WHERE DOES THE AFC STAND ON SYNERGY?

Dec 07, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

If a party takes a position on a matter and then one of its members adopts a posture that is in contravention of that position, then the member can rightly be said to be in a conflict of interest even though the party may respect the duality of professional and political obligations.
The Chairman of the Alliance for Change, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, has indicated that there is no conflict of interest involved in a leading member of his executive undertaking public relations work with the company that is behind the construction of a controversial roadway to Amalia Falls.
If the Alliance for Change is now indicating that its member is not in a conflict of interest, then it means that the Alliance for Change has not taken an adverse position on the road project. For surely had the AFC taken a negative position on the construction of the roadway, then it would have placed that member in a situation whereby the party opposes the deal to build the road and yet one of its members is undertaking PR work for the contractor involved. Would that not be a conflict of interest?
For the AFC therefore to say that there is no conflict of interest, means that it has not taken an adverse position as regards the road project.
It cannot on the one hand say that it is concerned about the road deal and at the same time say that one of its members who undertakes PR work is not in a conflict of interest. The two do not go together. If it is opposed to the deal then any of its members who does PR work for the company is in a conflict of interest with the party.
So the question now needs to be asked is what is the position of the AFC as regards the award of the road project to Synergy Holdings? The AFC must have a position. It may be a position of neutrality or it may be that the party supports the contract, but it must have a position and by making known this position, the public would be in a better place to know whether a conflict of interest has arisen.
It seems befuddling for the AFC to say there is no conflict of interest when it proposes to have this deal reexamined should it win office. Surely, there must be some basis upon which it would like to see this deal reviewed. If the AFC was supportive of the road deal, then there would be no need for it to be reviewed, would it?
The fact that there is the possibility of the deal being reviewed suggests that the AFC has some problems with this deal. Therefore if it has some problems, and one of its members is doing PR work for the company behind the deal, then there is a conflict of interest.
The talk about having the member recuse herself should the company win the next election also makes no sense. Recuse herself from what has already been done? How can someone recuse herself from something that is completed?
If the AFC wins the next elections, the member would be required to recuse herself from any discussion within the party about the contract by virtue of having previously done PR work for the company concerned. But surely the person cannot and should be asked to recuse herself from any involvement with the company.
The AFC has found itself in this problem because it did not act earlier. It needed to take a definitive position of the Amalia Falls Hydroelectric Power Deal.
Once it had taken that position, then a conflict of interest would have arisen if any of the members of the AFC were involved in undertaking work for the company.
There is no question about the right of persons to undertake their professional work. That is a right that everyone enjoys but once the exercise of that right conflicts with the positions taken by the party to which the member belongs, a conflict of interest arises and the party has to find a way to deal with it. The way to deal with it is through the formulation of codes of conduct to guide the membership.
Once the party takes a public position against a deal, then no member should be seen to taking a position that is in conflict with the policy of the party regardless of whether the member is pursuing his or her professional responsibilities.
The question to be answered therefore by the AFC is what is its present position as regards the agreement between the government of Guyana and Synergy Holdings? Does it support this deal or is it opposed to it?

Latest News

WHERE DOES THE AFC STAND ON SYNERGY?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 20th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

West Indies U19 Women secure first win, advance to Super Six with...

“We will have a similar approach”

Sam, Fernandes outshine competition at GCF/Moo...

Ramzan, Fraser pilot Demerara U15 to strong win...

Dave West Indian Imports gets Everest Cricket...

Interim leadership agreed to dissolve GCF...

Features/Columnists

Berbice and Jagdeo’s legacy

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Ministers and business ownership

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

WHERE DOES THE AFC STAND ON SYNERGY?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 20th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]