THE combined parliamentary opposition’s persistent attacks on government ministers is part of a ploy to gain political mileage and destablise the government through character assassination of government ministers.
This is evident from the persistent,

unfounded and wanton attacks on government ministers’ personalities to create the perception of inefficiency and corruption.
The Guyana Chronicle has learnt that the  opposition’s tactic of attacking government ministers is part of a strategy to gain political mileage by creating negative public perceptions of ministers.
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee has felt the brunt of the opposition’s volatile attacks, both in and out of the National Assembly. Not long after the budget cuts, the opposition shifted its focus on the Home Affairs Minister, blaming him for the death of three Lindeners during the opposition-orchestrated demonstration against the power tariff hike in the mining community.
In spite of this matter being addressed through a Commission of Inquiry, the opposition’s spurning of Minister Rohee continues and he was once again publicly vilified following the killing of an Agricola youth. Three police officers were subsequently charged with murder for the youth’s death, but the opposition continued its campaign and eventually used its one-seat majority to pass a no-confidence motion against Rohee.
The motion effectively sought to blame Rohee for the killings in Linden and to gag him from speaking in parliament. This move, the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman, following the advice of two legal minds, contended the House has no authority to table. The two attorneys consulted by Trotman, Senior Council Rex McKay, is an opposition lawyer, and Attorney Stephen Fraser, is associated with the AFC, and despite this, the Speaker’s ruling did not go down well with the AFC and APNU parliamentarians, who rudely disrupted the sitting of the House. Eventually, the Speaker of the House supported a gag order on Rohee, a contradiction to his first ruling, and the matter was sent before the Privileges Committee, even though Rohee did not breach any privilege of the House.
Government moved to the High Court to challenge the ruling of the Speaker and the gag order was lifted, following the court’s ruling, but this has not gone down well with the opposition. The Speaker has since indicated that he intends to appeal the court’s ruling.
While the debacle continues, the opposition has also taken its crusade against the Finance Minister, making allegations of lack of transparency and corruption in the use of state funds and sale of state assets during privatisation deals.
However, the minister and President Donald Ramotar have since cleared the air on deals that were the subject of controversy. Minister Singh reiterated that there was no cloud over any of the evaluations of any privatisation transactions, and added that government is willing to address any questions on any specific valuations, in spite of having made the information public over the years. Pointing to the Privatisation Report, Minister Singh said it was the result of a very robust system of record-keeping and a comprehensive attempt representing a formidable effort by the Privatisation Unit. On the charge of ‘persons close to’ the government being involved in transactions and alleged shady deals, Minister Singh stated unequivocally that each transaction could be laid bare in detail without exemption, regardless of who is involved.
The Finance Minister stated unapologetically that issues and questions raised by the opposition are politically conjured up, and emphasised that at no point in Guyana’s history have the operations of government been as open and transparent as they are now.
But the opposition has jumped on a new bandwagon, claiming that the Finance Minister has restored funds cut from the 2012 budget by the parliamentary majority opposition. During the last sitting of the National Assembly, the opposition continued its charade of denying approval for government expenditures, which stymies development and even job-creation, thereby affecting the growth of the economy. There were heated exchanges between government and opposition members of parliament, as the opposition yet again used its combined majority to deny approval of the allocations of funds sought by the government for the housing and agricultural sectors, totalling about $3 billion. The combined opposition slashed more than $20 billion from the 2012 budget and today most of that has not been restored.
The Finance Minister’s wife, Geetanjali Singh, has also been the subject of the opposition’s venom. An aggressive campaign was mounted to deny Mrs. Singh  the appointment of audit director, in spite of her acting in that capacity for quite a while, claiming that it was a conflict of interest, as she would have to report to the Minister of Finance, her husband. However, the criticism was deemed to be politically motivated by Attorney-General Anil Nandlall, who pointed out that she is merely one of three audit directors and not the auditor-general. This means that she is not answerable to the minister of finance or any member of the executive, but to the auditor-general, who is in turn answerable to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The auditor-general has stated publicly that the audit of the ministry of finance and the various agencies and organs which fall under it, is not among Mrs. Singh’s functions, which clearly reveals that the attack on Singh’s confirmation has more politics and vitriol than merit.
“The hypocrisy is nakedly revealed by the fact that the very auditor- general audits the accounts of the same parliament to which he is answerable. Yet, not a single utterance is made of this apparent conflict. The squabble is much ado about nothing,” Nandalall pointed out.
Singh commenced her career at the auditor-general’s office in 1992 as an audit clerk, and now ranks among the most qualified. In 2005, prior to her husband becoming Finance Minister, she was appointed to the position of audit-director (acting). This shows that it is conflict of interest based upon perception and not actuality.
During the Ninth Parliament, the opposition, aided by certain media operatives, also ran amok in their assault of Housing Minister Irfaan Ali and the $4B expenditure the housing ministry used to acquire lands from the Guyana Sugar Corporation to create more than 15,000 houselots for Guyanese. They did not confine the onslaught of the Minister to the National Assembly and in the realm of politics, but rather battered his personal affairs, particularly, his acquisition of property. Consequently, Minister Ali sought redress in the courts.
Former President Bharrat Jagdeo has also been the victim of the opposition’s unbridled  obsession, which has resulted in the publication of numerous inaccurate and vindictive articles attacking the former president, leading many in civil society to conclude that they are hinged on personal vendettas and envy, and aimed at destroying Guyana’s path of continued development.