Wait a minute

Kwame is A Black PNC House of Isreal Thug

Only a Crab Louse or @untymen

will forget who Kwame is,

yuh think Kwame and De Pundit

bamboo wedding....

 was a marriage of convience..

or....Real Husband and wife....

Look how nice Kwame look

Bhai De Pundit Lucky

It seem like you only have one answer for everything. It's called lack of vision. The joint opposition exhibited that blindness everyday.

and we know this answer hurting you

Only a Crab Louse or @untymen

will forget who Kwame is,

Look how nice Kwame look

Bhai De Pundit Lucky

Your punch line is worn out. Nothing interesting. Nothing to laugh about. You're a sore loser. 

Is Cathy Hughes above public scrutiny?

Dear Editor,

Perception is everything in politics. Mrs Cathy Hughes being on the payroll of Sithe Global and making decisions in the AFC on Sithe does not seem right.  I as an ordinary person have forgiven Mr Nigel Hughes since he did the honourable thing and resigned from one of the entities he has been involved in, and even issued a public apology.

However, none of this was forthcoming from Mrs Cathy Hughes and it has been a month now.  Is she above public scrutiny?

Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)

extracted from the stabroeknews

The enigma that’s AFC : --a party of conundrums and conflicts

FROM its conception, and by its name, the Alliance For Change professes to be the political movement to catalyze change in Guyana’s political landscape. A common thread which runs throughout almost all of its public pronouncements is that it advocates for a high standard of political morality.

“Transparent government”, “accountability in public office” and high decorum from public officials have all been ideals espoused by this party. Indeed, these are ideals for which all political parties ought to protagonise. But none has done it as empathic as the A.F.C. 
Equally, none has failed more abysmally to practise what it preaches than the A.F.C. In this article, I will chronicle just a few examples to support my hypothesis.

Nagamootoo and N.I.C.I.L.
From the inception, A.F.C. has been critical of N.I.C.I.L., accusing it of innumerable financial irregularities, lack of transparency and accountability in its operations, and much more.

In the elections campaign of 2011, N.I.C.I.L has been a focus of theirs with all the leaders, including Moses Nagamootoo, castigating and denigrating the work and functions of N.I.C.I.L. After the elections, and in Parliament, they continued to be critical of N.I.C.I.L. in their presentations. 

In the press, the onslaught persisted. Not once, however, was it disclosed to the unsuspecting public that Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, the Vice-Chairman of the Alliance For Change and one of its Members of Parliament, was a lawyer retained by N.I.C.I.L., and that he had actually received almost $7 million in legal fees from this very organisation which they describe as being so corrupt.

It was only after I disclosed this information in a debate in Parliament National Assembly did it become public. To date, no member of the Alliance For Change has denounced this patent conflict of interest and political hypocrisy.

Pension and prevarications:
The pension and other facilities to which former President Jagdeo is entitled, by law, has evoked tremendous controversy. The fact that this Law was simply a codification of the benefits which all former Presidents enjoyed was simply ignored. The issue was propagandized to its fullest. The most prolific crusader against it was Mr. Moses Nagamootoo; he spoke at length about it during the elections campaign, at public meetings, rallies, in the newspapers, and on television. To quote him, “It rattled my soul.”

Not once did he disclose that when that very Law was passed in Parliament, he voted in support of it. In-fact, from all his utterances, he deliberately conveyed the impression that he voted against it. It was only after I produced the Hansard, during one of my presentations in Parliament, and revealed that he voted in support of it, was that information made public.

Indeed, seconds before I read from the Hansard, which, obviously, he didn’t realize I was about to do, his bold assertion was, “I never voted for it.” Again, the AFC has offered no apology to the public for this blatant prevarication.

Meridien and Marriott:
The disclosure that a Marriott Hotel will be built in Guyana was made early in the year 2011. Indeed, a few months prior to the November 2011 elections, there was a public sod-turning event at the proposed site, which was published in all the newspapers, and aired on television. No public criticism came from the A.F.C. 

As the elections were approaching, Robert Badal, the owner of the Pegasus Hotel, made public his association with the A.F.C. I have no doubt that this association came with great financial benefits.

It is not rocket science for anyone to quickly realize that a Marriott Hotel, in close proximity to the Pegasus Hotel, would pose significant competition in that realm of the hotel industry in which the Pegasus Hotel enjoys an almost absolute monopoly.

