GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?

Jul 26, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The PPP should not be rushing to deny that it ever received any donation for its campaign from a gentleman who is now facing possible charges in the United States of America.
It should also not be rushing to deny that the man may have been an associate of the party or known to leaders of the party. The man is not yet convicted of anything and therefore he must not be prejudged.
Even if he is subsequently found guilty of anything, the party or its leaders could not be expected to know whatever alleged wrong doing on his part and any association whatsoever cannot be the basis for criticizing the party, unless it knew before hand that there were question marks over the fellow.
A former parliamentarian of the People’s National Congress Reform was also once arrested and eventually placed before the courts. The main opposition did not seek to distance itself from the accused. They insisted that he be entitled to a fair trial.
No one ever accused the party or tried to stigmatize the party as a terrorist party because of the actions of its terror accused.
In fact, the point was made repeatedly that the man’s private actions could not be construed as being actions of the party.
The PNCR has never to this day publicly criticized or cauterized the person who has since been sentenced to a lengthy prison term. And the man did serve as a parliamentarian to the party.
The point is that it is one thing to associate with someone who was later suspected to have been involved in something illegal. It is another thing to associate with someone after they have had a criminal record.
Politicians, when they go overseas, are swarmed by all manner of persons who want to shake their hands, take their photographs, buy them a drink, be seen with them etc. This happens in all political camps.
In the case of the gentleman in question, there can be no doubt that he had to be known to the PPP leadership. No doubt about that at all.
He was said to have been seen in the presence of party and government officials when they visited New York. He won a bid for the sale of land belonging to the Guyana Sugar Corporation.
This was done through a competitive process. So he cannot be said to have received any favors.
But he has also said to have been renting or leasing a property belonging to the Mirror newspaper which is associated with the ruling party. So he had to have been in contact with PPP persons in negotiating this agreement which was not to be competitive bidding. As such he had to have been known to them.
But what crime is there in knowing or meeting someone? There were no charges of insinuations surrounding the man at the time of these deals and therefore the party’s leaders and public officials cannot be said to have been dealing with someone who they should not have been dealing with.
Even now the PPP should not be afraid to admit its contacts with the man because they had no knowledge presumably that the man was under suspicion for anything.
And in any case suspicion is not guilt and you cannot condemn someone before he has been found guilty nor should you condemn someone for innocently associating with someone who may later be accused of some wrongdoing or even found guilty later of some wrongdoing.
Everyone is entitled to due process and everyone is presumed under ours and the American legal system of being innocent until proven guilty.
Many years ago, a shyster came to Guyana and had Burnham by the hooks. Burnham got excited by the man’s plans to establish an offshore bank in Guyana through which funds could be funneled.
It was later revealed that the man had a checkered past. Burnham when asked about it said he was pleased that the man’s record was brought to his government’s attention.
The PPP cannot do a due diligence on everyone that it comes into contact with. No government or political party can do that.
What it can do is that when things go wrong that it is forthright and open with the Guyanese people who will understand that there will be times when you will associate with persons who are later found to be under investigation but once you did not know of any wrongdoing then you cannot be blamed for any association.