Quoting John F. Kennedy in defence of Duncan’s suspension

Oct 16, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
With the stroke of a pen, the power of the Presidency is executed. Finally, President Granger has used his powers vested under Article 225(6) of the Guyana Constitution to suspend Carvil Duncan from the position of Chairman, Public Service Commission, and consequently as a sitting member of the Judicial Service Commission, Police Service Commission, and Teaching Service Commission. By this simple act, there is renewed confidence that the Presidency is alive and well.
The recent report on Carvil Duncan’s, with his lawyer Anil Nandlall, withdrawal from the constitutionally appointed tribunal is not surprising. It seems aimed at challenging the tribunal legitimacy, which is no surprise given the opposition’s non-cooperative attitude in the transition after they lost the May, 2015 elections. Mr. Duncan’s disregard for President’s Granger’s offer of a graceful exit while his case is heard and his arrogant withdrawal from participating in the tribunal, constitute contempt and ample justification for the tribunal to proceed with its deliberations and findings in his absence.
The Duncan saga is not simply another opposition strategy to frustrate the coalition government in any meaningful reform and fight corruption, but it is calculated to keep its Freedom House loyalists in strategic positions of influence regardless of conflict of interest. The Commissioner of Information Mr. Charles Ramson Sr and Director of Public Prosecution Ms. Shalimar Ali-Hack are classic examples of the protection of vested interests.
Many of these departmental heads and heads of commissions whom the President is constitutionally empowered to appoint should have been transferred, seconded, or asked to resign by the end of 2015. At least, the pack should have been re-shuffled knowing the level of conspiracies in every sector, according to the findings of the forensic audits.
The coalition government appears sensitive to cries of witch-hunting from the opposition and flinches. Lest we forget, I implore every Guyanese to re-visit President Cheddi Jagan’s pragmatism when he assumes office I 1992. He called for the resignation of key office holders in the diplomatic service, boards, and commissions. He was building an effective government that he could rely on to execute his change policies. He did not only dispense with the services of political appointees but over-reached to remove many top civil servants such as Ambassador Ronald Austin and Comptroller of Customs Clarence Chu, among many others, who were properly appointed by the Public Service Commission. Ultimately, the courts ruled in their favor but the Jagdeo and Ramotar governments did not re-instate nor compensate them.
If we visit (on line) the Cheddi Jagan Research Center and go to the section titled President 1992 – 1997, we will understand how Jagan was able to plan and remove key government functionaries. First, his “We the People have Won” speech on October 9, 1992 appealed for us to move forward and make into reality our motto: “One People, One Nation, One Destiny” and do so without racism, victimization, or trying to cast blame. On the contrary, his Address to the Nation on October 26, 1992, set the tone for house cleaning.
He promised that there would be no witch-hunting but would rid the government of political appointees. He emphasized that conventions of Commonwealth Caribbean Countries dictate that with a change of government, resignations are tendered by those who hold key positions in the diplomatic service, boards, and commissions. He promised that “the PPP/Civic government would pursue a humane compassionate and principled employment policy. While it is not interested in discriminating against anyone, it reserves the right to request transfers if needed.” He further promised to ensure that “there are no super-salaried free-riders on the backs of the working Guyanese tax-payers.”
When Jagan delivered his “The New Beginning and Way Forward” speech to the Guyana Public Service on June 24, 1993, he had already started “sanitizing the Public Service” and replacing key functionaries with contract workers who were hand-picked by Freedom House and whose credentials and qualifications were known only to them. The same is true for the award of construction and vendor contracts.
So, the Duncan-Nandlall saga is a reminder of Freedom House’s entitlement mindset and the struggle to keep their operatives in key positions. Can the coalition government afford this risk? How can they retain these heads of departments and commissioners in the very positions and expect a different result if it aims to put a lid on corruption and build a government based on the principles of fairness and equity? The words of President John F. Kennedy ring true: “There are risks and costs to action, but they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable in-action.”
Max Wallerson

---

---