Moses chased and booed by sugar workers:

The man said he opposed the introduction of the legislation not the legislation as voted on in parliament. We know once decided in party conference the parliamentarians who have no native constituency to back them up but who are essentially creatures of the president has to vote his way. This is political theater for the benefit of dullards like you. Why dont they afford us the list of PPP parliamentarians who ever voted against their party?

At least Bro Jalil did open our eyes with all the House of Israel Thugs  alligned with the Corrupt PPP/C:

No wonder their support is fastly dwindling,

This current bunch of Politician that calls themselves PPP is totally different from the PPP of yesteryear: What we currently have is a bunch of crooks.

This is nothing New.....

We see all the PPP MP's supporting a PPP Bill to give Jagdeo a Super Pension.

This was a vote along Party line.

Moses explained that he did not support the Super Pension for Jagdeo...

But he voted along with all the other PPP Members.

Nandalall must tell us if it is true he has personal connection with Drug Dealers?

Nandalall must tell us who is the Lady in Red?

Nandalall must tell us which Drug Lord was in his vehicle terrorizing the Kaiture News Staff last week....and his connection to this Drug Runner???

Nandalall is not telling us Dr Jagan personally.....made every single PPP MP support and Vote for A PNC bill to Nationalize the Sugar and Bauxite Industry.....De Now Famous Critical Support.

These things happen in the PPP....nothing new.

Rev, Yuji, Kwame

& all Dem Pubic Louse....

Now...."Got De Itch"....

with all dem

Black House of Israel thugs in

Freedom House

& Office of the President

Why would the black thugs alone fill you with consternation? Do you not think you need to give those Indian crooks in the PPP some airtime?

D2....Why would the black thugs alone fill you with consternation?

Do you not think you need to give those Indian crooks in the PPP some airtime?

I agree with the Respected D2.....

Today the PPP is made up of

Indian Crooks + Drug Lords + Black House of Israel Thugs....

All Dem Duty Pubic Louse

Rev, Yuji, Kwame

& all Dem Pubic Louse....

Now...."Got De Itch"....

PNC in chaos. Do really think that they will win?  Because it will definitely NOT be the AFC.

I commend Carib for his realistic view on the Election Outcome.

The opposition are a bunch of fools on taking on the PPP when the PNC and AFC are at their weakest.

PPP 42% APNU 40% AFC 18%.  The PPP is also quite weak themselves.  When they see PPP supporters rioting against them, and knowing that it is now accepted that the Indian population has tumbled they must be frequently running to the toilet and scheduling their private jets to fly them to Miami to deal with the diarrhea.

Parliament is gone soon so nothing can get done to October.  If GECOM isn't ready for LGE they cant be ready for this, so expect early 2015.

What is interesting is that the mixed voters will be having real impact in this election as many of them who were born in the 90s will now be old enough to vote.  APNU tends to win this bloc.

I guess we will have annual no confidence votes before some one decides that the problem is that the constitution needs changing.  Change it and then have a referendum to allow post election alliances.  I think the days of one party having majority rule are over.

Using Article 218 (3) as permission to illegally withdraw public funds is farcical

