecutive actuarial reports, compounded by the delay in publishing the 2023 Annual Report, which would likely show a dramatic improvement in NIS’s financial position due to oil sector contributions. Such neglect is not even appropriate for a cake shop – let alone the country’s most important social security scheme. Doling out money might have political benefits but is no substitute for management.

The Zainul case and GuySuCo story typify the challenges faced by the NIS over decades. The late GM Patrick Martinborough highlighted this in the only meaningful story ever told of the Scheme in its more than 50-year history. His book, published in 2015, offered the solution that the current Administration seeks.

“Oblivious of that fact, in 2016, the NIS announced a ‘strategy to recover outstanding debts’. Yet the same problems persist nine years later, suggesting these grand pronouncements were nothing more than political theatre to pander to the political directorate, with no serious implementation intention.  Did they check on Zainul’s employer – Toolsie Persaud Limited – whose carpenter employee appears to have kept better records than the company?  

The timing of the cash grant initiative, coming on the heels of another election, raises legitimate questions about whether this is genuine social policy or electoral politics. The optics of distributing cash grants, however inadequate, appear calculated to appeal to voters rather than to implement principled reform of our social security system.  But the politics itself are equally troubling. Nandlall is not even the subject minister responsible for NIS, yet he leads the support cast, having himself been guilty of violations of the Act, which he attributed to “ignorance.”

He must also know that many of the defaulting employers were or are government corporations and political colleagues. This selective accountability undermines enforcement credibility. The same government that threatens prosecution has shown remarkable leniency toward political allies and state entities that violate NIS regulations.

With our oil wealth, Guyana has a historic and unprecedented opportunity to transform NIS into a system worthy of our citizens. We need comprehensive reforms: modernising the NIS Act, restructuring the Board for independence, implementing actuarial recommendations, pursuing all delinquent employers regardless of connections, and establishing systems for reconstructing employment records when employer negligence is proven.

The announcement of the NIS one-off grant may be a done deal. That is a pity since it can be refined. Yet, it represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. The benefits to the Administration seem more designed to earn political mileage than to assist the hard-done-by NIS pensioners. The aim is to win another five years while the people of pensionable age get some cash equivalent to just six months’ worth of pension. Not a bad deal.

The Scheme loses reputation, credibility and the opportunity to establish a sound, sustainable framework. The cash grant – a newly discovered panacea for all ailments facing the country – fails to address systemic issues, creates new inequities, and kicks the can down the road.

Guyana needs solutions built on sound principles, not political opportunism and expediency. The question is not whether we can afford a better solution, it is whether we are prepared to expend the energy to analyse the problems and find and implement proper solutions.

The columnist has a long association with NIS reform. He drafted the NIS Act of Grenada (1983), served as the first Chairman of the NIS Board, was a member of President Jagdeo’s NIS Reform Committee (2007), and has represented numerous contributors in pursuing their claims.

Posted on

Mr Ramson’s office must actively compile and submit the necessary data for the annual report

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

Posted on

President Ramotar’s public and private statements regarding his appointment of Ramson Snr raise questions of public trust in office

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

Posted on

NIS one-off payments are a tiny fraction of what workers are rightfully owed

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