Dear Editor,

In your edition of July 14, 2013 on page 3 `Clause to remove Cabinet role in procurement had not been approved by gov’t – Teixeira’, Ms. Teixeira seeks to implicate me in her attempt to explain away the Government’s agreement to an amendment to the Procurement Bill to phase out Government’s no objection to the award of contracts by the Tender Board.

Describing the amendment as “unauthorised” by the Government, notwithstanding its support for the amendment when the vote took place, this is what the Governance Adviser is quoted as saying: “In the midst of the debate there was a sidebar with the Speaker (Ralph Ramkarran), Winston Murray (of the PNCR) and Attorney General Doodnauth Singh. They then came with an amendment (for the Bill). Government ministers did not recognize nor did they know of the meeting.”

This is such an audacious distortion of the truth that it reminds me of the instance in May 2010 when Ms. Teixeira told the UN’s Universal Periodic Review in Geneva that 15 year old Twyon Thomas, who had been tortured by the police, had been compensated. Upon her return to Guyana she denied saying so until she was confronted with a verbatim transcript of the webcast which she tried unsuccessfully to explain away. I never had any role in the business of the Government while Speaker. I could not attempt such a role as it was beyond my jurisdiction. But, even if I were minded to do so, I dared not. I had the greatest difficulty managing the Parliament’s business without persistent Government interference, much of it inspired by Ms. Teixeira, much less being permitted to meddle in Government’s business in a Jagdeo administration, which would be considered as nothing  short of heresy.

During the debate on the Procurement Bill in 2003, the PNCR bitterly opposed a no objection role for the Cabinet which was in the Bill. While the debate was in progress Messrs. Murray and Singh came up to the Speaker’s Chair to ask if I would agree to a suspension of the proceedings in order to discuss a way forward. I agreed. A formal request was then made and I suspended the sitting. Messrs Murray, Singh, the then Minister of Finance and Mr. Cecil Durjhon, the Chief Parliamentary Draughtsman, and a few others who I do not now remember, had discussions for about an hour while the Parliament was suspended. I was not present at that meeting or any similar meeting.

Parliament was then meeting at the Ocean View Hotel where the private facilities were limited. The discussions took place in a room in public view of all MPs, staff and any members of the public who might have been present.

It is most extraordinary that Ms. Teixeira recalls what she refers to as the ‘sidebar’ meeting of not more than a minute but does not recall the hour long discussions. Even more astonishing is the implied suggestion that the ‘sidebar’ meeting while Parliament was in session produced a complicated amendment, which the Government did not know about, but which at least three Ministers supported in debate and the entire PPP side voted for!

When Parliament resumed the amendment was presented at the appropriate time but not before at least Ministers Baksh, Kowlessar and Nadir commended the proposed amendment to phase out Cabinet’s no objection when the Public Procurement was established. It has to be assumed that they were speaking for the Government/Cabinet. And the entire Government side, including Ms. Teixeira, voted for the Bill which included the amendment.

If the “Government ministers did not recognise nor did they know of the meeting” in which I allegedly participated, as claimed by Ms Teixeira, why did they not seek an adjournment of the debate? If they subsequently realised that it was a mistake, why did they not introduce legislation to amend the Procurement Act during these past ten years? And why is it for ten years the PPP remained silent and only now speaks, when public pressure for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission is intensifying?

Ms. Teixeira’s accusation against me of plotting against the Government, because that is what it is, is a most disgraceful falsehood, but as with the case of the compensation for the torture victim, Twyon Thomas, is well within character.

Yours faithfully, Ralph Ramkarran