Director of the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU), Clive Thomas will remain at the helm of that entity even after President David Granger assents to the recently-passed State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) Bill 2017 – which puts the legal framework in place for the organisation’s operation.
The SARA Bill stipulates that its director will be an impartial person, selected by a parliamentary bipartisan committee.
However, Guyana Times understands that the incumbent director can remain with the entity for up to another 12 months until the relevant authorities embark on the selection process for a new head.
This is according to SARU’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer, who spoke to this publication on Friday.
Heath-Retemeyer said a transition period followed presidential assent to the SARA Bill 2017, during which critical decisions would be made regarding the structure and operations of the entity.
“During that transition period, the present personnel in the unit will remain. There will be an attempt to ensure recruitment is done, so that other elements of the unit will be put in place, so we can get on with what is required of us,” he explained.
SARA CEO Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer
Heath-Retemeyer disclosed that the transition period can last 6-12 months, during which the current top officials can remain in positions of authority at SARU, now renamed SARA.
Unlimited
This would translate to Dr Thomas, a politically aligned person, now being legally empowered with unlimited authority to, among other things, seize the assets of persons who he believes are guilty of stealing State property, without going through the courts.
SARU, since its establishment in 2015, has been operating without legal authority – in other words, illegally.
Government quickly drafted the SARA Bill, hosted consultations, ignored the concerns raised by stakeholders, took the document to the National Assembly and used its one-seat majority to pass it.
In fact, a Government parliamentarian moved a motion to suspend the conventional debate on bills before passage, prompting all the Opposition parliamentarians to storm out of the chambers.
President David Granger now has to assent to the SARA Bill 2017 and have it gazetted so that the Agency can be legally established and fully functional.
One of the major concerns of stakeholders was that of SARA’s Head being bestowed with a seemingly unlimited amount of power, practically second to the President’s.
The Head of SARA will be answerable to no one.
Selection
But Government has assured that there would be no abuse of authority, as SARA’s Head would be selected through a parliamentary bipartisan committee.
However, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament, Bishop Juan Edghill argued that the selection process would only be disguised as a consensus.
The SARA Bill provides for its director and deputy to be appointed through a parliamentary process.
But Edghill contended, “(The government) have a majority in the committee and they have a simple majority in the House. It is the government appointing their appointees but disguising it as if it is a consensus bipartisan approach.”
The Opposition strongly believes that Government will propose the rehiring of SARU’s current staff and has already signalled its intention to reject the nominations.
“We will oppose any person, who, first of all, is a politician or has displayed any form of political bias or affiliation,” former Attorney General Anil Nandlall had charged during an interview with this newspaper.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had also asserted that his Party would seek to have persons with the requisite qualifications function in the positions at SARA and would accept nothing less.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Jagdeo expressed his disappointment over the likely appointment of “political hacks” to the now vacant positions at SARA.
Ignoring concerns
Ignoring an avalanche of concerns, Government passed the SARA Bill 2017 in the National Assembly.
According to the Government, the SARA Bill was born out of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption that was ratified by Guyana in 2008.
But major stakeholders, including the Private Sector Commission (PSC); the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) and the Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc (TIGI) have all repeatedly called on the Administration to restructure the Bill.
The SARA Bill contains features which distinguish civil forfeiture bills globally, making it the most draconian of its kind.
Civil forfeiture is a controversial draconian concept in the legal system, because it relates to the seizure of property without a conviction.
Legal luminaries have highlighted that the Bill creates a series of new offences, the SARA Director is vested with unparalleled powers to investigate the newly-created offences and persons can be rid of their properties without ever being charged with a crime.
Modify
During his most recent press conference, Jagdeo promised that the PPP may make some modifications to the SARA Bill to remove all ambiguity, if it returned to office in 2020.
Firstly, Jagdeo said the Head of SARA should not be vested with the authority to determine what can be described as State property.
Secondly, he said all provisions that make the Bill unconstitutional would be removed.
The Bill bestows power on the SARA Director to, in the discharge of his functions, demand information from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP); the Commissioner of Police; the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU); the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU); the Integrity Commission; the Bank of Guyana; the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) Commissioner General, among many other influential office bearers and entities.
Thirdly, Jagdeo said a new provision would be inserted to ensure the Head of SARA was accountable to someone else.
“Those are the three elements that are going to be vital if we retain the law,” the Opposition Leader said.
