The case of Sattaur’s children

An issue that became a talking point last week involved the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority. Someone disclosed that the Commissioner General, Khurshid Sattaur had employed within the Guyana Revenue Authority, two of his sons, a daughter, a nephew and a niece. Not only was this fact disclosed. Whoever provided the information also revealed the salaries that these employees received. It is here that things get interesting. For one, the Commissioner General said that the information about the salary should have been kept secret given the criminal elements who wait to pounce on those whom they suspect have money. And of course, I got the blame for exposing these young people to risk. I exposed their salary and therefore people would opt to attack these children, because at all times they would have money in their pockets. Perhaps the criminals would kidnap them. I did not agree with that conclusion since I happen to know that while people would like to keep their salaries private, such information is often public knowledge. On numerous occasions when reporters had a problem with people whom they felt were not properly employed, they would disclose the salary to make their point. I remember when it became public knowledge that Kobe Frimpong, who was on contract to the Office of the President, was earning US$15,000 a month. Some people did force their way into his empty house, but that was because an opportunity presented itself. The act had nothing to do with the salary. The real issue here is whether the Commissioner General should have employed his children. Traditionally, to avoid any contention of nepotism, there was a marked reluctance on the part of the authorities to employ two or more of a household in the same department. I recall that the Ministry of Education always avoided employing a husband and wife in the same school. If by chance they both happened to be working there before they got married, then after marriage one had to be transferred.  There were some exceptions in the case of nurses, members of the police force and a few other entities. The reason was that these people would work in different departments, provided these were not in the same building. In this case there were mitigating factors. For one, the Commissioner’s children are British citizens who happened to qualify themselves in Guyana. They saw themselves as Guyanese, did not want to live in England, and felt themselves qualified to be employed anywhere. One of them sought employment within the Caricom Secretariat and was not even granted the courtesy of a reply to an application. Mr Sattaur knew that his children were qualified and since there were vacancies he saw no reason to prevent them from applying. But the society would wonder whether his influence would not have had something to do with their employment, regardless of which board processed the application. Yet there are issues that I was made aware of. For one, someone in the GRA came into the spotlight for having property and assets that belied his earnings. This then sparked an investigation. Reports are that having been called to explain his wealth, the individual counter-attacked with information on the children of the Commissioner General. I have been one of the anti-corruption advocates, so by no stretch of imagination would I support the individual who released the information. He or she had to know about the children’s employment long before he or she blew the whistle.  For the person to scream as soon as the hammer fell, is nothing unlike a case of a criminal squealing on a partner because he has been caught. I am not certain about the state of the investigation, but I do know that if it has been called off, I would be among the first to say that the Commissioner General is condoning corruption within his agency. I am certain that there are more people who should be investigated and this should be done in the interest of the country. But I must revisit the issue of the Commissioner General’s children. Indeed, every parent wants the best for his children and employing them is not legally wrong. But there is the question of morality. Will the parent visit his children with the same sanction usually reserved for wrongdoers? In this case, one of the sons actually signed the letter to the GRA employee to be investigated and this proved an immense source of annoyance, hence the retaliation. Then there is the question of available skills in the country. I cannot say that the children were employed ahead of similarly qualified people or to the exclusion of anyone, even slightly less qualified. I do know that they were said to have worked their way up the ranks. Having been around for a long time, I cannot support the situation. It might have been better to “pull strings” and get them employed elsewhere. Regardless of how satisfying it is to know where your children are, it is always better to avoid unwarranted accusations. But this is Guyana and the situation would soon blow away. Life will go on. And the ugly nature of the state media had to see the criticism of the situation in racial terms. Someone claimed that the media picked on them because they are children of Indian ancestry. That conclusion pushed me to obscenity. Something is moral or immoral, right or wrong. One’s ethnicity has nothing to do with this. This is the paper that concludes that black men are thieves for the greater part when thieves of Indian ancestry are equally prominent.  I dare say I have seen no comments about the pirates who are keen to snuff out Indian lives.