Almost immediately after Badal’s association with the A.F.C. was consummated, the party launched a sustained and vitriolic campaign against every aspect of the Marriott Hotel project, casting every conceivable reason as a basis for it to not materialize. But again, not for one moment during this sustained attack did the A.F.C. disclose, or even concede, that the party has a close and politically consanguine relationship with the Pegasus Hotel.

Specialty Hospital and Special Interests:
The establishment in Guyana of a specialty hospital of the kind conceived to be constructed at Lilliandal, East Coast Demarara, in the ordinary course of things, cannot be opposed by a sane mind. Expectedly, there was no known objection emanating from the Alliance for Change, initially. 

However, the objections to and criticisms of the project came in an avalanche when Fedders Lloyd Inc. was disqualified from the bidding process as a non-compliant bidder. The criticisms came largely from the AFC leader himself, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan. Not surprisingly, it became public knowledge subsequently that Fedders Lloyd Inc. is his client. Again, no one in the AFC sees the conflict. At least, they have said nothing publicly about it.

Cathy and Consultancy:
It is now public knowledge that Ms. Cathy Hughes, an Executive Member and Member of Parliament for the Alliance For Change, owns a Public Relations company. This company was retained by the Sithe Global Group to do public relations work when the Amaila Falls Hydro-project received its first bout of criticisms. The chief critic again was her party, the Alliance For Change.          

I disclosed this conflict of interest situation publicly on two occasions. Both times, I received letters from Mr. Nigel Hughes, her husband, Chairman of the A.F.C. and Company Secretary for Amaila Hydroelectric Project Inc. (AHEPI) demanding a retraction. I ignored both. It is obvious that the rank incest which contaminates these associations is oblivious to the AFC.

Hughes and Hydro:
I have no doubt that the disclosure that Mr. Nigel Hughes functioned simultaneously as chairman for the Alliance For Change and the Company Secretary for Amaila Hydroelectric Project Inc. is a shock from which many have not yet recovered. His decision to resign from the party rather than the company must have bewildered his supporters more than anything else. The fact that his leader disclaims knowledge of his dual role speaks volumes. To whom did he make his alleged disclosure that he is the company secretary for Amaila Hydro Electric Project Inc. when his leader is unaware, is indeed a million dollar question. Certainly, the disclosure was not made public and only that could have possibly dissipated the impregnable conflict of interest which he eventually admitted. Alas, this public disclosure is almost four years late.

A Foreman’s furor:
Those who are still recovering from the Amaila Hydro Electric Project Inc. conflict of interest debacle were dealt another blow when it was disclosed that Mr. Nigel Hughes had a lawyer/client relationship which lasted some six years with the foreman of the jury in the just concluded Lusignan massacre murder trial. In this case, the Judge embarked upon an exceptional procedure and specifically enquired from each juror, in the presence of all the lawyers, whether they had any relationship of any kind with any of the lawyers. The disclosure of this previous lawyer/client relationship came from neither the juror nor the lawyer.

The information about this relationship became public only after the trial. The juror has since admitted the relationship and was banned for life from ever serving on a jury. No such admission has come from Mr. Hughes. The case lasted six years. All the court documents were signed by the same lawyer. Only that lawyer appeared at the trial of the case. I draw no inference. I leave that to you.

