Adams did not consistently oppose Exxon flouting of rules

Sep 02, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Reference is made to several letters by Mike McCormack, Jerry Jailall, a group of six, and several others (KN) condemning the termination of Dr. Vincent Adams as Head of EPA. Dr. Adams is indeed competent in his line of work based on encomiums from the US. But he was a political appointee and entered into the political fray. Once you go on the political hustings, you are no longer a professional civil servant. So McCormack and the others are wrong on this score. When your party loses an election, you leave honourably holding your head high, proudly to fight another day. You don’t grovel for a job from the victorious party. Also Adams developed a strong voice against Exxon after APNU officially lost the election on August 2. His political affiliation prevented him from holding Exxon accountable. He was silent about Exxon’s violations the preceding 20 months.
Adams, like many others and myself, was or is a supporter of APNU+AFC. He campaigned on stage. But our party lost. There is nothing shameful about it. We move on to the opposition benches. We organize to rebuild and return five years later. That is the nature of partisan politics that characterizes Guyana. We must come together to rebuild our party and hold the PPP accountable. We must not be angry with the PPP for wanting its loyalists in such a key post. The APNU needs Adams on our side for a strong opposition to the PPP.
Contrary to what McCormack wrote, it would have been very demoralizing retaining the service of Adams. It would have sent the wrong message to those who campaigned on the victorious side or who stood up for decency, integrity, and honesty. The critics should have been more circumspect in their obloquy. They see nothing wrong in retaining a very partisan political appointee who campaigned on the political platform. What message does it send to other civil servants? Go and campaign for a party! You will not lose your ‘wuk’. It is okay to enter the political fray and when you lose you remain in your post. And what is the message being sent to other party activists and others who campaigned against such political behaviour? No wuk for you. We got to keep the appointees of the previous government.
Firing or terminating or sending political appointees on leave ought to be demoralizing when they resist leaving their positions. That should be the intent of such an action. A clear message must be sent to other political appointees – leave office when your party loses. Ethically, it is wrong remaining in office. Adams should have offered his resignation on August 3 and let the new administration know he would like to assist in certain areas if it desires his services. Staying on was disgusting, displaying a lack of professionalism and integrity. Separately, didn’t Adams, who lived over 35 years in the US, the bastion of democracy, find it troubling to campaign for a political party that refused to resign after losing a no confidence vote? And does he not have any shame in wanting to remain in office after his party lost the election. The entire world condemned his party for attempting to defraud the electorate.
Adams was a political appointee who campaigned for the incumbent APNU+AFC. When your party loses, you leave office. If you wish to be a non-partisan appointee or a professional in the civil service, you stay out of politics. Adams should have resigned from his post before entering the political hustings. If a professional or a civil servant wishes to campaign for a party, he resigns. If his party wins, he returns.
Adams was silent during the five months ordeal to steal the election. Since he was active in the political campaign, he should have publicly come out and condemned the fraud like a professional would. His political colleague Dominic Gaskin condemned the fraud throughout as well as after the count and recount. Adams had several opportunities to condemn the fraud. Even now, he could have spoken out against the fraud. He chose to be silent. That was a clear message that he intended to remain political with APNU+AFC. What kind of message would it send to the nation by retaining a partisan political appointee? Would it not be demoralizing to the hundreds who campaigned against the coalition only to be told that activists like Adams would retain their posts in defeat? Can the new government trust or have confidence in him in such an important post? Didn’t APNU purge all PPP appointees and those perceived as sympathizers?
Mr. Jailall believes Adams provided strong leadership at EPA by insisting that Exxon pays the fine change for dumping contaminated water in the ocean and speaking against flaring. But Melinda Janki exposed the duality of the position of Adams who for two years has been silent on the 25 years permit granted to Exxon when the law allows for only a five years permit. If he were such a strong leader, why didn’t he object to the breaking of the law on the 25 years permit and call on his government, which he campaigned for re-election, to revisit the permit. Adams knew the law but allowed its violation while his party was in office and only began to speak tough against Exxon when his party officially lost office. Also, there was flaring and dumping of pollutants in the ocean during the tenure of his government and he was silent all the time. It is hypocrisy to act like a tough guy when all along you were a weasel because of politics.
Dr. Vincent Adams did not behave like a professional. His behaviour after March 2, smacks of political opportunism. He ought to have resigned voluntarily rather than be pushed out. That is how one retains integrity.

Yours truly,
Nigel Philadelphia

---

---