Govt disbands SARA, employees issued termination notices

Attorney General Anil Nandlall has indicated that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government has closed down the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) and dispatched termination letters to its employees – a commitment the Administration made very early on assuming Office.

Nandlall, via a statement, said the Government will undertake to strengthen asset recovery components of the Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism  (AMLCFT) legislation as well as enacting legislations utilising the Caricom model of State asset recovery, in respect of State assets acquired illegally. He noted that this model legislation is in consonance with the laws and the Constitution of Guyana.
Explaining the reason to disband the organisation, the AG said that the precursor to SARA was the State Asset Recovery Unit (SARU) – a unit established by politicians under the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Administration and operated out of the Office of the President. He said that the Unit was staffed by politicians such as Clive Thomas and Tacuma Ogunseye, two of the leaders of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) – a constituent of the APNU/AFC coalition – and Eric Phillips, a political advisor to former President David Granger.
SARU was funded from the budget of the then Ministry of the Presidency and operated under the command of politicians.
“Then SARA was born. From the moment the bill became public it evoked widespread criticism from the political Opposition, as well as many civil society organisations, such as the Guyana Bar Association, the Private Sector Commission and the labour movement. The contentions were that the bill was too oppressive, Sections had unlawful retroactive effect and that many of the provisions collided with the Constitution, including those Articles that protected the fundamental rights of citizens in relation to property and protection of the law.
“As a result, to weather the storm, the former Attorney General, Mr. Basil Williams S.C., held a few public consultations which turned out to be placatory and futile as over one hundred (100) amendments were recommended, but none were incorporated into the bill,” Nandlall said.
He reminded that the bill was heavily criticised by the PPP/C, both in and out of Parliament.
Within days of its assent, a comprehensive constitutional challenge was mounted against the State Assets Recovery Act No 14 of 2017, by public commentator, Ramon Gaskin. The challenge impugned approximately 90 of the 107 Sections of the Act, as being unconstitutional and in flagrant violation of the separation of powers. That issue is still before the Chief Justice awaiting a decision.
Nandlall said that Thomas, a WPA leader, and Aubrey Heath-Retemyer, a member of the PNC-USA group, arrogated the power to appoint themselves in gross violation of the SARA Act, as Director and Deputy Director of SARA, respectively.
The SARA Act specifically provides for the manner in which the Director and the Deputy Director would be appointed. Section 5 of the SARA Act creates a Schedule and states that the provisions of the Schedule shall have effect in relation to the appointments of the Director, Deputy Director, their terms and conditions of appointment, staff, finance and other related matters of SARA.
In relation to the appointment of the Director and Deputy Director, the Schedule states in Section (1) that the National Assembly shall – (a) by a simple majority; and (b) On the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Appointments, appoint the Director and Deputy Director of the State Assets Recovery Agency.
Further, in Section 1 (4) of the Schedule, it is stated that the Director and Deputy Director shall be informed of their appointments by the Clerk of the National Assembly: (4) The Clerk of the National Assembly shall by letter inform the Director and the Deputy Director of their appointment.
Moreover, the terms and conditions of the appointment of the Director and Deputy Director is provided for by Section 2 of the Schedule, which is set out hereunder for reference: 2 (1) The terms and conditions of the appointment of the Director and Deputy Director, including their term of office shall be such as determined by the Parliamentary Committee on Appointments.
“Messrs Thomas and Retemyer appointed themselves and determined their term of office, in complete disregard and violation of the aforementioned provisions. An action was filed in the High Court challenging their appointment and that action is also pending,” the AG said.
Nandlall reminded of the assault on the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) by SARA over the land that now houses the Bank’s Headquarters at High and Young Streets, Kingston. That case was brought in the High Court.
He noted that the land was acquired by GBTI by a public tendering process over a decade ago and after the acquisition of the land, the Bank subsequently constructed its Headquarters amounting to an expenditure of several hundred million Guyana dollars.
“The Honourable Mr. Justice Franklyn Holder ruled that SARA is not a corporate entity and as such, it cannot sue or be sued by such a name. The judge found that since the commencement of the Act, no Director has ever been appointed and none by construction of the provisions of the Act.
“The Court ruled that only a Director, a duly authorized officer, was empowered by Section 40 of the Act to institute proceedings of the nature sought to acquire the land from GBTI. Although, the court raised the issue of an authorized officer as described in Section 2 of the Act having the capacity to institute proceedings such as the one against GBTI, counsel for SARA did not seek an Order to substitute a possible authorized officer with the description of Section 2 of the Act. The case was struck out,” Nandlall cited.
He revealed that SARA achieved nothing in five years and cost the treasury close to $1 billion.