Private Sector calls out SARU CEO on accuracy of statement

Mar 17, 2017 News

---

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the State Asset Recovery Unit (SARU), Aubrey Heath-Retemyer, has said on numerous occasions that the concerns of the Private Sector Commission (PSC) regarding the SARA Bill were addressed.

However, PSC Head Eddie Boyer is challenging the truthfulness of that comment made by Retemyer.
In fact, Boyer is saying that there was never any attempt by SARU to address the concerns of the Private Sector regarding the State Asset Recovery Agency Bill.
“I never met the man. And as a consultant or someone working with Government, he should not be making that statement. He has never asked us about our concerns much less addressed them. Let him show you the correspondence,” insisted Boyer.
“I am telling you we are not against the SARU Bill. When it comes to state asset recovery and the fight against corruption we are not against it, but when Bills affect investor confidence and they infringe upon democracy then we cannot support it,” the PSC Chair added.
Calls to Retemyer to address the claims made by Boyer went unanswered.
However, the Commission has since asked Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland to send the SARA Bill to a special select committee, since it is of the impression that consultations held last year on the draft Bill were, perhaps, just for show.
The Commission’s feeling is rooted in the fact that the draft Bill, which was initially submitted to stakeholders for discussion, is essentially the same Bill that was laid in the National Assembly. This in essence means that no change of consequence was made to the Bill.
The Private Sector body, via a letter to the House Speaker, said that it maintains that the provisions of the Bill are in conflict with the rights enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana, and constitute a threat to democracy and good governance.
However, the CEO of SARU had said that the changes proposed by the Commission were based on the fact that they did not understand several aspects of the Bill.

The SARU Officer said that while the Commission was not alone in this boat, “efforts were made to ensure that all misunderstandings regarding the Bill were clarified”.
He said, “I do recall their concerns with the Bill, but the truth is that the criticisms we received on the Bill were largely due to the fact that people did not understand it, and that was the case with the Commission.”
Heath-Retemyer said that there were no “substantial” changes made to the provisions, but there was some “tightening of the language” used.

SARA BILL
The SARA Bill is intended to give effect to the non-conviction-based asset recovery recommendations contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption 2003, which was ratified by the Government of Guyana in April 2008.
It therefore provides for the establishment of the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) which has as its primary function, the civil recovery of State property obtained through the unlawful conduct of a public official or other person, or any benefit obtained in connection with that unlawful conduct, by way of civil proceedings taken in the High Court for a civil recovery order.
The granting of a civil recovery order vests in the State, ownership of any property subject to the order. According to the Bill, SARA will have a Director with responsibility for the effective management and execution of its functions.
Furthermore, the Bill contains seven Parts. Part One contains general provisions such as the short title, commencement and interpretation provisions.
Part Two speaks to the establishment of SARA and its Director as a corporation sole, the appointment of a Director, Deputy Director and staff of SARA, and the terms and conditions of their appointment. This part contains provisions on how the SARA will be financed, through a budget approved by the National Assembly, and its transparency obligations, by requiring the Director to provide a detailed annual plan and annual report, both of which must be laid before the National Assembly.
In addition, SARA staff will be required to comply with the Code of Conduct prescribed in the Integrity Commission Act.
Sections Six and Seven of the Bill set out the respective functions of SARA and its Director. SARA’s functions include the investigation, tracing and identification of State property suspected to be the proceeds of unlawful conduct of a public official or other person, and to institute High Court proceedings for the civil recovery of that property.
The Bill also provides for SARA to be enabled to seek the recovery of such property wherever in the world that property may be located, and must also raise public awareness on the dangers of corruption and other crime.

---

---