Skip to main content

OPINION: Step down, Mr. Patterson or Mr. Granger please step in

Last Updated on Thursday, 21 January 2021, 10:37 by Denis Chabrol

by GHK Lall , 21st January. 2021

I am following closely the developments involving former Minister of Public Infrastructure, Mr. David Patterson, over that specific gift of jewelry.  The more I read and absorb, the more I am sickened and incensed.  I am also deeply embarrassed, given my previous identification with the coalition group.  The way that he responded to the first revelations of that half million jewelry item, conveys so much of what is wrong here, and what has become the abiding characteristic of the way the people’s business is conducted in this society.

Mr. Patterson said things to the effect that he didn’t know anything of such; he didn’t receive anything; and he didn’t have any inkling of the underpinnings of such a personally degrading allegation.  The next subterfuges from the fertile mind of Mr. Patterson were first to retreat behind a fence of silence, and then to put some distance between himself and what was being hurled at him.  Perhaps, his hope was that, like so many other material matters in Guyana, this would also fade away in the rush of other competing public issues.  But apparently, he miscalculated, for matters only got worse with every passing day.

For although no one at the Demerara Harbor Bridge was saying anything, the newspapers were awash with invoice and description and associated cost, compliments of a damning audit report.  Interestingly enough, that same audit report came in for sharp criticism from Mr. Patterson himself, as being ‘selective.’  Regardless of the former minister’s words and prior actions, he now stands condemned, and this time by his own words, which stands as a belated, but a still somewhat hedged confession of sorts.  I say, ‘somewhat hedged’ and ‘confession of sorts’ because the embattled and now exposed former minister is still engaged in protective rearguard action, even as he retreats with the disgraceful accompanying him.

I tender this because Mr. Patterson is on record with the defiant: he ‘assumed’ and rules were followed, and whatever else persuades him that he has a leg on which to stand.  As I listen to all this, my position is simple and straight.  Should someone-a staff member, a constituent, even a friend-turn up with a gift for a half million dollars (even for a twentieth of that amount), of taxpayers’ money, I would recoil.  I would recoil in sharp anger, I would cringe in disbelief, I would shudder in fear.  Fear because I would want to know who is trying to set me up, or dares to entertain such an intent.  I would lash out at the courier delivering such a gift with the following unambiguous positions and questions.

What is this for?  Why is this believed to be necessary?  Who is responsible for this?  And are you really bringing this to me?  I would summon all responsible for such a brainwave, assuming that it originated at their level, and give them a verbal tongue lashing that they would remember for the rest of their sorry existences.  And then, not satisfied with that, I would send a few people home, if only to send the strongest message.  To send a message of the standards that are personally observed, the values cherished, and the kind of man that I am.  This is what honorable public servants entrusted with the welfare of the people do.  They do not jump all over the place, as Mr. Patterson is doing with one unpersuasive defense after another.  They do not add insult to injury, through laughable attempts at damage control that only make them look even more foolish, and still more contaminated.

Having said all of this, there is one more thing I have left to say.  The first is that former minister Patterson is not a fit and proper person to be either in parliament or heading any Public Accounts Committee.  He should not be there at all.  Therefore, he has one way out of this mess that gives him an opportunity to save some face and regroup for whatever comes later.  He has to fall on his sword and resign from that responsibility, and he must do so without further delay.  And if Mr. Patterson, for some strange reason appealing to only him, decides that he must stay and that he will, then the burden shifts to former president David Granger, and current Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Joseph Harmon, to do the only thing that can be done in the circumstances.  Either or both must influence Mr. Patterson to step down right now, and if he fails to do so, then they must be rid of him, and most unceremoniously, too.

Citizens of Guyana deserve the confidence building boost that would assuredly come from such corrective and timely action.  Supporters of the coalition would feel that their trust will not be further misused and mangled.  And I would believe that there is still some sliver of dignity and honor that is still left in this country.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

@kp posted:

Everybody wanted his head on a platter, but in turn the people voted him president. It's called Presidential Immunity.

What does the constitution say about "Presidential Immunity"?

Do former Presidents have "Immunity"?

Mitwah

GUYANA

BILL NO. 2 OF 2015

FORMER PRESIDENTS (BENEFITS AND OTHER FACILITIES) BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

SECTION

1. Short title.

2. Interpretation.

3. Certain benefits and other facilities to former Presidents.

4. No tax exemption on benefits and facilities.

5. Cessation of certain benefits and other facilities of former Presidents.

6. Repeal.

7. Regulations.

A BILL

Intituled

AN ACT to provide certain benefits and other facilities for former Presidents.

A.D. 2015 Enacted by the Parliament of Guyana:-

Short title.

1.This Act may be cited as the Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act 2015.

Interpretation.