DEAR EDITOR, Despite a lack of legal training, I consider myself like many other Guyanese to be reasonably intelligent and capable of understanding what is written in the Constitution of Guyana. I am therefore quite clear on the meaning of the following Article of our Constitution: 217 (1) No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund except— a) to meet expenditure that is charged upon the Fund by this Constitution or by any other Act of Parliament; or b) where the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Appropriation Act; or c) where the issue of those moneys has been authorised under Article 219. What this tells me is that there are only three provisions in the Constitution for withdrawing money from the Consolidated Fund. The first two are self-explanatory, while the third (c) refers to another Article (219) of the Constitution which simply provides for expenditures necessary for carrying on the business of Government during the period before the approval of the budget or up to the end of April of each year, whichever comes first. Another Article (220) of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Contingencies Fund, and for advances to be made from the Fund, and for the fund to be replenished. Article 220 is made specific by the Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMA) Act of 2003, Article 41(4) of which limits withdrawals from the fund to two percent of the estimated annual expenditure of the previous fiscal year. Since the Contingencies Fund is a sub-fund of the Consolidated Fund and ultimately requires a withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund for its establishment, this withdrawal is provided for in Article 217(1)(a) above by an Act of Parliament (FMA Act). A retroactive appropriation by the National Assembly allows the Contingencies Fund to be replenished by withdrawing from the Consolidated Fund under Article 217(1)(b). This has to be so in order to conform to the very explicit requirements of Article 217(1) of the Constitution which contains the only allowable provisions for withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund. It is with this understanding that I wish to comment on the response by President Donald Ramotar to the formal notification by Leader of the Alliance for Change, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan of the party’s intention to pursue the use of a vote of confidence against the Government of Guyana. In his letter to Mr. Ramjattan, the President emphatically defends the unauthorized withdrawals from this country’s Consolidated Fund by his Minister of Finance by stating: Article 218 (3) is unambiguous in allowing for expenditure to be incurred in the absence, or in excess of available appropriations as approved in the extant Appropriations Act. That Article reads thus: “In respect of any financial year it is found… that any moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act… a statement of excess showing the amounts…spent shall be laid before the National Assembly by the Minister responsible for Finance…” The President seems to have completely missed the point of Article 218 (3) (b) of our Constitution which he quotes above as the constitutional basis on which his Minister is permitted to spend public moneys that have not been appropriated.  Nowhere in that Article is there a permission to spend money in excess of amounts appropriated or for purposes for which no amounts have been appropriated. Instead this Article prescribes what is to be done if it is found that any moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act. In other words, if it is found that the primary constitutional provision (Article 217 (1)) governing withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund has been breached, Article 218 spells out the process to be followed in order to bring all withdrawals back under the authority of the National Assembly. This in no way exonerates the unlawful spending. An appropriate analogy can be found in Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act which states: If in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road an accident occurs resulting in injury or death… the driver of any such vehicle shall- a) immediately stop his vehicle at the scene of the accident b) give his name, address and the registration number of his vehicle and exhibit his driver’s licence to……… The existence of this legal provision does not authorize a driver to go and crash his or her vehicle into someone else’s. It simply sets out a legal obligation to be followed in the event that such an incident occurs. In no way does it legitimize the act of causing the accident. The President also writes: I resolutely maintain that the actions taken by my government about which you complain are expressly authorised and permitted by both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Indeed, you yourself participated in this identical process in the years 2012 and 2013 by