Charges against GRDB officials groundless – attorney

The lawyer of one of the six Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) officials who were recently charged is decrying the manner in which charges were implemented against his client.
Attorney Sase Gunraj, who is representing former Deputy Permanent Secretary (Finance) of the Agriculture Ministry, Prema Roopnarine, made this known through a statement on Saturday.
According to Gunraj, it is the function of the auditor to express an opinion as to whether financial statements were prepared without material mis-statements.
He noted that management is also responsible for implementing internal controls which will result in true and fair preparation of financial statements. This, he pointed out, is all in keeping with International Financial Reporting Standards.
“Neither of the foregoing is the responsibility of the Board or its individual members. Interestingly, the audit for which these charges arose, never provided an opportunity to my client to answer any of the allegations/queries contained therein even though she was still employed by the Ministry of Agriculture under whose purview the GRDB falls.”
“It is clear that this is nothing short of a witchhunt. This sinister campaign will no doubt be unravelled and laid bare as the trial progresses. Over the past few months there appears to be a deliberate smear campaign against Mrs Prema Ramanah-Roopnarine,” he contended.
According to Gunraj, it is clear that this “nefarious” plan was designed to ensure the termination of Roopnarine’s services “as part of an ongoing campaign of discrimination against certain individuals, particularly females who are qualified and competent professionals.”
“On May 24, 2017, Mrs Ramanah-Roopnarine was served with a letter from the Agriculture Ministry’s Personnel Department dismissing her with immediate effect. No grounds or reasons were advanced to justify terminating the services of someone who has served with distinction for over 10 years.”
“Hence, this arbitrary move by the Ministry simply serves to confirm that indeed there is a campaign of discrimination being waged against certain individuals, particularly professional women.”
Regarding the now well publicised charges by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) against Roopnarine as a Board Member of the GRDB, we are constrained from divulging any information that would prejudice the outcome of the on-going legal matter.
“Suffice to say we remain confident that the Courts will vindicate Mrs Ramanah-Roopnarine, as the charges are clearly malicious and were carefully coordinated to culminate with her dismissal.”
Six former members of the GRDB were recently charged with fraudulent omission. The charge came one day after they had been summoned by SOCU for questioning in relation to the operations of the GRDB between the years 2011 and 2015.
People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Members of Parliament Dharamkumar Seeraj and Nigel Dharamlall; former Deputy General Manager of GRDB, Ricky Ramraj; former GRDB General Manager Jagnarine Singh; former GRDB Board member Badrie Persaud; and former Deputy Permanent Secretary (Finance) of the Agriculture Ministry, Prema Roopnarine, appeared recently before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts to answer a string of charges to which they were not required to plead.
The first charge they faced allege that, in 2011, the defendants omitted to enter some million in the GRDB ledger; while the second charge stated that the then Board members omitted to enter a sum of .3 million into the said ledger. Other charges read that between the years 2014 and 2015, the sums of 0 million, .7 million and 5 million were respectively omitted from the GRDB register.
The former members of the GRDB were flanked by Executive members of the PPP/C, who flooded the courtroom in support of their comrades. They were represented by a team of Attorneys comprising Priya Manickchand, Anil Nandlall, Sase Gunraj and Glen Hanoman.
The defendants were each placed on 0,000 bail by the Chief Magistrate, who cast a deaf ear to the pleas of the lawyers to have their clients released on their own recognisance.