None can argue that proceedings in the National Assembly reached its lowest on December 11, 2017, when uniformed Police entered the hallowed halls to effect the removal of a sitting Member of Parliament. It is unprecedented and maybe unimaginable, and has not only set a dangerous precedent, but represents a manifestation of very ominous signs. The Speaker has since denied that he summoned the Police.
From all reports, the chaos began when the allotted time for questions pertaining to the estimates of the Ministry of the Presidency expired even though examination of all the programmes was not exhausted. As a matter of fact, there was no time left for any question regarding the capital expenditure of that entity. That would naturally evoked questions about the adequacy of the time allotment, and it did.
Any rational person would agree that in keeping with the expectation of transparency, the Opposition must be allowed to question every aspect of the budgetary estimates within reasonable and mutually agreed time frames. Compounding the situation were two issues: the Opposition’s claim of not being allowed an input into the allocation of time for questioning and the addition of four new programmes under the Ministry of the Presidency with no increase in time allowed from last year’s.
In addition, a question regarding the allocation of some $68 million to a reported unknown agency raised eyebrows and unavoidable suspicion especially when the subject Minister could, reportedly, not provide an answer. This can only be deemed as utterly unacceptable. The managers of the nation’s financial resources must be aware of who will benefit more so especially when such a huge chunk of taxpayers’ money is being doled out in what is suspected to be an act of cronyism.
Clearly, these suspicions are profound and would obviously create unnecessary unease in an already tense climate. While one may want to debate the accusation of disrespect on the part of People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament, Bishop Juan Edghill, the context of the prelude cannot be dismissed. That is deeply rooted in the premise of the Government proclaiming itself as the bastion of transparency, accountability and democracy even when it was the Opposition. However, its own actions since taking office have fuelled suspicions and accusations of corruption, ineptitude, and hypocrisy.
Topping the list would be the unravelling of its falsehood of not receiving millions of US dollars in a signing bonus from ExxonMobil, the Sussex Street drug bond scandal, and rewarding party financiers and friends with mammoth contracts and tax write-offs. These, along with blatant nepotism, allegations of discrimination and witch-hunts, have eroded confidence and goodwill even of some of its own supporters. These, which have all occurred within 30 months of being in government, expose the unbridled hypocrisy.
In the face of such overwhelming suspicion, it is only natural that the $68 million allocation and the lack of adequate time to question the estimates could reach a tipping point. The obvious question is: why would a government, which is a self-proclaimed bastion of openness, not want to entertain questions on how taxpayers’ monies will be spent? More so, why would the said Government be oblivious of its own budgetary allocations and not enthused to defend the document it crafted?
In this circumstance, the expected tendency for one who professes to be covered in the garb of transparency is to be at the ready to offer answers and explanations regardless of time allotment. What played out in the National Assembly on December 11 is the sacrifice of honesty at the altar of expediency where the Honourable Speaker performed the duties of the High Priest. The glaring hypocrisy is, therefore, not only unprecedented but a callous hoodwinking of Guyanese and woefully disrespectful of their intelligence.
The deceit to the nation unleashed following the exposure of the US$18 million signing bonus may not have only been the proverbial straw that crushed the camel’s back on credibility, but a manifestation of a frightening continuance of disregard for accountability, transparency, and democracy. The laughable excuse of not being asked a direct question, offered by the Honourable Minister of Finance, who previously reportedly denied the payment of such a bonus, makes a mockery of the citizenry.
With that as a backdrop, could the shutting down of the Opposition from questioning allocated expenditures after just having probed the allocation of the $68 million on December 11, be an orchestrated sinister move to try and prevent other unwanted exposures? Is the deliberate barring and unnecessary arrest of Bishop Edghill part of that plan to silence those who question the Government?
If these questions were to be answered in the affirmative, then not only has the red-flag of authoritarianism now been further hoisted by the disregard shown, but it is also not unrealistic to ask; what else is being hidden with a wanton desire to remain so? That is the 68-million-dollar question.