supporting Financial Papers 1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013. When it comes to public spending, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act of 2003 contains the relevant laws, and Article 16 of that Act states: “There shall be no expenditure of public moneys except in accordance with Article 217 of the Constitution”. The margin note to this Article reads: “No expenditure without appropriation” and captures the spirit of the Constitution in a way that clearly eludes the President. He also seems to believe that having retroactively appropriated some of the unauthorized spending in 2012 and 2013, the National Assembly forfeits the right to put its foot down now that it has become clear that his Government will no longer recognize its authority to authorize all public spending. The unprecedented grey area created by the Chief Justice’s fuzzy provisional ruling and the long-delayed final decision may have contributed to an uncertainty over how the National Assembly should deal with the unauthorized spending. The President should not misinterpret this to mean that the opposition did not have a serious problem with what was done by his Minister of Finance in the previous years. Further, the President posits: The Honourable Chief Justice, Mr. Ian Chang in his 18 July, 2012 ruling on the budget cuts case is equally unambiguous. He states thus: “The application of article 218(3) is premised on a finding of insufficiency of an appropriated amount for a stated purpose or of no amount for a purpose for which a need has arisen and which has received no appropriation it is not this court to substitute itself for the Minister of Finance. It is he who must make the perquisite “finding” under Article 218(3) of the constitution…” The President must be blessed with an incredibly high IQ if he finds the above to be an unambiguous permission for his Minister of Finance to spend without parliamentary approval. Once again I draw, not on any legal training, but on basic common sense when I suggest that the part of Article 218(3) quoted to by the President in his excerpt from the Chief Justice’s ruling is perhaps not the same part of Article 218 (3) which he quoted earlier in his letter. Article 218 (3) describes two separate circumstances, designated (a) and (b) respectively, under which the Minister of Finance is required to lay before the National Assembly, either a supplementary estimate or a statement of excess. The Article first quoted by the President in defence of the unauthorized spending is 218(3)(b) which is premised on a “finding” that “moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated…”.  His quote from the Chief Justice’s ruling clearly refers to Article 218(3)(a) which describes a situation where it is found - that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act It is this part of Article 218(3) that is premised on a “finding of insufficiency of an appropriated amount for a stated purpose ….” as quoted from the CJ’s ruling.  Unfortunately this is not applicable to what has occurred in this case and has no bearing on the unauthorized spending of his Minister. It should also be pointed out that the Contingencies Fund for this year would be capped at G$4.16B and any advances from this fund requires the Minister to lay before the National Assembly at its next sitting a supplementary estimate for the purposes of authorizing the replenishing of the fund. Financial Paper # 1 of 2014 introduced in the National Assembly last month is a statement of excess and therefore not applicable to withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund, which some are suggesting might have been misused by the Minister in his attempt to bypass the National Assembly. It would be good for the public to know the current status of the Contingencies Fund. This is everyone’s business. As a layperson I can find no constitutional basis for the Minister’s withdrawals of G$4.5B outside of this year’s Appropriation Act. The use of Article 218 (3) as permission to do so is farcical. Anyone looking at Article 218 in its entirety will quickly see that it sets out how authorization should be obtained for withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund and offers no guidance on making those withdrawals. The AFC has made public the fact that it has lodged a formal complaint with the Guyana Police Force over these illegal withdrawals from the nation’s consolidated fund. It falls entirely within the purview of the Police to investigate such a complaint and to document the results of their investigation so that it can be determined if criminal charges are appropriate. We expect that the Police Force will give this matter the attention it deserves and not be guided by the attitudes of our Minister of Finance and our Attorney General whose referrals to this matter as frivolous and vexatious are in line with previously demonstrated attitudes to breaches of the laws of this country. Dominic Gaskin

