…of SARA
Now that we have the legal basis for the institution charged with recovering state assets (the Bill was passed even though the Opposition was absent) and its “institutional placement” clarified (it’s an “agency”, and not a “unit”), let’s look at its bona fides for fulfilling its mission. Shall we?
Your Eyewitness won’t get immediately to concrete cases, like the M scholarships given to two sitting ministers for their private studies. If M law books for an AG are deemed crossing the line, why not these scholarships — especially the one totally unrelated to the present responsibilities of the minister?
While the Government’s been trumpeting its inspiration by the “UN Convention Against Corruption”, the 30 mature democracies in the OECD have some good advice for them. One of the most critical requirements in such bodies is the “Appointment and removal of the Director”. Since this point’s been raised before by your humble Eyewitness, and some may believe he’s got a hatchet to grind, allow him to quote from the OECD document: “The symbolic role played by the head of an anti-corruption institution should not be underestimated.
In many ways, the Director represents a pillar of the national integrity system. The selection process for the head should be transparent, and should facilitate the appointment of a person of integrity on the basis of high-level consensus among different power-holders (e.g. the President and the Parliament; appointment through a designated multidisciplinary selection committee on the proposal of the Government or the President, etc.). Appointments by a single political figure (e.g. a Minister or the President) are not considered good practice. The director’s tenure in office should also be protected by law against unfounded dismissals.”
So how does Clive Thomas stack up against these criteria?? Clive Thomas is the co-leader of the WPA – one of the parties in the governing coalition!! Can his bona fides be less credible for Director of SARA? He spent the last decade developing a theory of a “Criminalised State” the PPP was supposed to have created. Every study’s shown “selection bias” kicks in when a person reviews an issue he’s already taken a position on. He’s already declared the “guilt” of members of the PPP Administration.
He was appointed by a “single political figure” – namely, the President, and not on “the basis of high-level consensus among different power-holders. He’s allowed his CEO, Retemeyer, and Advisor, Phillips, to hurl strident denunciations of the targets.
We now hear Thomas and crew won’t be vetted for another 12 months. If that’s so, SARA should close its doors for the duration.
Guyana needs to fight corruption, but not through corrupted means that’ll amount to lynching.
…of union leadership
The fallout from Patrick Yarde insisting on running once again for the presidency of the GPSU, after 30 years at the helm, continues to reveal that what is going on has very deep – but rotten – roots. First of all, for the same individual — who’s gotta be at least 70 — to head an organisation wherein members must retire at 55, can’t be right. He HAS to be out of touch with ground reality.
After members had picketed for him to step aside in face of his hand-picked team supporting his evidently “president for life” status, they claim they were “intimidated” by Yarde’s acolytes. This Mafia-like union’s tactic might’ve worked against recalcitrant businesses back in the 40s, or against the PPP in 1999, but not against civil servants. Please!!
However, a wrench has been thrown into Yarde’s juggernaut. The election, scheduled for tomorrow, has been postposed pending a mandatory audit of the Union’s books.
Since these have been cooked for so long, it looks like Yarde’s goose will at last also be cooked!!
