Dear Editor,
In January 2018, the Government of Guyana passed the so-called “Whistleblower” Law, because they wanted to be associated with the philosophy of “combating corruption by encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct” from public and private sector officers.
A week ago, the Attorney General of Guyana urged whistleblowers to come to his office with information so that it can be investigated.
Therefore, it is shocking to have read, on September 10, 2018, that Ms Moshamie Ramotar (no relation to Donald Ramotar, I can confirm), a trained accountant who has served in that role for many years, was fired on the spot over an allegation that she was the whistleblower on some alleged massive acts of corruption.
What kind of people are running the corporate affairs of the Guyana Chronicle? Whatever happened to due process? Summary dismissal of an employee, and moreso a very senior employee, should only be proceeded with most carefully, and only in exceptional circumstances.
With the perception hanging over this Granger Government that it practises “ethnic preferentialism”, it is important that cases like this be handled judiciously, cautiously, and competently. A person can be summarily dismissed only when that person has taken part in extreme activities like:
· fighting at work or other adverse deliberate behaviour that can cause imminent and serious risk to their colleagues’ health or safety;
· theft;
· fraud; and so on.
Let us assume that the Finance Controller is guilty (I have no evidence to arrive at such a conclusion, but let us humour the General Manager on probation), why was a Hearing Committee not established to fully ventilate the issue? And even if that Committee found the Finance Controller guilty, the first step is not summary dismissal.
Skilled Human Resource Practitioners would advise that, firstly, you evaluate that person’s personnel file to assess its quality. Based on that assessment and the findings of the Committee, you then decide whether the person should be issued with a stage one penalty (warning letter) or a stage two penalty (suspension letter). Only if the evidence presented unearths activities of an extreme nature do you move to a stage three penalty (summary dismissal).
But, again, I have no evidence to prove that the Finance Controller is guilty, and until she is proven guilty, she must be treated as innocent. Did the General Manager (GM) not learn in his law studies the concept of ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)? Or is this plain, old-fashioned, ghetto-type bullyism?
Those who are pushing this dismissal letter have missed the entire point, and I wonder to what end. The Finance Controller does not have an allegation of misappropriation of public funds hanging over her head.
I am, however, grateful for the fact that the Hon Prime Minister has intervened and reversed this improper decision. But notwithstanding the reversal of this impertinent decision, I am now calling upon the Auditor General of Guyana to swiftly examine the books of the Guyana Chronicle to detect if the financial regulations of Guyana were broken in the pursuance of an agenda to set up a so- called Social Media Unit.
Regards,
Sasenarine Singh