Coping with the crisis: A CRISIS OF SURVIVAL IN THE CORRUPT PPP/C GUYANA

Guyanese would be hard pressed to accept that the Guyana some politicians speak of is the same country that the rest of the population know and experience on a daily basis.

These high government officials are on a mission to convince us poor mortals that we are living in a utopia of their making instead of daily sinking deeper into a morass of hopelessness – again of their making.
Regardless of how much some sections of society would wish to ignore their condition, the reality is that the people in this country are in a crises of survival.  The unemployment situation does not make things any easier, and therefore each day the Guyanese people are into ingenious legal and illegal methods of coping with their life condition.
Depending on one’s perspective an examination of some of the resourceful ways employed by some people may unearth some mundane or even eye-opening strategies.  Depressed economic circumstances have forced families to compromise on the quality of their meals, and in many instances, forego at least one meal daily.
Although unemployment figures are unknown, the fact remains that unlike their counterparts in other countries, Guyanese do not have the luxury of turning to other jobs or even entering into some informal arrangement to garner the necessary additional income to survive at any appreciable level above the poverty line.
Since independence one surefire way of escaping the socio-economic privation occasioned by bad policies and hardnosed ideologies has been outward migration.  Examples are legion about the places where our countrymen can be found giving yeoman service to their adopted homeland.
And they seem quite happy despite expressing some nostalgia about the land of their birth which the truth be told, is not enough of a pull factor to ensure their remigration.
The Ministries of Education, and Human Services and Social Security have their hands full addressing reported and unreported cases of truancy and parents’ deliberate decision to not send their children to school.
No one seems inclined to come to grips with the possibility that such actions are one way of coping with the circumstances people have been forced to accept as their lot.  The front page picture of Kaieteur News of Friday July 25 last is enough to make one weep.  Readers are shown a structure on the Lusignan Railway Embankment which is home to over 20 human beings.
Maybe someone will be telling us that the relevant ministries’ officials were unaware that such a monstrosity existed.  The sad fact is that that photograph represents what is normal in other areas across the country.
No one should be surprised if suddenly corporate Guyana gets an attack of conscience and descends en masse in some public relations blitz.  It goes without saying that East Coast Demerara residents have been looking at that picture for a long time and probably in some perverse way may have gloated at the obvious misfortune of their fellow man.  Why else would it have taken so long for this example of social neglect to be highlighted?
But even for the employed, the low income that people are expected to accept as a living wage is in itself a stress factor.  It is no wonder that many people show signs of severe anxiety and even trauma resulting from an inability to provide adequately for their family and honour their financial obligations.
The ready availability of hire purchase agreements touted by annoying letters of solicitation certainly adds to an illusion of affordability; the reality is quite different just ask those who can still be embarrassed by the Agro Siezeman turning up at their door to repossess a item.
The dogmatic insistence by the government to maintain the 16 per cent value added tax is enough to drive persons to extreme thoughts.  Maybe it is time that the authorities reexamine the reasons why people seem bent on making this country the suicide capital of the region.
Arguments about the relationship between crime and economic circumstance do not impress families in crisis trying to surviving under the threat of chronic malnutrition, unacceptable public health care standards, and high levels of stress.
These only serve to aggravate an already perilous situation and lend themselves to anti-social behaviors to the discomfort of everyone.

US condemns Guyana again on human trafficking

- cites little money, poor prosecution

For the fourth year running, Guyana has been placed on the Tier 2 Watch List of the US Trafficking

Simona Broomes, President of the Guyana Women Miners Organisation, during one of her campaigns.

in Persons (TIP) 2014 report that was released yesterday. In a scathing report on Guyana that is bound to again elicit a dismissive response from Government, the US said that the country is a source and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labour. Released by Secretary of State, John Kerry, the report said that Guyana made minimal efforts to prevent trafficking. A Government’s ministerial taskforce that was designated to monitor and assess the government’s anti-trafficking efforts did not report any results. The report was also critical of a delay by the taskforce to allow the Guyana Women Miners Organisation (GWMO), a “leading” non-governmental organisation, to be part of it. GWMO which has actively been highlighting cases had requested to be part of the body but has not received a reply. GWMO President, Simona Broomes, was honored by the US for her work in highlighting incidences of human trafficking. The annual report of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons which falls under the United States Department of State, is designed to record investigations and create programmes to prevent human trafficking globally. The office presents the report annually to Congress and is designed to raise awareness about human exploitation and trafficking, and to prevent it. According to the 2014 report, while the full extent of forced labour is unknown in Guyana, there have been reports of forced labour in the mining, agriculture, and forestry sectors, as well as in domestic service and shops.