Nigel Hughes withdraws resignation as AFC Chairman

• Thursday, 05 September 2013 16:44

the party on Thursday also released “Guidelines for Disclosure by AFC leaders.”
1.     A conflict of interest may arise where an elected member of the Management Committee and/or the National Executive Committee (MC/NEC) of the Alliance for Change (hereinafter referred to as “an AFC leader&rdquo has a private material interest that can be affected by the outcome of deliberations in which this leader is participating.
2.     An AFC leader who is a member of the National Assembly, Regional Democratic Council or Neighbourhood Democratic Council shall additionally be guided by and subjected to rules on conflict of interest in his/her respective body.
3.     An AFC leader is at liberty to offer unlimited professional services in pursuit of his/her constitutional right to work and shall not be required to violate confidentiality with legitimate clients.
4.     An AFC leader has a duty to disclose before the decision-making body of which he/she is a member any private material interests in matters being deliberated by either or both of these bodies. 
5.    It shall be an agenda requirement of MC/NEC meetings for an AFC leader to voluntarily make periodic disclosure(s) of a private material interest in any matter being deliberated.
 6. Either of these decision-making bodies shall determine, in the absence of the AFC leader in question, whether the nature of the disclosure constitutes a conflict of interest situation over a matter being discussed.  
7.     Where it is determined that a conflict of interest exists, the member in question shall recuse him/herself and not participate in deliberations on the particular matter in which he/she has disclosed a material interest. 
8. The leadership body may invite an AFC leader who has made disclosure of a material interest to offer technical or specialized opinions on a matter being deliberated, but that leader shall not exercise a vote or otherwise decide on the matter.
9.     Public disclosure by the Party of any private material interest of an AFC leader shall be decided on a case by case basis, after due consideration of confidentiality or third-party interest, and shall be made only with the consent of the said leader
10.  An AFC leader who knowingly withholds or fails to make timely disclosure of a private material interest in a matter being deliberated before a decision-making body of which he/she is a member, shall be subject to disciplinary processes under party rules.
These draft Guidelines on Disclosures were adopted by the AFC NEC meeting on 31 August, 2013.

After caught with their pants down on their Chairman Nigel Hughes’ blatant conflict of interest with Amaila Falls Hydro Inc (AFHI), the Alliance For Change (AFC) has issued an “apology”. But this is not just too little, too late: the release contains so many caveats and outright distortions that the “apology” becomes an insult to the Guyanese people.

 It’s clearly the work of AFC Leader Khemraj Ramjattan and Vice-Chairman Moses Nagamootoo. They tried to fob off the charge on Hughes, but we all know from their personal experience, they’re also neck deep in conflict of interests.

Office of the President driver arrested with unlicensed gun, ammo

• Thursday, 05 September 2013 11:27

• Published in Latest News

Councie is kwamee.

APNU saved the nation from being financially raped in the name of hydro. Well done APNU! 

Sithe Global would have recovered total investment in five years

…and 15 years of profits-Anand Goolsarran

At a 19 per cent rate of return, Sithe Global, the company contracted to develop the Amaila Falls Hydro Electric Project, would have recovered its total investment of US$157M, within five years time, and this is ignoring inflation.
Former Auditor General of Guyana, Anand Goolsarran, in an invited comment regarding the repayment arrangement to Sithe Global, said that for the remaining 15 years of its operations in Guyana, all of the payments it would have received would have been profits.
He calculated this to work out at US$447.45 million.

Former Auditor General of Guyana, Anand Goolsarran

According to Goolsarran, over the 20-year period, Sithe’s return on investment of US$157M would have been US$596.6 million.
He said that as a percentage of the original investment, “this works out to 380 per cent over the 20-year period.”
Goolsarran said that the return on investment of 19 per cent “appears too high” given that most of the financial risks were covered by the Power Purchase Agreement, which was also backed by a Government guarantee.
He said that Guyana Power and Light (GPL) has also pledged all of its assets as a security for its payments, including all receivables derived from the sale of electricity to consumers.
Goolsarran also said that it needs to be borne in mind that at the end of the 20-year period, Amaila Falls Hydro Inc. would have accumulated significant assets, other than the actual infrastructure works which would have been handed over to the Government.
He explained that as a preference shareholder, Sithe Global, would be entitled to its 60 per cent share of such assets as a priority over the ordinary shareholder which is the Government of Guyana.
The former Attorney General explained that there are two main types of equity investments: ordinary shares, and preference shares.
He said that for its return on investment, ordinary shareholders receive dividends when profits are made and dividends declared.
In contrast, preference shareholders receive a fixed rate of return regardless of whether the company has made a profit or not.
“Preference shares are a half-way house between loans and ordinary shares…The main difference is that there is no periodic repayment of the investment.”
He said that should the company have to ‘wind up,’ preference shareholders will be given priority in terms of the distribution of the proceeds arising out of the liquidation.
Goolsaran did caution that “there was no mention of Sithe Global being a preference shareholder in any of the documents I have seen.”
This status of the company had been attributed by Financial Analyst, Christopher Ram, who in his writings had said the public might have been led to believe that Sithe Global is an equity investor when, “in fact Sithe Global was allowed to design the project documents so that the repayment of its cash and in-kind investment would be effected through the monthly all-in charge to be paid by GPL.”
He concluded that “Sithe (Global) then is not an equity shareholder but the holder of redeemable preference shares enjoying total control of all aspects of a project.”