The sale of GuySuCo lands

Jan 11, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

On Boxing Day, I saw a sugar worker cry because he was unable to buy toys for his family. He could not do so because his production bonus was reduced because of the dismal performance of the Guyana Sugar Corporation.

Despite the falling production, how could a corporation which is the largest landowner in Guyana find itself in such dire straits? How, in the face of all the land that the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) has given to the government for house lots could the corporation still find itself in the red today?

Over the past weeks, this newspaper has been trying relentlessly to ascertain certain details in relation to land sales made by the GuySuCo. We were particularly interested in the identity of the person who purchased a plot of land at Block ‘R’ Leonora.

I believe that it was these efforts that led to a situation where we are told that the corporation made in excess of US$1M for the sale of specified lands and properties over the past year.

This may seem a large amount. But if you deduct the cost of the sale of the Camp Street property, the picture becomes different. The Camp Street lot was sold for a $102 million to CLICO.

If you combine the sale of the headquarters and the Block ‘R’, Leonora, we have $182M out of a total of $200M. Thus, the other sales which have been so elegantly laid out in a press release made by the Privatization Unit, really amount to very little in terms of revenue.

It is important that there be full transparency in the sale of these properties which ultimately belong to the taxpayers. It is equally important that there be full disclosure in relation to the details of the sales.

The Privatization Unit has taken an important step towards the latter by giving details of the companies and individuals that were involved in the purchase of these properties. Full disclosure has the benefit of allaying fears that public property is being doled out to friends of the ruling elite.

As regards transparency in sales, the Privatization Policy Framework Paper has clearly favoured public tendering for the sale of public property. I can, however, accept the fact that in promoting investment, the government may request land from GuySuCo for the establishment of businesses.

When it comes to investment promotion, the government may seek lands for investors and thus be forced to not go through a tender process. So long as the price paid for the lands is fair, there should be no problem with such sales.

I, therefore, can accept the GuySuCo selling land to commercial banks and for a call centre at Diamond since this is an area that is growing and which is destined to become a future town.

I am prepared to concede that GuySuCo got a decent price for the property at Block ‘R’ Leonora. I would have called a higher price considering what DDL paid years ago for the former Diamond Senior Staff Compound, but $80M is not a bad price for that piece of land taking into account that if the investment gets going it will create jobs for the people of West Demerara.

What I am worried about is why the Privatization Unit did not name the investor behind the purchase. Most of Guyana knows about CLICO. This is an established and large company operating in Guyana for years. But we do not know the principals behind NPI Communications and more importantly the person behind South American Woods Inc.

I am calling on Winston Brassington, the Head of the Privatization Unit, to reveal the identity of the principal or principals behind these two companies so that we can have full transparency in disclosure of these two sales.

It is equally important that there be transparent procedures for the sale of State assets so that not only would a fair price be set – this is best done through a competitive bidding process – but equally that no citizen should be denied the opportunity to tender for these properties.

Two pieces of real estate have been sold at Sea Spray, Leonora. One of them, we are told, was sold to a doctor and the other to a Mohamed I Ally. Is this latter person the same individual who was recently sworn in as a minister?

Were these two pieces of land sold for investment purposes or residential purposes? If it were the former, could the Privatization Unit state what manufacturing concerns are going to be established? On the other hand, if they were sold as residential premises, could the Privatization Unit state whether these properties were publicly tendered and therefore allowing all interested persons to bid for these lands?

Whatever the answers to these questions, I call on the sugar unions GAWU and NAACIE to demand that in the future whenever GuySuCo has to give land for public housing schemes that it charges in the government a fair price because when you consider the amount of land that the sugar company has ceded to government for public purposes over the years and when you factor into this the value of that land, there is no way that today there should be talk about that company having to borrow on the international market in order to finance the new crop.

---

---