No offence in SOCU’s expanded role

May 13, 2018 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Reference is being made to the letters of Neil Kumar (“Lincoln Lewis is either genuinely confused or attempting to skew facts and reality about SOCU- KN, May 11, 2018) and Robin Singh (Lincoln Lewis’ criticism of RUSAL was unjustified- KN May 8, 2018).
The matter before the society on the charge of Ashni Singh and Winston Brassington stems from the work of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) not that of the Integrity Commission. Kumar would do his party a favour sticking to the issue, not looking for red herring, which further serves in justifying concerns that the laws are only made for some, not all.
Guyana is not a monarchy neither is any person above the law, according to our Laws.
He is being reminded that my position on the non-establishment of Constitutional Commissions and disregard for the rule of law during the PPP/C Administration and the APNU+AFC, were, are, and will consistently be made known.
None had nor will escape accountability by me.
Calling me supporter of the government is nothing new. I’ve also been called a supporter of the Opposition.
The accusation always flies depending on my point of view and whether it offends Government or Opposition.
I’m being guided by universally acceptable principles, the rule of law, universal declarations, international charters and conventions. Where I’m constant in my outlook, it will offend those who vacillate or believe in blind loyalty.
Let me advise, my vote and citizenship do not come with silence to matters that impact my welfare, the development of this society, and those whom I represent.
In principle, there is support for the functions of the SOCU, for unhindered it stands to play meaningful role in governance by holding public officials accountable. This is long past time and pivotal to bringing about and ensuring good governance.
SOCU must be allowed to do its work. It is instructive Kumar finds objection to its legitimacy hiding being the pretext that in its present formation it departs from what the PPP/C Administration established it for.
For argument stake, let’s accept that SOCU’s formation was only to address money laundering and the financing of terrorism which are crimes against the state and the people.
There is no offense extending SOCU’s mandate to include addressing crimes against the state and citizenry committed by public officials.
This society must take note of the political double standards hindering our development and the selective application or desire for enforcement of the law.
In the case of Brassington and Singh, SOCU is not operating outside of its mandate. However, if Kumar feels, he can pursue avenues to have it challenged in the court. That is what the judiciary is made for, equally as the law so subject all.
Those who take objection to SOCU’s work, in the instance matter, are the very ones when the people’s power was entrusted to them enforced the repressive and outmoded Sedition Clause on Mark Benschop, Oliver Hinckson, et al, saying that it was the law.
This offensive clause is today being rightly objected to by these same persons now that they are in the Opposition, though, unfortunately, they didn’t so find it worthy to excise when in the seat of Government and with the Parliamentary Majority.
With regard to Singh, I stand by every word in my article, “Bharrat Jagdeo and the Russian Connection” (KN, May 6, 2018).
The money-laundering allegation of Oleg Deripaska is internationally known, equally as the several sanctions and legal issues he faces with the United States Government, inclusive of visa denial.
That he is the principal owner of RUSAL, and the company is identified for sanction as the US addresses what is said to be Russian interference in its 2016 elections, this decision was not made in isolation of his longstanding ties to questionable conduct, which remains under the US’ radar.
On the matter of land deferred, denied and ownership of a piece of Guyana by Guyanese, this is a vexatious issue.
Deripaska reportedly acquired prime land within less than a year of application, below market value, and the sum not paid at the time of sale.
Born and bred Guyanese who continue to live here are awaiting, in excess of 12 years, approval of their application for house lots being sold by the state.
And when you don’t build on the land within the stipulated period, you lose it.
This cannot be right. Guyanese are within their right to question or be upset with this disparity in treatment.
It is the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act (1997) that vests responsibility in the employer to pay termination benefit, not the union.
Consistent with the said law, Singh can join the workers and the union (GB&GWU) in calling on the Bauxite Company of Guyana Incorporated (BCGI) to pay those who are yet to receive the benefit.
I’m not against foreign investment. I’m strongly against any investor who thinks that business can be conducted without regards for a country’s laws and the rights of its citizens/workers.
My position is consistent with internationally acceptable principles that guide society. This principle holds whether a company makes a profit or not, though the discerning knows where any profit driven business fails to have continuously positive returns, over prolonged periods, it will close its door unless being used to front something else.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---