The SARA director does not have the same power as the DPP

Mar 07, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
This is the first of two replies to Christopher Ram. The other letter will follow shortly. Apparently, Christopher Ram wanted me to clearly express in simple language the deceptions he is attempting on the public. Ram says, “Dr. Clive Thomas has done nothing as Chairman of Guysuco!”
Christopher Ram knows Dr. Clive Thomas is the Chairman of a very bankrupt company owned by the Government of Guyana and that Cabinet have to make the decision if it wants to continue to pay off the G$77 billion debt, invest another G$45 billion to enable it to produce 300,000 tons of sugar and then subsequently subsidize Guysuco G$5 billion per year after that.
What is most deceptive, however, is that Christopher Ram writes about SARA but involves Guysuco in the conversation. In essence, Christopher is making the broad statement that Dr. Clive Thomas is about destroying Indians in Guysuco in the same manner as he is using SARA to go after Indians. It is Christopher Ram, not I, whom needs to apologise to Dr. Thomas and to the Nation for his deeply troubled views. He paints Dr. Thomas and the Government of Guyana as pursuing Indians by doing nothing with Guysuco and by using SARA to pursue Indians. Christopher sounds like Ravi Dev and Rhyaan Shah last Friday in their speeches at the Convention Center. This is pure evil deception.
Now, let me highlight the other deceptions. Ram says; “The Director of SARA has more power than the DPP!” Christopher Ram knows the DPP is the only person, empowered by the Constitution to institute and undertake criminal prosecutions. The SARA Bill does not give its Director that power nor does it empower the Director to assume the functions of the DPP or Commissioner of Police; and the Commissioner General is not divested of his powers where the Director exercises tax functions, clause 52(3)(c). The SARA Bill provides no power enabling the Director to conduct criminal investigations, to charge persons, or to prosecute criminal offencesand is concerned only with non-conviction based asset recovery. Ram must understand this!
Ram continued; “The Director of SARA has more power than the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority!” As an Accountant, Christopher Ram conveniently and opportunely argues this when he knows the Guyana Revenue Authority has its own Act which guides how information is provided. Whether by permission of the taxpayer, order of the Court or upon request by the President of Guyana. The SARA Bill in clauses 11, 23 and 52, envisions significant cooperation between the Director and the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority. This may include, where the Director serves a notice under section 52, seeking the assistance of GRA staff when making appropriate tax assessments, which are appealable under clause 52(9).
We come to number 4; “The Director of SARA will have more power that the Commissioner of Police!” The Director has no power to commence a criminal investigation. The SARA Bill provides for civil recovery, with the legitimate aim of prevention and reduction of crime and is proportionate as it seeks only the recovery of unlawfully obtained property or property representative thereof, and which cannot lawfully belong to the holder. To obtain a civil recovery order, the Director will be required to prove on the balance of probability both that there was some unlawful conduct, and that the property derived there from.
Incidentally, clause 44 of the Bill does not empower the Director to institute an investigation into property which is not believed to be State property. It simply provides the Director with a discretion where such property is identified whilst undertaking a civil recovery investigation into State property, to either include that property where (resulting from that investigation) there is to be an application for civil recovery of State property or to bring it to the attention of appropriate authorities.
We come to number 5; Christopher Ram makes it appear as if SARA can act unilaterally on its own when in reality SARA has to obtain permission from the High Court before it seizes or freezes any stolen assets. Christopher Ram also knows the SARA Bill states that in ensuring the proceedings are subject to due process, the investigative, restraint and civil recovery orders must be made by the High Court, and any person claiming an interest in the property has the right to challenge the application for either of the latter two orders and may seek legal and living expenses, where appropriate, out of restrained property; and the Bill contain provisions for the protection of third parties and for the innocent purchaser.
Eric Philips

---

---