Mining attraction “Traffickers are attracted to Guyana’s interior mining communities where there is limited government control, but Guyanese and foreign nationals are also vulnerable to trafficking in urban centers and elsewhere in the country. Children are particularly vulnerable to forced labour.” Guyanese nationals are also subjected to human trafficking in other countries in the Caribbean region. “The Government of Guyana does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. The government’s Ministry of Labour, Human Services, and Social Security demonstrated concrete efforts to assist trafficking victims.” Despite these efforts, the government did not demonstrate evidence of overall increasing efforts to address human trafficking over the previous reporting period. “Guyana has an adequate trafficking law and achieved three trafficking convictions during the reporting period; however, all three convicted traffickers were released on bail pending the appeal of their convictions.” The US report said that the Government of Guyana did not provide information regarding the basis on which the defendants sought to appeal their convictions or on which the court determined to grant them bail. “The inability to hold traffickers accountable creates an enabling environment for human trafficking. Trafficking victims have accused police officers and other government employees of cooperating with traffickers.” Law enforcement officials did not provide data on the number of trafficking investigations they undertook during the reporting period, compared with two labour trafficking investigations and 16 sex trafficking investigations the previous year. The TIP report disclosed that according to a statement by an official from the Human Services Ministry before Parliament, authorities “brought before the courts” six trafficking cases, one of which was dismissed, compared with seven prosecutions during the previous period. The government confirmed that a police officer was accused of trafficking, and the Guyana Police Force and Office of Public Prosecution were reviewing the allegation.

Dismissed cases “For many years, the majority of Guyana’s trafficking prosecutions have ultimately been dismissed. A high-profile prosecution of child trafficking covered in the media was dismissed late in the reporting period, with the magistrate citing a lack of evidence.” In that case, the US said, NGOs claimed that trafficking victims willing to testify were not notified of court dates and were not allowed to present evidence. The government did not report any additional action involving prosecution of a high-profile child trafficking case investigated in 2012, and there were reports that police did not investigate all alleged incidents of human trafficking.” “The government did not report that it provided any specialized anti-trafficking training for law enforcement in 2013.” While Guyana made efforts to protect victims of trafficking, the continued lack of accountability for perpetrators further endangered victims. “The Human Services Ministry reported identifying 23 victims in 2013, among them 10 children, five male labour trafficking victims, and 18 sex trafficking victims, compared with 19 girls, two boys, three women, and two adult men identified the previous year.” One NGO reported rescuing 29 victims, mostly children, in 2013 and additional victims in 2014. “The Human Services Ministry reported that 16 victims consented to be referred to care facilities during the reporting period. Government-provided services reportedly consisted of psycho-social support, basic medical care, transportation, and some assistance for victims’ reintegration, but sources claimed that government resources devoted to victim protection were inadequate.” There were reports that authorities failed to provide assistance specific to the needs of trafficking survivors, and that victims who had been rescued were re-trafficked or became homeless after they did not receive adequate protection services from the government.

Little money “An NGO operated a shelter for victims of domestic violence, as well as a “safe home” for children in the capital that reportedly provided assistance to trafficking victims during the reporting period. The shelter received a government subsidy of the equivalent of approximately US$14,800.” The Government also paid the equivalent of approximately US$1,452 for alternative accommodation for three victims. “The Government reportedly provided specialized care for adult male victims. Donor-funded organizations provided much of the support for victims. In areas outside of the capital, NGOs provided shelter and assistance to trafficking victims, often in dangerous conditions, without any funding from the government.” The US report said that it found longer-term shelter and protection was not available in Guyana, putting victims at risk of traffickers’ reprisals, as the government also failed to punish most traffickers with incarceration. “Stakeholders reported that there were still no clear, written, government-wide operating procedures to guide officials in handling human trafficking cases in coordination with NGO partners.” While Guyana’s law contains incentives to encourage victims to participate in the prosecution of traffickers, including protection from punishment for crimes committed as a result of being subjected to human trafficking, in practice, victims often did not testify in court. “Media reports indicate that many trafficking prosecutions were dismissed because victims, many of whom were children, did not appear in court; the government did not take steps to ameliorate this problem. Guyana has not adopted methods of allowing children to testify that ensure their safety and officials reportedly did not inform victims of court dates nor take them to testify.” Under the four-tiered ranking system Tier One is a country that is meeting the minimum standards of fighting human trafficking. A Tier Two country is one that is not meeting those goals but is striving to do so. A Tier Two Watch List is a warning that countries are in danger of falling to Tier Three, which says that there is not sufficient response to the trafficking problem. Last year, the Government of Guyana made it clear that it will not be responding to the yearly questionnaires on trafficking in persons as requested by the embassy of the United States of America in Georgetown. This was following another unfavourable US State Department report on Guyana’s position on Trafficking in Persons. The Ministerial Task Force on Trafficking in Persons (MTFTIP) had expressed deep concern that the 2013 US State Department’s Report on TIP in Guyana has not reviewed Guyana fairly. “Consequently, the Government of Guyana wishes to make it clear that in the future it will not be completing and returning questionnaires on trafficking in persons to the US authorities.” the MTFTIP said in a statement yesterday. The task force, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, said that the Report contains several inaccuracies and misrepresentations with regard to the scope of trafficking in persons in Guyana and therefore attracts little merit on the part of the Government of Guyana.

