Latest update January 20th, 2025 4:00 AM
Battle for the Bridge- The majority wants the Govt to win this one.
Dear Editor,
I take umbrage to a letter written by Anil Nandlall in SN. Nov 6th, “Taking over Berbice Bridge is an act of compulsory acquisition”. The BBCI investors were contemplating a 365% increase in toll on commuters. This audacious increase could be justly considered an act of terroism perpetrated against commuters.
The Government had a moral duty to step in and protect the innocent bystanders (commuters). For Nandlall to refer to the Berbice Bridge as “private property” is an act of profane political expediency. Nandlall in his tirade conveniently omits the fact that the investors or concessionaire with the controlling rights to the Bridge only supplied 5% of the cost of the Bridge. How does the counsel justify his statement?
“This is nothing short of the state compulsory acquiring private property. Private property!” The Bridge, being a public/private venture, where the private shareholders only paid 5% of the cost of the Bridge and were granted an unusually lucrative 23% return on their investment and controlling rights for 20 years by a Government in which he was a major player.
How does that coincide with his use of the term “private property” in relation to the bridge? Yet this man had the audacity to say, “Rather than negotiate from a position that recognizes and respects private property, this government has chosen the big-stick method of bullyism.”
Only Anil, with his perceived ingenuity can possibly explain this mathematical fallacy- 95% public plus 5% private = private! I hope he does.
Through his charade, Anil identified a moment that the Coalition and the Country should take note of.
Anil wrote, “It wasn’t until 1999-2001 constitutional reform process that the constitution was amended to provide for prompt payment of market value for properties acquired by the state.”
The Government should offer to repay these investors the monies they invested. This impasse begs a question. Why didn’t Jagdeo approach the international financial institutions for a mere $400 million that was needed to complete the Bridge?
The fact that he didn’t and allegedly sacrificed the career of Maurice Arjoon on the Bridge, reeks of sinister motives.
So Nandlall is pontificating that “this act of the Government taking over the Bridge will certainly cause irreversible damage to Guyana’s image as an investment destination.” If the true story is told about all the graft-the secrecy clause-the guaranteed Stanford like 23% returns on investment- the victimization of a banker, all of which Anil will not dare out of his politically convenient shell , to speak of, investors will understand.
The last time I checked, investors only come here for resources. That has been the case since the time of the PPP because it is not logical to go where it could not be found. Taking that as a known, maybe Anil in his next missive can explain his Government ‘s logic of buying them with sweetheart concessions, while the locals are not granted any concessions.
The Battle for the Bridge will rage on. The public watches in high anticipation. The majority wants the Government to win this one. It is a struggle against heartless capitalism orchestrated by the PPP on the nation.
Rudolph Singh
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Mental illness is real and a serious public health concern
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Mental illness is a reality we often acknowledge in passing but seldom confront with the... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
