Posts

Posted on

Sale of 950M preference shares by NICIL does not alter response to PSC

The Private Sector Commission (PSC) in its most recent statement (December 20, 2013) on the Berbice Bridge Company Inc was unwilling to acknowledge writing the following on December 11: “As far as we are aware, the Government directly or indirectly has no investment in, or liability relating to, the [Berbice River] bridge at this time.” Seen as a crudely disguised political response to APNU’s call for reduced toll charges across the Berbice River, the statement drew questions from some of the PSC’s membership about the process leading up to its issue.

Instead of addressing the concerns whether the December 11 statement was authorised by the PSC’s executive rather than authored at the behest of one member of the executive, the PSC after an unsuccessful investigation into an email “leak” chose intrigue, diversion, distortion and deception. Its latest offering reveals that NICIL has sold to the National Insurance Scheme 950 million worth of preference shares in the Berbice Bridge Company Inc, which itself never acknowledged the existence, let alone the ownership of those shares, even in statutory filings signed by then Company Secretary Winston Brassington.
Continue reading “Sale of 950M preference shares by NICIL does not alter response to PSC”

Posted on

The leadership of the GDF has a constitutional duty to raise the Muri permission formally with President Ramotar

The statement attributed to the Chief-of-Staff of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Brigadier Mark Phillips in relation to survey rights to 2,200,000 acres granted to a company with powerful Brazilian ties raises a number of issues. The Chief-of-Staff is reported to have said: “The army will remain committed and adherent to the policies of the government. ‘The government has a responsibility for governing the country and determining what is best, so the GDF will respect any decisions made for the country.’”

While democracies accept the importance of having the military answerable to the civilian administration, a constitutional amendment in 2001 defined the country’s defence and security policy, the role of the Defence and Security Forces in relation to that policy, and the allegiance of the members of those forces. These are set out, perhaps not by accident, in Article 197 A of the constitution, the same article that deals with the judicature.
Continue reading “The leadership of the GDF has a constitutional duty to raise the Muri permission formally with President Ramotar”

Posted on

Foreign-funded Guyana company granted right to Eighteen Prospecting Licences – in 2,200,000 acres of pristine territory

Introduction
Whatever the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Mr. Robert Persaud MBA may or may not have said to the Natural Resources Committee of Parliament, one fact is clear: MURI BRASIL VENTURES INC. has been granted “the right to apply to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission for, and shall be granted (emphasis added) a maximum of eighteen Prospecting Licences for Rare Earth Elements, Bauxite, Limestone, Nephelene Syenite, Gold, Diamonds and Granite Stones.”

This is the unambiguous language of Clause 3 of the recently disclosed Permission dated November 7, 2012 granted by Mr. Persaud to the Company under the Mining Act of Guyana. The only proviso to the clause is that the grant is subject to compliance with the Work Programme and satisfactory proof of financial resources and technical capability for each of the potential eighteen Prospecting Licences which the Government is compelled to issue.

There are several and dangerous implications arising from the actions of Minister Persaud, whatever he and his Stakeholder Support Officer namesake may try to spin. Much has been made about whether or not Mr. Persaud lied, or as his counterpart in the National Assembly Mr. Joseph Harmon euphemistically put it, was economical with the truth. Of course, lying by politicians and, particularly this current crop, is not a barrier to upward mobility, often goes hand-in-hand with the accumulation of private wealth, and proudly worn as a badge of honour among peers rather than condemned by the citizenry.

Continue reading “Foreign-funded Guyana company granted right to Eighteen Prospecting Licences – in 2,200,000 acres of pristine territory”

Posted on

The PSC should be a little more careful with facts

The Private Sector Commission in a statement issued on Wednesday, December 11, stated that “As far as we are aware, the Government directly or indirectly has no investment in, or liability relating to, the [Berbice River] bridge at this time.” This is mindboggling ignorance given all the public revelations and exchanges over the Bridge Company’s ownership and performance.

The ownership structure of the company is made up of ordinary share capital of $400 million and preference shares of $950 million. The holders of the ordinary shares are NIS, New GPC, Queens Atlantic and Secure International Finance Company each having $80 million each, and Hand-in-Hand and Demerara Contractors each holding $40 million.

What this means is that the Government, inclusive of the NIS, owns 76% of the issued shares of the company. Apparently, the PSC’s awareness, or lack thereof, also does not extend to knowing that NICIL, a government agency, owns what is called a Special Share in the company. The Articles of Amendment of the company expressly provide that in respect of specified matters, “no action can be taken by the [Bridge] Company, without the affirmative vote of the holder of the Special Share.” And because the PSC claims not to know that the Government has this $950 million investment in the Bridge Company, it does not need to address the illegality of NICIL granting the Bridge Company an annual subsidy of around $110 million of dividends forgone.

When purporting to speak for the private sector, the PSC is expected to be a little more careful with facts. Failure to do so may not embarrass those who cause such statements to be made but reflects poorly on the rest of the private sector.

Posted on

Resolving the impasse over money laundering and terrorism prevention legislation

Introduction
The recommendation by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) that its members must exercise caution in their financial transactions with Guyana leaves only a narrow window of a few months before the country becomes the object of heightened scrutiny and possible condemnation by the international Financial Action Task Force.

The decision by the CFATF is a direct consequence of the failure by the National Assembly of Guyana to pass the amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2013. Making the case for the Government, its spokespersons simply state that the amendments are what the CFATF has called for. The opposition parties and civil society have expressed concerns not only about the proposed amendments but about some of the provisions in the principal Act. Among the objections raised are provisions that are claimed to be in violation of the Constitution, the absence of a strong executing authority and the role of political operatives in the administration of the Act.
Continue reading “Resolving the impasse over money laundering and terrorism prevention legislation”