Critique of Nigel Hughes’s claims of discrimination in Govt contracts (Pt 2)

Dear Editor,
After I reviewed the presentation by Nigel Hughes, of note, Hughes also presented what he perceived to be the solution to the problems he was highlighting, one of which is for the involvement of Afro-Guyanese in the decision-making process at the Governmental level. To test Hughes’s genuineness, I reached out to him privately with the aim of engaging him in some meaningful dialogue on his presentation, and pointed out the flaws, as I have so done in this missive.
My intention in engaging him was to have a critical discussion in which we can arrive at viable solutions. However, Nigel indicated that he has no interest whatsoever in engaging me in any public discussion on the subject matter.
I must say that I found his rejection of my proposal to be a contradiction of the very solution he put forward, whereby he is arguing that Afro-Guyanese need to be involved in the decision-making process. I said to Nigel, “Shouldn’t we at least start by having meaningful and healthy exchanges and dialogue, which can then find its way to the decision-makers?” Again, Nigel remained unmoved, which is a demonstration to me that his intention behind that presentation was politically motivated and calculated; simply because, if he were so confident in the authenticity of his study, then he should have demonstrated no difficulty in engaging in a public debate or discussion to defend the so-called study.
He went on to use examples of himself and clients of his that applied for Government contracts, or licence, or whatever the case is, but were unsuccessful. The truth is such that for any contract or licence to conduct any business in Guyana, be it quarry licence or gold dealership licence, there is a process, and applicants would need to satisfy certain criteria, which are embodied in several pieces of legislation and regulations. As I have demonstrated, not only Afro-Guyanese may not be successful with contracts or any other application to support any business, but many other Indo-Guyanese have also not been successful. Case in point: regarding the GWI contracts, six out of eight contractors who are Indo-Guyanese would not have won some contracts, because there are limitations as to how many people or businesses can be awarded a contract.
A trained and prominent Attorney of Hughes’s calibre ought to know that this cannot be the sole basis upon which one derives the conclusion that there is discrimination. In order to discern and prove whether marginalisation is indeed taking place, there are mechanisms in place to properly address these matters with remedial action. For example, in the case of the award of contracts, if any Guyanese contractor, regardless of their ethnicity, competed for any Government contract and never won any, then there is a procedure in law that they can trigger. The Procurement Act, in this case, outlines the procedure to be followed, whereby any contractor or person has a right to complain firstly at the level of the procuring entity, and if not satisfied with the results, request an independent review. This process can be undertaken at the level of the Public Procurement Commission, which is an independent constitutional body.
Further, if the complainant is not satisfied with all the different layers of appeal, they have recourse at the Court, which also can reach the highest Court of Appeal. Yet, neither Nigel nor any of the contractors he is claiming are victims of marginalisation have brought a single case through the correct channels for any remedial action. Is it because they do not have a case in the first place, and that these are all politically manufactured fictional cases of marginalisation?
I can even use myself as an example as well, like Nigel Hughes did in his presentation, wherein, under the previous Government, I was part of several consulting firms that bid for Government consultancies and never won any. I have also been interviewed for CEO positions at three major Government agencies, NICIL, the Small Business Bureau, and the Guyana National Newspapers Limited, and I was never successful. These jobs eventually went to pensioners, and in the case of Guyana National Newspapers Limited, Sherod Duncan, whom I would agree is perhaps a more competitive candidate than I, which I have no difficulty accepting.
I never complained to anyone, or cried about marginalisation and discrimination by the APNU Government. Had I done this, it would have been unethical of me, since I did not appeal any of these cases, nor did I follow the correct procedure in the case of the Government consultancies; so, I had no basis to complain of discrimination. Instead, I accepted that due process might have been followed, and out of whatever evaluation criteria used, there were perhaps more competitive and more technically sound firms that eventually won the contracts; and in the case of the jobs, more technically sound candidates who got the jobs.

It is worthwhile to note that in relation to Nigel Hughes’s proposed solution, which I alluded to earlier, Afro-Guyanese entrepreneurs (as he implied) need to be included in the decision-making process. This system is already in place, and has been working since 1992 viz-a-viz the Private Sector business support organisations (BSO) such as the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce (GCCI), the Private Sector Commission, and many other sectoral and regional BSOs. These BSOs are the institutions through which the organized Private Sector engages with Government, not only on national cross-cutting issues, but it is the mechanism through which businesses have the opportunity to influence public policy and other Governmental decisions in respect to conducting business in Guyana, and to remedy issues that affect the Private Sector in general.
Thus, more Afro-Guyanese businesses should be encouraged to join these associations, because they also assist businesses with business and organizational development, especially new, small, and emerging enterprises.
Editor, instead of propagating a misleading narrative, successful Afro-Guyanese professionals and entrepreneurs like Nigel Hughes should better direct their energies to actually doing something positive to help grow the number of Afro-Guyanese businesses in Guyana, help to build more successful Afro-Guyanese businesses in Guyana.
In conclusion, there is no basis in fact to Nigel Hughes’s study. It is deeply flawed, mischievous, dangerous, and politically motivated at best. There is recourse in law that anyone who feels they are victims of marginalisation or discrimination can invoke. If a person, or a contractor, or any legal entity fails to invoke the correct procedure catered for within the legislative framework, then they cannot otherwise proclaim that the Administration is practising discrimination of any kind, knowing full well that any such matters would have to be properly investigated and proven.
In subsequent articles, I will address the other matters in relation to Gold Dealership and Quarry Licences, and all the other issues Hughes raised in his presentation.

Yours faithfully,
Joel Bhagwandin