SARA has nothing to show after spending over $600M in three years
– Ram says agency has been a “complete and expensive failure”
By Shikema Dey
Since being in operation for approximately three years, the State Asset Recovery Agency (SARA), has received at the very least, $600M in taxpayers money to fight corruption. But given its performance record to date, there are many who believe that the agency has been nothing but a complete waste of tax dollars. One such person who remains resolute in this view is Chartered Accountant and anti-corruption advocate, Christopher Ram.
Head of the State Assets Recovery Agency, Dr. Clive Thomas
Anti-corruption Advocate, Christopher Ram
During an interview with Kaieteur News, Ram highlighted that the coalition, like the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), had shown the necessity for asset recovery without the “heavy hand of politics.” He noted however that the APNU+AFC has been at best, irresponsible in handling this matter.
Expounding further, Ram reminded that the coalition had appointed one of the Executive Members of one of the parties within the coalition, who in turn, appointed persons whose major qualification appeared to have been their association with the APNU+AFC faction. In this regard, he was referring to Professor Clive Thomas who is an Executive Member of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) as was subsequently appointed Head of SARA. He later brought onto his team, Aubrey Heath-Retemyer who is closely aligned with the coalition.
Turning his attention to the funding the agency received to date, Ram noted that in 2018, the agency had a budget of $260M and in 2019, it received $285M. For its establishment in 2017, it also received another $116M. Since receiving those sums, Ram said that SARA has failed to produce at least one case where state assets were recovered.
Ram recalled that the agency had gone after Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) back in September 2019 with claims that it had acquired a property in Kingstown that houses its headquarters for $244M less than its actual value. The High Court however, ruled in favour of the bank, on the grounds that SARA lacked the legal standing for such a matter.
In this regard, Ram recalled that he had argued years back that the SARA Act would place the agency in direct conflict with the Constitution – a position he still holds to this day.
“There is clearly a place for state asset recovery,” Ram continued, but he said that the SARA Act is “too wide, internally inconsistent, complicated and inconsistent with Guyana’s constitution.” He said that it seeks to give the State enormous powers while depriving citizens of their corresponding rights.
Continuing on this point, the lawyer reminded of a case brought by Social Activist Ramon Gaskin which challenged the constitutionality of the agency back in 2017.
At that time, the agency was attempting to recover billions of dollars from a case with Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. (QAII), the company which bought the Sanata Complex. According to reports, SARA was expected to recover more than $3B in state assets from that shoddy deal but the case was halted because of the litigation brought by Gaskin.
The social activist had outlined 37 challenges to the SARA act, which he deemed unlawful and void. In establishing SARA, the Coalition Government had crafted the agency in such a way that it was not covered by any laws and then introduced the SARA Act of 2017.
Many were of the opinion that the agency would wield too much power including blatant violations of a citizen’s right to privacy by allowing the Director to access sensitive information from commercial banks and the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) without possessing a court order.
Ram pointed to one of the main contentions Gaskin made in his case, which was the fact that the Act permitted legal proceedings to be filed and heard in secrecy, which is in violation of Section 144(9) of the Constitution that provides for all civil court matters to be heard in public. Another point was the fact that the Act affords the Director and Staff of SARA “absolute immunity” for all actions and restricts the amount of damages that can be recovered against them for their conduct.
He explained that although the case was conducted by affidavit evidence and was closed sometime around mid-2018, a ruling is yet to be handed down by the Chief Justice.
“The court has been approached on a number of occasions by Gaskin’s lawyers on the timing of a decision but the court has given no undertaking when this will be done,” Ram noted.
He stated that the case brought by Ramon Gaskin, having already been put before the court, “should be adjudicated on.”
Against the background of the pronouncements by a very competent court, Ram said that the SARA Act should be subject to a thorough review by a Parliamentary Select Committee so that it can be aligned with the Constitution.
