What has AG done to arrest corruption in the Jagdeo govt.?

Jun 12, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
On May 28, the Honourable Justice Roxane George, reportedly said in an SN news story that Guyana’s ‘broken criminal justice system is denying prisoners their rights’, and added that while the lack of state resources to comprehensively reform the system is noted, it is still imperative that citizens are guaranteed certain fundamental rights under the Constitution.
This includes the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. She said stakeholders need to work together and “fix the system” because prisoners are waiting too long for trials.
On May 30, Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Mr. Charles Ramson, issued a statement, seemingly in response to Justice George but without naming her, that basically blamed a ‘poor work ethic among judges’ as being the main plague in the justice system.
It did seem quite odd for the Attorney-General to attack judges given that he is aware that the problems in Guyana’s broken criminal justice system are not limited to judges, but extend to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Guyana Police Force, the Judiciary and the Guyana Prison Service.
But since his job is primarily to represent the government in litigation issues, either as attorney for the government as a defendant or as a plaintiff, and since this is not issue in litigation, one has to ask whether his statement amounted to that of a political pit bull attack on sitting judges in defence of the government’s (mis)handling of the disgraceful state of the criminal justice system.
The answer to that was actually made clearer for us when the Attorney General, for some odd reason again, decided to pen a piece in GC (June 8) attacking retiring Assistant Police Commissioner, Mr. Paul Slowe, for Mr. Slowe’s remarks about not being corrupt or not being involved in any illegal activity during his 37 years as a police officer.
This is not a litigation issue, so why did the Attorney General feel the need to attempt to dredge up what he thought were instances that contradicted Mr. Slowe’s claims?
Is Mr. Ramson taking his duties as Attorney General to a whole new low level of appearing to be a political attack dog for the most inept and corrupt government in the Caribbean?
In the piece, “I have been at pains to remind Police Officers that their uniforms are symbols of discipline, not power,” Mr. Ramson sought to contradict Mr. Slowe’s ‘flaunted patriotism and professionalism’ by listing four instances for our edification.
First, he tried to prove Mr. Slowe engaged in an illegal act when, as Commander in Berbice (around 1999) Mr. Slowe retained the services of an attorney to undertake State assignments even though this was the sole remit of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister. Mr. Ramson then asked if that was legal, but since he never said it was we don’t know what written law was broken, so in cricket lingo, Mr. Ramson bowled his first no-ball.
Second, he said Mr. Slowe telephoned him on his ‘direct line in clear violation of the protocol of chain of command, a prerequisite in the studied observance of professionalism’.
He never stated it was job related, so what exactly was the nature of the violation? Don’t junior of middle level government employees from one department make direct calls to senior government officials in other departments?
To the best of my knowledge, when it comes to the Assistant Police Commissioner, the chain of command protocol exists between the Home Affairs Minister and the Assistant Police Commissioner, and the go-between is the Police Commissioner.
For example, if the former Home Affairs Minister wants to issue a job-related directive to a senior police official, he must go through the Police Commissioner, and if a senior police official wants to make a job-related request of the Home Affairs Minister, he must go through the Police Commissioner.
That’s how the chain of command protocol works. This idea of jumping over people’s heads to get to other people is part of the political culture in Guyana, but that is a violation of protocol, and so Mr. Ramson has bowled a second no-ball.
Third, Mr. Ramson claimed that Mr. Slowe sought to prevent a Cabinet Minister from parking outside the ECC Ground on the pretext that the space was reserved for a diplomat, and even threatened to have the minister’s vehicle towed.
Mr. Ramson never stated what the outcome of that incident was, either indicting or exonerating Mr. Slowe’s actions, so now Mr. Ramson has bowled his third no-ball.
Fourth, Mr. Ramson jumped head first into the muddy waters of the Slowe-Gajraj saga without first checking to see whether he might be exposing his bare rear to onlookers.
True, Mr. Slowe did talk about his encounter with Mr. Gajraj, whom he said demanded he returned a gun to someone from whom it was seized as part of an ongoing police investigation into a murder.
Mr. Slowe contended that since the matter was still under police investigation he would be violating standard police procedures if he acquiesced to Mr. Gajraj who, incidentally, was the cabinet-level policy maker responsible for the police force.
Mr. Ramson’s take is that, since the Police Act CAP 16:01, S. 7, ‘symbiotically invests any Home Affairs Minister with the plenitude of power he may have sought to invoke’, then Mr. Slowe should have familiarized himself with this and obeyed Mr. Gajraj’s order. Two questions arise here. First, is the Home Affairs Minister above the law so that he can run political interference in an ongoing police investigation into a murder?
Second, as an attorney, where is Mr. Ramson’s concern about the rights of the young food vendor fatally shot by the Phantom Squad operative who refused to pay the vendor for food he ordered and consumed, and whose role in this deadly shooting was part of the police investigation that required the Phantom Squad operative’s guns be seized?
Mr. Ramson, like so many of his ranking peers in the Jagdeo administration, seems more concerned about what is in the best political interests of the government and to hell with the people’s interests and rights.
And so not only has he bowled four consecutive no-balls, but he also never once raised these four issues publicly, which may well be a dereliction of his duty to his bosses.
He has two balls left and should be careful how he bowls them or risk being dubbed the no-balls bowler.
Anyway, let me close by quoting Mr. Ramson who wrote, “Retirement is but one facet of the employment process. Some exercise their option earlier than others.” Given the shocking shallowness of his own thinking, he would have been better off staying retired or resigned from the post of Attorney-General, rather than return to serve this corrupt and inept government. Still, it’s not too late to exercise this option earlier than planned.
By the way, Mr. Ramson should know that, whereas Guyanese may not soon see justice against this government for its many wrongs that, at least, there is yet hope for some semblance or sense of justice by those who have the power to publicly call out corrupt elements in governments and send a message to the world. In October 2009, the US Embassy in Kenya revoked the US visa of Kenya’s Attorney-General for ‘being obstructive in the fight against corruption’ in and out the Kenyan government. Forget about Mr. Slowe, who is on his way to Region 11; what has AG Ramson done, if anything at all, to end corruption in the Jagdeo administration, or is it business as usual until the end of 2011?
Emile Mervin

---

---