Nothing prepared me for this shock

Feb 01, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
A few months ago I wrote voicing my disapproval of, and warning about the dangers of the practice of private companies establishing parallel systems which negate the force and effect of valid statutory government-issued documents. I cited a negative encounter I had with GBTI which I now summarize. GBTI, an entity subordinate to both the state and laws of Guyana, at its own discretion determines which pieces of information it will accept on state- and court-issued documents as being valid and legal. So the bank accepts the photo on a driver’s licence for various purposes but rejects the address on it, it extracts numbers from the TIN certificate but rejects the address contained thereon, the information on business and company registration certificates are sifted and the bank determines which pieces of information it will accept (it surely does) and which pieces of information it will reject (and it does).
While this is outrageous, nothing prepared me for the shock I received when I attempted to do business at Digicel a few days ago.
I recently discovered that my SIM card was not connecting to Digicel’s network nor was it accepting any prepaid credit. Upon reporting the problem I was told that my SIM was damaged and I should purchase a new one and have my number ported to the new SIM. I thought it was a simple process and gleefully produced my National ID card. Then came the shocker that hit me like a wrecking ball.
The attendant at Digicel told me that neither my National ID card nor my Guyana Passport is accepted as valid forms of proof of identification and ownership of the SIM. Citizens of Guyana (please read slowly and carefully) I repeat for clarity and emphasis, Digicel DOES NOT accept National ID card or Passport as valid proof of ownership of SIM. Instead, the company has established its own parallel and superior method of identification and verification of the owner of the SIM.
I was required to list six numbers I called at least six times within the last six months. You know what they say about the number 666? I was also required to remember the exact date the SIM was purchased or produce the original Personal Unlocking Key (PUK) code issued to me on an envelope when the SIM was originally bought.
In utter disbelief, I asked the attendant to speak with her supervisor; that young attendant had the temerity to tell me that she cannot refer such a frivolous matter to her supervisor, her supervisor is a busy person who will advise her to advise me that that’s the company’s policy which I MUST adhere to. The needs and legitimate queries of customers at Digicel are frivolous and the supervisors are too big to meet with lowly customers to address legitimate concerns.
If a person stores his PUK in his telephone or dumps the envelope (as most people do) and someone runs off with their cellphone, the thief has more rights to conduct business with the SIM than the actual owner. The thief, armed with your PUK, will then be given precedence at Digicel over the actual owner bearing his National ID. This practice by Digicel essentially negates the intent of the law which requires owners of SIMs to be responsible for every call emanating from that SIM.
Consider this scenario; my SIM is used in the execution of a crime, during the investigation I disclaim knowledge of any and all activities on my SIM over the last three months because my telephone was lost and I attempted to have Digicel cease the service but it will not honour my request because I was not in possession of the almighty PUK.
So I have long forgotten that SIM and have purchased a new one. This takes us back to the place where we were before the law requiring an ID was enacted.  In the past, once a SIM was the subject of an investigation everyone disclaimed it, suggesting that someone probably took out a SIM in their name sending investigations into a dead end. The law attempted to close that loophole, now Digicel has blown it wide open with its self-declared supreme parallel identification authority.
It is a dangerous and illegal trend for private entities to establish their own parallel system which routinely invalidates and rejects official state documents for the purpose it was created.
We are on the precipice of a failed state when a foreign private business entity subordinate to the state decides that local laws and government-issued identity documents do not meet their standards. Perhaps the board, directors, managers and staff of Digicel have dreams of grandeur, of running a parallel state. So let us disband the National ID system, condemn the passport office and while we are at it, let us relocate the seat of government to the Kingston Head Office complex and use PUKs and 666 as the new omnipotent pass code.
Lenno Craig

---

---