2. In this Act

     “child” means a child of a person whether born in or out of wedlock and a child born out of wedlock enjoys equality of status and entitlement to equal rights in accordance with article 149E (1) of the Constitution;

     “former President” means any person who has held the office of President substantively;

     “spouse” means

     (a) the lawfully married wife or husband of a person;

     (b) a single woman living together with a single man in a common law union for a period of five years;  or

     (c) a single man living together with a single woman in a common law union for a period of five years.

Certain benefits and other facilities for former Presidents.

3. Every person who has held the office of President substantively shall be entitled to the following benefits and facilities

    (a) payment in respect of expenses incurred for the provision and use of

        (i) water,twenty five thousand dollars each month;

        (ii) electricity, twenty five thousand dollars each month;

        (iii) telephone,twenty five thousand dollars each month, at that person’s habitual place of residence in Guyana.

     (b) services of personal and household staff, including a gardener, provided that the total number of such staff shall not exceed three persons, including any member of the staff who may be on earned vacation or sick leave;

     (c) services of clerical and technical staff not exceeding three, if requested, retained for non-political purposes related to the status of former President or to any State related task or assignment to the former President officially and for which no additional remuneration is payable;

     (d) subject to a financial limit of two hundred thousand dollars per annum, free medical attention and treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by

          (i) a former President for himself and his children below the age of eighteen years;

          (ii) the spouse of the former President:Provided that the reimbursement shall not be given where any attention and treatment obtained abroad or at private health facilities in Guyana were available in Guyana at government institutions;

     (e) full time personal security,not exceeding two persons including the services of the President Guard Service at the place of residence of the former President;

     (f) the provision of not more than two motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State;

     (g) toll free transportation;and

     (h) an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return airfares provided on the same conditions applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature.

No tax exemption on benefits and facilities.

     4. The benefits and facilities granted under section 3 shall not be the subject of any tax exemptions, concessions or privileges.

Cessation of certain benefits and other facilities of former Presidents.

     5. A former President shall cease to be entitled to the benefits and other facilities provided under section 3, if the former President engages in business, trade or paid employment or is convicted of a criminal offence for which a term of imprisonment is imposed.

Repeal.Cap. 27:17[Act12of2009]

     6. The Former President (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act is repealed.Regulations.

     7. The Minister may, subject to affirmative resolution of the National Assembly, make regulations for the due administration of this Act.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The purpose of this Billis to repeal the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities)Act, Cap. 27:17, Act12of2009, and to replace it with this Act, to provide greater specificity; especially if account is taken of the fact that the former President is eligiblef or a pension which is 7/8’s that of the President in office. In keeping with Resolution No. 22 passed by the National Assembly on the 2ndAugust, 2012 this Bill seeks to render the conditions acceptable and predictable and to place a limit on the benefits including tax free concessions, to which former Presidents are now entitled. The Bill also specifies some conditions under which the benefits may be enjoyed.

Winston Jordan

Minister of Finance.

Source - https://finance.gov.gy/wp-cont..._no._2_of_2015-1.pdf

FM
@Django posted:

When Irfaan Ali was heading the PAC and charged ,anyone called for him to resign ? shortly after became President the charges was withdrawn.

Stop you nonsense. The man is talking about Patterson, don't deflect. Should he or should he not resign? And why you say so?  

LB
Charrandass Persaud, an attorney-at-law, who sent shockwaves throughout the country on December 21, 2018, when he voted emphatically in favour of the No-Confidence motion and toppled the APNU+AFC government he was part of, is to be named as the new High Commissioner to India, well-placed sources have confirmed to the News Room.
Charrandas Persaud to be named High Commissioner to India
newsroom.gy
Charrandas Persaud to be named High Commissioner to India
Charrandas Persaud, an attorney-at-law, who sent shockwaves throughout the country on December 21, 2018, when he voted emphatically in favour of the No-Confidence motion and toppled the APNU+AFC go…
Figuera assulted Charrandas when he voted No Confidence.
K
@kp posted:
Charrandass Persaud, an attorney-at-law, who sent shockwaves throughout the country on December 21, 2018, when he voted emphatically in favour of the No-Confidence motion and toppled the APNU+AFC government he was part of, is to be named as the new High Commissioner to India, well-placed sources have confirmed to the News Room.
Charrandas Persaud to be named High Commissioner to India
newsroom.gy
Charrandas Persaud to be named High Commissioner to India
Charrandas Persaud, an attorney-at-law, who sent shockwaves throughout the country on December 21, 2018, when he voted emphatically in favour of the No-Confidence motion and toppled the APNU+AFC go…

Figuera assulted Charrandas when he voted No Confidence.

Mitwah

I'm sure Bro Prashadski got something to say bout this banna being treated like shyte over deh, something bout 'im too black...an blame a banna name Jorgan an e Jewish wife for something totally unrelated.

cain

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×