Why the US tolerated the PPP for 22 years?

This has nothing to do with the USA and everything to do with the people.

Why the majority of the people continue to vote for the PPP AND PNC?

US condemns Guyana again on human trafficking

June 21, 2014 | By KNews | Filed Under News

 

- cites little money, poor prosecution

 

For the fourth year running, Guyana has been placed on the Tier 2 Watch List of the US Trafficking

 

Simona Broomes, President of the Guyana Women Miners Organisation, during one of her campaigns.

in Persons (TIP) 2014 report that was released yesterday. In a scathing report on Guyana that is bound to again elicit a dismissive response from Government, the US said that the country is a source and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labour. Released by Secretary of State, John Kerry, the report said that Guyana made minimal efforts to prevent trafficking. A Government’s ministerial taskforce that was designated to monitor and assess the government’s anti-trafficking efforts did not report any results. The report was also critical of a delay by the taskforce to allow the Guyana Women Miners Organisation (GWMO), a “leading” non-governmental organisation, to be part of it. GWMO which has actively been highlighting cases had requested to be part of the body but has not received a reply. GWMO President, Simona Broomes, was honored by the US for her work in highlighting incidences of human trafficking. The annual report of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons which falls under the United States Department of State, is designed to record investigations and create programmes to prevent human trafficking globally. The office presents the report annually to Congress and is designed to raise awareness about human exploitation and trafficking, and to prevent it. According to the 2014 report, while the full extent of forced labour is unknown in Guyana, there have been reports of forced labour in the mining, agriculture, and forestry sectors, as well as in domestic service and shops.

Mining attraction “Traffickers are attracted to Guyana’s interior mining communities where there is limited government control, but Guyanese and foreign nationals are also vulnerable to trafficking in urban centers and elsewhere in the country. Children are particularly vulnerable to forced labour.” Guyanese nationals are also subjected to human trafficking in other countries in the Caribbean region. “The Government of Guyana does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. The government’s Ministry of Labour, Human Services, and Social Security demonstrated concrete efforts to assist trafficking victims.” Despite these efforts, the government did not demonstrate evidence of overall increasing efforts to address human trafficking over the previous reporting period. “Guyana has an adequate trafficking law and achieved three trafficking convictions during the reporting period; however, all three convicted traffickers were released on bail pending the appeal of their convictions.” The US report said that the Government of Guyana did not provide information regarding the basis on which the defendants sought to appeal their convictions or on which the court determined to grant them bail. “The inability to hold traffickers accountable creates an enabling environment for human trafficking. Trafficking victims have accused police officers and other government employees of cooperating with traffickers.” Law enforcement officials did not provide data on the number of trafficking investigations they undertook during the reporting period, compared with two labour trafficking investigations and 16 sex trafficking investigations the previous year. The TIP report disclosed that according to a statement by an official from the Human Services Ministry before Parliament, authorities “brought before the courts” six trafficking cases, one of which was dismissed, compared with seven prosecutions during the previous period. The government confirmed that a police officer was accused of trafficking, and the Guyana Police Force and Office of Public Prosecution were reviewing the allegation.

