THE MISSING ASSETS

What are the assets that have been stolen from the State of Guyana under the PPPC?  If perhaps the new ruling administration can adumbrate these assets, it would help the people understand the need for a State Assets Recovery Unit.
Otherwise there is going to be public skepticism about such an outfit. It will be viewed as a unit aimed at going after individuals rather than seeking to recover public property.
The formation of the unit may have been based on an assumption. That assumption may be that the PPPC plundered the property of the State and misappropriated these for the private benefit of some individuals. Whether that is so or not, the only assets that can be recovered are those that may have been stolen from the State.
You cannot recover a bribe granted by a contractor. If someone receives a contract and pays to a public official a bribe that is not an asset that is recoverable by the State. The State may prosecute a public official for corruption but it cannot recover a bribe paid by a private individual to a government employee because the bribe is not the property of the State; it is the property of the person paying the bribe.
So just what assets is this State Assets Recovery Unit going after? And who are the persons making up this unit? The public needs to be informed so that it can keep an eye of these individuals.
But does Guyana really need a State Assets Recovery Unit to be able to retrieve State assets?  The need for such a unit would depend on the quantity of the assets that need to be recovered. So what assets are missing? As far as has been reported, there were about eight vehicles which were allegedly misappropriated by one Ministry. There is also an investigation taking place into the illegal receipt of petrol by certain individuals. Does Guyana need a special unit to go after such things?
Is it beyond the investigative abilities of the police to retrieve these assets? Why was it necessary to offer an amnesty, which has so far only netted eight vehicles when the police could have easily done their work and retrieved these vehicles and allowing for charges to be instituted? Why an amnesty offered in the first place when the government itself does not seem to know what is missing?
There are serious questions swirling around this so-called conditional amnesty granted by the government. In the case of the missing vehicles, there are questions being raised as to whether such an amnesty was necessary in the first place. An amnesty is intended to encourage the surrendering of illegal property but is often only given when it is difficult for the authorities to identify where this property is located. Amnesties are also usually only given where there are large numbers of illegal items out there. People are asking whether this amnesty only applies to the vehicles alleged to have been misappropriated or whether it applies to all State property.
The amnesty is very vague and this has increased public speculation as to its intentions. It does not state what assets are covered and for what period it covers. It does not state what are the conditions attached. In the face of this, persons are asking whether this amnesty was part of a deal-making between the present administration and those behind the alleged misappropriation of the vehicles from the Public Service Ministry. Were there negotiations between the parties that would have allowed for the return of the vehicles on condition that an amnesty from prosecution would be granted?
The new government, with all its bombast about transparency, needs to answer this question. Were there negotiations over the return of these vehicles and was the amnesty part of those negotiations? This question needs to be answered especially in light of the fact that two of the persons allegedly implicated in the reported misappropriation of the vehicles have had ties with the military in Guyana. This is one of the main reasons why the issue of the amnesty needs to be clarified. Was the amnesty granted because of the persons concerned? And does it apply to other persons who may not have ties with the military?
The related question of course is what happens to those who were implicated in the alleged attempt to have the registration of the vehicles transferred? What is the position with the status of the receipts that were tendered for the vehicles? Are these valid or were they forgeries? What is the position with the persons who allegedly fabricated those receipts? Were they too responsible for assisting in the recovery of the vehicles and as such subject too to an amnesty for any wrongdoing?
This government promised greater transparency but there are many things that are extremely cloudy at the moment. At the center of this opacity, is this whole issue of asset recovery and the amnesty that was offered for the return of such assets. Let us hope that at the next Cabinet briefing that this issue is explained once and for all.