Latest update February 23rd, 2025 10:50 AM
Latest News
- Drunken businessman shoots wife dead during argument
- Taxes collected by Bahamas on Guyana’s oil will soon outweigh our total earnings – Chris Ram
- Gov’t ignores concerns, reappoints Director, members of Environmental Assessment Board for 3rd consecutive year
- Pope Francis in critical condition after health deteriorates, Vatican says
- Youths locked out of Wales Community Centre ground after asking Team Mohamed to help fix a section
In support of Dr Singh and Brassington
Dear Editor,
I have listened with disdain to the frivolous mantra about the corruption perpetrated by the previous PPP/C Government that I felt that the countless Commissions of Inquiry and the millions in taxpayers’ dollars squandered that SOCU would have presented unequivocal evidences to prosecute the alleged PPP criminals in our Courts of Law.
However from a little research done I have found that it is the consensus that the Common Law Offence of gross misconduct in public office ‘should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues’.
Furthermore, it is stated that if there is clear evidence of one or more statutory offences, they should usually form the basis of the case’. In other words ‘there is no suitable statutory offence for a piece of serious misconduct…’
In formulating our FMA Act, our Parliament cannot be deemed not to be aware of the existence of this Common Law offence but they have legislated laws which adequately cover the offences which can be committed by public officers and for which the public officer must be held legally accountable. They knew that the Common Law offence of ‘gross misconduct in public office’ has no place in our legal system!
Therefore, I will contend that the abuse of judicial process is glaringly evident in the case against Dr Singh and Brassington. The Financial Management and Accountability Act Section 85 states that an official who— (a) falsifies any account, statement, receipt or other record issued or kept for the purposes of this Act, the Regulations, the Finance Circulars or any other instrument made under this Act; (b) conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the State or make opportunity for any person to defraud tile State; or (c) knowingly permits any other person to contravene any provision of this Act, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine of two million dollars and to imprisonment for three years.
Both Dr Ashni Singh and Mr Brassington were public officials at the time and the Act makes provisions for offences committed during their tenure as public officials. Section (b) of the Act makes it clear that evidences must be submitted to prove that these officials ‘conspired or colluded with any other person to defraud the State or make opportunity for any person to defraud the State’.
But did SOCU after three years of in depth investigations come up with any such evidences? The answer is a resounding NO! These gentlemen acted within the FMA Act and with the approval of Cabinet which is chaired by no other than the President himself.
Furthermore, the JOHN PUBLIC would like to know that these public officials sold the land and corruptly benefited from the deals! Not that they have failed to adhere to some procedures!
Moreover, the fact that Dr Singh and Brassington would have sold the lands without a valuation being done failed to take into consideration more relevant social and economic factors which would be more compelling to sell at the given prices.
In addition, it is common knowledge that the valuation of properties is done for many reasons which may not reflect the real market value. When it comes to the bargaining table valuations only serve as a point to bargain from, it does not guarantee that this is the price you will be getting!
You may value a property for $25 million but get it sold for $15 million because you needed money badly at the time.
In conclusion, Section 85 of the FMA Act should have been used as the criterion to charge these gentlemen who have contributed so much to the economic well-being of our country but that could not have been done. There is simply no evidence.
Therefore, SOCU decided to carry out its political dictates by pulling the most spurious and vexatious charge it can find, not from according to the Laws of Guyana but from the English Common Law. So much for being an INDEPENDENT NATION for 50 years! Shame and disgrace!
Yours sincerely,
Haseef Yusuf
RDC Councilor-Region 6
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Crowds, chaos and complaints
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The folly of the cash grant distribution is a textbook case of what happens when a government,... more
CARICOM Nations Should Respond Together To new U.S. Policies
By Sir Ronald Sanders Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News-Two Executive Orders issued by U.S.... more
Weekend Cartoon