Dismissed cases “For many years, the majority of Guyana’s trafficking prosecutions have ultimately been dismissed. A high-profile prosecution of child trafficking covered in the media was dismissed late in the reporting period, with the magistrate citing a lack of evidence.” In that case, the US said, NGOs claimed that trafficking victims willing to testify were not notified of court dates and were not allowed to present evidence. The government did not report any additional action involving prosecution of a high-profile child trafficking case investigated in 2012, and there were reports that police did not investigate all alleged incidents of human trafficking.” “The government did not report that it provided any specialized anti-trafficking training for law enforcement in 2013.” While Guyana made efforts to protect victims of trafficking, the continued lack of accountability for perpetrators further endangered victims. “The Human Services Ministry reported identifying 23 victims in 2013, among them 10 children, five male labour trafficking victims, and 18 sex trafficking victims, compared with 19 girls, two boys, three women, and two adult men identified the previous year.” One NGO reported rescuing 29 victims, mostly children, in 2013 and additional victims in 2014. “The Human Services Ministry reported that 16 victims consented to be referred to care facilities during the reporting period. Government-provided services reportedly consisted of psycho-social support, basic medical care, transportation, and some assistance for victims’ reintegration, but sources claimed that government resources devoted to victim protection were inadequate.” There were reports that authorities failed to provide assistance specific to the needs of trafficking survivors, and that victims who had been rescued were re-trafficked or became homeless after they did not receive adequate protection services from the government.

Little money “An NGO operated a shelter for victims of domestic violence, as well as a “safe home” for children in the capital that reportedly provided assistance to trafficking victims during the reporting period. The shelter received a government subsidy of the equivalent of approximately US$14,800.” The Government also paid the equivalent of approximately US$1,452 for alternative accommodation for three victims. “The Government reportedly provided specialized care for adult male victims. Donor-funded organizations provided much of the support for victims. In areas outside of the capital, NGOs provided shelter and assistance to trafficking victims, often in dangerous conditions, without any funding from the government.” The US report said that it found longer-term shelter and protection was not available in Guyana, putting victims at risk of traffickers’ reprisals, as the government also failed to punish most traffickers with incarceration. “Stakeholders reported that there were still no clear, written, government-wide operating procedures to guide officials in handling human trafficking cases in coordination with NGO partners.” While Guyana’s law contains incentives to encourage victims to participate in the prosecution of traffickers, including protection from punishment for crimes committed as a result of being subjected to human trafficking, in practice, victims often did not testify in court. “Media reports indicate that many trafficking prosecutions were dismissed because victims, many of whom were children, did not appear in court; the government did not take steps to ameliorate this problem. Guyana has not adopted methods of allowing children to testify that ensure their safety and officials reportedly did not inform victims of court dates nor take them to testify.” Under the four-tiered ranking system Tier One is a country that is meeting the minimum standards of fighting human trafficking. A Tier Two country is one that is not meeting those goals but is striving to do so. A Tier Two Watch List is a warning that countries are in danger of falling to Tier Three, which says that there is not sufficient response to the trafficking problem. Last year, the Government of Guyana made it clear that it will not be responding to the yearly questionnaires on trafficking in persons as requested by the embassy of the United States of America in Georgetown. This was following another unfavourable US State Department report on Guyana’s position on Trafficking in Persons. The Ministerial Task Force on Trafficking in Persons (MTFTIP) had expressed deep concern that the 2013 US State Department’s Report on TIP in Guyana has not reviewed Guyana fairly. “Consequently, the Government of Guyana wishes to make it clear that in the future it will not be completing and returning questionnaires on trafficking in persons to the US authorities.” the MTFTIP said in a statement yesterday. The task force, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, said that the Report contains several inaccuracies and misrepresentations with regard to the scope of trafficking in persons in Guyana and therefore attracts little merit on the part of the Government of Guyana.

who the fruck believes the lying KN LIES?

Kaieteur News is undoubtedly the most widely read Newspaper in Guyana:

After 1992 there are free and fair elections.