Innovative Mining Inc. responds to the mining death

Jul 19, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

We write on behalf of our client Innovative Mining Inc., in response to a letter published in the letters section of the Kaieteur News’ edition of 17th July, 2016, captioned “Serious Questions For Minister Broomes, GGMC On The Russian’s Death”, apparently written by one Ruel Rodrigues.
While it is not unusual for members of the public to have questions and concerns, particularly in fatal accident cases, that the questions appear based on very inaccurate premises, suggests that the writer did not take the trouble to inform himself of easily available facts; instead he rushes to ask serious “questions”. This is itself troubling and requires a response.
The writer asks these questions of the Honourable Minister Ms. Simona Broomes and the GGMC. While the company holds no brief for either of these persons, and the goodly Minister is more than erudite enough to answer fully for herself, as the company is the focus of these questions, it is compelled to respond.
The writer states that Minister Broomes reported that an engineer travelled to the area and came back, and said he found no evidence of negligence by the company. What is so alarming about this? There was a full investigation. In addition to the engineer from the Ministry of Natural Resources, another official from the Occupational Safety and Health Authority of the Ministry of Social Protection, and the Guyana Police Force, all visited the site and conducted separate investigations into the incident, and issued reports to their several agencies. What more ought to have been done? The Minister did the proper thing by stating that a full investigation was done and no negligence was found. The Minister, as even the writer acknowledges at the beginning of his letter, is no shrinking violet in exposing wrongdoing and malpractice. Had there been negligence, she would have said so. But where she found no negligence, she simply did the proper thing and so stated.
The primary concern expressed by the writer is that the company failed to report the matter to the GGMC, and gave ignorance of the obligation to do so, as its excuse. This is far from the truth in several regards. One of the company’s Directors, Mr. Parmeshwar Jagmohan had responded to a question from one section of the media to the effect that the company had not known it was required to report the matter to the GGMC. What he actually stated was that he was unaware that there was any stipulation requiring that the matter be reported immediately.
The writer has apparently taken this response as the basis for a tirade against the company, castigating it for “claiming ignorance”, and positing very robustly that “there can be no excuse whatsoever for ignorance. There is a regulator and the Regulator is GGMC!…The Personnel Manager is supposed to know the implications of such a death and that it was his/her responsibility to report it immediately.” Unfortunately for the writer, the legal position is not as absolute as he posits. The applicable Regulation requires that “notification of death under any circumstances shall be immediately communicated to the Commissioner or Mines Officer within twenty-four (24) hours or soonest thereafter.”
For the writer’s information, the company did communicate the accident to the GGMC’s offices by telephone the following day, and thereafter submitted a formal report to the Commission. The reason why several days intervened was because the roads were almost impassable in the area of Annamuri Backdam, and several of the company’s personnel were required to travel to Georgetown to brief management and submit statements so that the company could submit a formal written report. The company nevertheless did so in the shortest possible time available to it, and the GGMC accepted this as coming within the ‘or soonest thereafter’ qualification. It may be noteworthy that at the time, the company was simultaneously engaging the Russian Embassy, the Occupational Safety and Health Authority and the Guyana Police Force, notifying the deceased’s family in Russia, as well as making arrangements for the care of the deceased pending the post mortem.
The writer pointedly enquires further, “Was a post mortem done?” Again, the question betrays an alarming ignorance of facts that are easily ascertainable by simply making enquiry of the Ministry of Health or the Public Hospital Corporation Georgetown, and causes one to speculate about his true motives. In a fatal accident situation, the body cannot be buried or otherwise disposed of without a post mortem. In this case, the post mortem was done by Dr. Nehaul, the Government Pathologist attached to the Criminal Investigation Department, at the mortuary of the Public Hospital Georgetown.
The writer mentions that GGMC’s top officials initially suggested a cover-up. The writer does not say who these “top officials” are, and on what basis they made this startling statement. Perhaps the writer could name these persons and precisely what they confided to him. He should however be careful as the officials of the GGMC would have full recourse to the laws of libel and slander to punish any person who takes liberties with them and the truth.
As to the questions ‘Was the family here when the creation was done?” and ‘How can we [the writer and who?] verify’, although these are very intrusive enquiries that risk seriously invading the bereaved family’s privacy, should the writer nevertheless wish to enquire further of the family, upon presenting himself at the company’s offices with proper identification, the company is prepared to provide him with the family’s contact information so that he may pry as much personal information from them as he wishes. Meanwhile, the short answer is yes, the family was informed, came to Guyana, did not wish the deceased’s remains to be interred here, but rather in his native land, and requested the cremation. They attended and witnessed the post mortem, and afterward, returned to Russia with the ashes of the deceased. The company did accommodate them at the Marriott Hotel at its expense. Perhaps the writers saw something sinister there.
Some of the writer’s enquiries and positions are to say the least insensitive, and the others based on a lack of easily obtainable knowledge. The company can only speculate as to why the writer did not avail himself of readily available facts and the true state of the law in an area in which he chose to take certain very assertive positions, before taking these positions. It would certainly save him considerable embarrassment.
Andrew M.F. Pollard,
Attorney-at-Law,
Innovative Mining Inc.

---

---