Coss Cutters, a million dollars, the camera, the cricketer

Aug 07, 2019 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

There is no other silly, funny yet sickening country like Guyana. One of the richest Guyanese family companies that is perhaps the largest owner of land in the Caricom region has told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it cannot pay a fine of a million dollars for environmental violation and will need time to pay.

And guess what? The EPA agreed to the absurd request. This is a family that spent hundreds of millions (yes hundreds) to build a huge food chain in Alberttown, and utilized a similar sum to construct a hotel in Alberttown too.
It bought land from the Anglican Church for half a billion dollars. And recently it purchased a high prize piece of real estate and constructed a business on North Road again involving hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is literally a multi-billion-dollar family company that has a lucrative export business.
How can the EPA not know of the colossal financial standing of this family business? A million dollar is chicken feed to these people. But the EPA agreed to their terms of payment.
Here is where the forensic auditor and the investigative journalist come. If the company cannot pay a million dollar fine what happened to those billions that were invested? Is this wealthy family going under?
I saw a new supermarket opened up on Sheriff Street named “Coss Cutters.” This Trinidadian firm is supposed to have real low prices. I decide to try it because I needed cat food. A small tin of Friskies goes for $200 to $210. No supermarket in Region Four where I shop for it, has it above $210. I almost had a heart attack.
At Coss Cutters it is $300 a tin. They aren’t cutting cost. They are cutting your pocket.
The surveillance camera is ubiquitous today. A few years back, the surveillance camera recorded a taxi driver stealing the side mirror of Kaieteur News staffer outside the company’s entrance. Two weeks ago, there was an installation campaign of surveillance cameras around Georgetown.
One of these outfits on the post outside the office of the DPP looks right over the seawall. This has affected me because I park my car right next to the wall right in that area.
I would usually have a pee when I return walking my dog before I go to my car. Right at that spot where I use to do my thing, the camera will pick me up. I wonder if I could survive a front page image in the Guyana Times and Chronicle of Freddie urinating on the beach in front the Eve Leary police offices.
The surveillance camera has now become foolproof evidence that the courts will accept once the image is clear and the victim and perpetrator are clear in the focus.
Against this backdrop, it is interesting to note that all the newspapers reported that the cameras of a business place in Berbice picked up a police rank allegedly planting marijuana on the premise and then demanding money from the owner.
He must be entitled to natural justice before an investigation is done, meaning he should not be summarily dismissed. The most sensible thing to do is to suspend him with pay while the investigation takes place. The business woman has supplied the images to central command in New Amsterdam.
By what logic is that fellow transferred to another section in the police force. What purpose the surveillance camera serves then? Let us look at a hypothetical case. A public servant is seen using his foot to kick down the stairs of a complaining member of the public.
The video is viewed by higher authorities. Are you telling me that before the investigation starts, there will be no suspension or indictment from duty?
Finally, the courts. A Caribbean Premier League Player and national cricketer that once donned the West Indian maroon, Christopher Barnwell, has been charged with assault and appeared before magistrate Sherdel Isaacs Marcus. He was placed on $30, 000 bail. This is inexplicable. Bail is shaped in weight based on certain circumstances, one of which is the nature of the offence and the likelihood of the person absconding.
In this case the offence is minor assault. Is this magistrate telling the nation that a top Guyanese cricketer is not going to appear again thus self-bail was not granted? When is self-bail appropriate and relevant?
I like to joke around with my editor, Adam Harris, in these columns. So if Adam steals my dog and he is before the court, he cannot go on self-bail? Or suppose I steal Adam’s car, will I face a huge bail? This is life in a mysterious, stupid and funny country.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---