By Dr Arif Bulkan

In the six weeks since the mask slipped, providing an insight into Attorney General Anil Nandlall in his unguarded moments, our battered nation has been subjected to the arrogant response of both the AG himself and the ruling party in respect of the disclosures, followed closely by the prorogation of Parliament, and then yet another debilitating flood in Georgetown and along the coast after only a few hours of rain. Most recently, we have had to come to terms with the fact that a pilot – who has been allowed to operate his own hangar in this notoriously bureaucratic country and who clearly has the blessing of the government, having flown even the President on several overseas trips – was arrested on his way to Guyana with over half a million in undeclared US dollars hidden in his plane. As random as these events may seem, they are integrally connected and occur – or are allowed to occur – precisely because of the nature and quality of the PPP’s leadership. Not a single one of these incidents is anomalous or surprising – unless, of course, like battered spouses we think that deep down somewhere our abusers love us and will change.

First of all, was the behaviour of the AG so uncharacteristic of senior PPP membership? It is difficult to miss that the AG’s conduct is perfectly in line with the standards of his party – demonstrated ad nauseam in the trademark cuss-outs of former President Bharrat Jagdeo, the ‘feral’ blasts of Ministers that are proudly celebrated, and the gun-toting, drunk-driving, Nero-esque excesses that accompany the obscene grab by high-ranking PPP officials of state lands and resources for themselves and their cronies. Where else in the world could one company, whose CEO is the best friend of the Executive President, be solely granted the contract to supply all the pharmaceutical drugs to the public hospital for over a decade, simply by cabinet decision without tendering, bidding or any of the processes necessary for prudent financial management? Equally important is that no one in the PPP has ever, not once, admitted how detrimental this predatory practice is for a poor country, how immoral it is, how vulgar, how plain wrong.

But in my view, even more damning than the actual telephone conversation was the AG’s reaction and that of the government as a whole, which speaks volumes of their moral standards. So misplaced was the defence of and solidarity with the AG that one could lose sight of the enormity of what he actually said. The AG admitted to some sort of financial impropriety, revealing ‘I use some money from the government… I pay back the (expletive) money long before [Lall] even mek de issue’. Later, in an explanation to the staff at the AG’s chambers – but significantly, not to the taxpaying public – he said that this was a reference to ‘reimbursement’ he received for monies he expended on medical treatment. This admission and subsequent explanation patently contradict each other, trapping the AG in a tangled web. Did the AG use government money and pay it back (as he said in private) or did he use his money and was reimbursed (according to his scripted response)? If the latter, another set of questions arise. Since the monies used are public funds, we are entitled to know what the money was used for and by what authority it was given to him. Is it that every Minister can dip into public funds for medical treatment?

By what law? And for what medical condition? Would it cover a bout of diarrhoea? These are all legitimate questions, but consistent with the arrogance of the AG, the nation remains in the dark. Meanwhile, emphasizing the searing inequalities now commonplace, there is a vastly different standard for the poor, so that maternal deaths continue apace, victims of police brutality are beaten, sodomised and sometimes left to die like dogs, and people in the Pomeroon continue to die of preventable mishaps like snake bites.

In other parts of the conversation the AG said that a criminal defendant was in contact with the President and that ‘they work out an arrangement’. For this he has since offered no explanation. The AG urged the reporter to leave Kaieteur News, saying it is a ‘dangerous (expletive) place to work.’ He made repeated references to weapons, saying that while the newspaper was being used like a weapon, others had weapons too, that they would go into Kaieteur News’ offices and ‘innocent Peter gun gah pay fuh (expletive) Paul’. The AG referenced his own capacity, saying that he didn’t need to go to court, adding ominously that he has at his disposal ‘far more effective methods’. Hammering his point home, he claimed to be a ‘Kshatriya coolie (expletive)’, warning – ‘you don’t engage a Kshatriya in (expletive) war’.

In reacting to these frightening disclosures, the AG and the PPP government initially relied on a non-existent right to privacy. The AG shamelessly resiled from an earlier position where he had contended, quite persuasively, that there is no right to privacy under Guyanese law. At that time he stated, in relation to a different phone conversation, that ‘the matters contained in the recorded conversation are matters of high public interest; they raise issues which touch and concern the internal security of Guyana; and they bring into question the conduct of Guyana’s premier law enforcement officer. …this is information of which the public has a constitutional right to be apprised and which the media has a right and duty to disseminate.’ (Letter to Kaieteur News by Mohabir Anil Nandlall, March 23, 2006) I can find no better way than those very words to counter the contention that the AG’s phone conversation is protected by privacy, unless of course there is one law for the PNC and another law for the AG and other senior PPP members.

When the AG finally issued an explanation, it was directed to the staff at his chambers. He has never apologised directly to the nation. Instead, in a most confusing turn he admitted that the recording was of his conversation, but said that it was ‘deliberately engineered and manipulated’ and would be sent for ‘proper forensic analysis’. The President echoed this, adding that the conversation was ‘taken out of context’. But what both the President and the AG neglected to say was exactly how the conversation was engineered and manipulated, or what the missing context was. Meanwhile, we can only speculate as to what context could render acceptable the use of ‘weapons’ against the innocents of Saffon Street. Or the context which could legitimize the President’s involvement in a criminal matter against a citizen for their mutual benefit. Or the context that makes it acceptable for the nation’s highest law officer to pimp for his uncle.

In a functioning democracy there would be consequences for the AG’s behaviour, but that is not a part of our political culture. Individual and collective ministerial responsibility is a central pillar of parliamentary systems of government, the kind that we inherited from Britain. It became entrenched after centuries of struggle, including civil war, and its weighty history explains why Parliament is such a cherished institution in Britain (and other democracies). This is the only place where the people can participate in government, through their elected representatives, and also the only place outside of periodic elections where the executive can be called to account. In the UK the government must maintain the confidence of Parliament in order to govern, a convention which was incorporated into our constitution at independence. This system also requires the government to account for its decisions and policies, answer questions and provide information – all within the limits of national security and necessary confidentiality. In other countries, including many in the Commonwealth Caribbean, Ministers are also individually accountable, and where they commit gross errors, or cause embarrassment by their behaviour, they should (and often do) resign.

For a time in our history the no-confidence procedure was discarded, but by unanimous agreement it was re-inserted into the constitution in 2000. Nonetheless, the British concept of responsible government has never formed a part of our political culture, and the constitutional reforms in 2000 failed to elevate the standards in government in spite of all the rhetoric that accompanied the process. The unaccountability of PPP Ministers is so entrenched that no infraction, however serious, is attended by any consequences. Minister Rohee’s US visa was revoked, but he offered no explanation and was instead put in charge of Home Affairs! A Commission of Inquiry in 2005 registered concerns regarding the conduct of Minister Gajraj, related to extra-judicial killings and other serious activities, but Cabinet voted unanimously for him to resume duties as Home Affairs Minister! It was stated in a US courtroom that Minister Ramsammy gave permission to convicted narco-trafficker Roger Khan to purchase sensitive spy equipment, but he has never faced any censure. Minister Ashni Singh was involved in a traffic accident, fled the scene, failed to render assistance to the injured and was not subject to a breathalyser test but naturally remains in office.

The compelling conclusion is that this unaccountability of government Ministers, both individual and collective, has bred the arrogance and corruption that plagues us today. It facilitated the secret negotiations where prized natural resources were squandered to Chinese, Indian and Canadian investors for rock-bottom prices; it protected the brazen monopoly of the broadcast spectrum by PPP cronies; it is why the PPP comfortably made Henry Greene Commissioner of Police even after the US revoked his visa for benefiting from narcotic trafficking; it is why convicted criminals, of whom Roger Khan and Ed Ahmad are only two of the most prominent examples, maintained close ties with high-ranking PPP officials including Bharrat Jagdeo; it is why a pilot who was smuggling US cash could fly the current President around; ultimately, it is why US diplomats have described the government as ‘corrupt’ in their secret cables (CDA Williams, Wikileaks, 31 July 2009).

Often unnoticed but equally corrosive is the incompetence that also results from unaccountability. Again, there are dozens of examples that can be given, but the floods will suffice. Experts opine that flooding today is not solely the result of natural factors but also to rank mismanagement, citing issues like poor drainage, unregulated construction and improperly maintained canals. After the Great Flood of January 2005 no inquiry followed, but the City Engineer was sacked even though the flooding was even worse in coastal areas outside of Georgetown. The lack of any public accounting was so striking that a stunned Dr. Michael Davies in his report on the National Assembly commented ‘It must be doubted whether there is another country in the World where such a crisis would not have led to an early parliamentary debate.’ At the time, government officials said flippantly that we were experiencing a once in a century phenomenon. Less than a decade later it would be repeated, belying explanations of cyclical weather patterns. But as long as the government does not have to account to the people, incompetence will infect every facet of our lives, not restricted to flooding.

When Anil Nandlall refuses to resign, no Guyanese should be surprised. His behaviour is the embodiment of the PPP, now so deformed that Nadira Jagan lamented that her parents must be turning in their graves. The government’s reflexive defence of him, aptly described by Anand Goolsarran as ‘circling the wagons’, is equally reprehensible, and is an entrenched part of its culture of unaccountability. It is the same unaccountability that has led to the prorogation of Parliament, removing even the pretence of democracy. Ultimately, that unaccountability breeds the arrogance, corruption and incompetence which consigns this nation as the most impoverished, backward and corrupt in the entire Anglophone Caribbean, and one of the most corrupt in the entire planet.