Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 03, 2022 News
– rejects opposition nominees of Chris Ram, Vincent Adams
Kaieteur News – As was predicted the PPP/C used its advantage on the Committee of Appointments to pick former PNCR Minister, Dunstan Barrow, as a director on the critical Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Board of directors, ignoring Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram and oil and gas expert Dr Vincent Adams.
Observers believe that Barrow being a former minister aligned to the PNCR further erodes the credibility of the board, which has been designed to give the government full advantage. At a meeting of the Committee of Appointments on Wednesday the Opposition proposed: Christopher Ram, and former Head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Adams but they were rejected by the Government. Meanwhile, in addition to Barrow the government nominated former Deputy Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Clement Sealey and former Guyana High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Hamley Case.
As part of the governance structure for the NRF, a Board of Directors was established which shall comprise of not less than three and not more than five persons who shall be appointed by the President, and one of whom shall be appointed Chairperson by the President. The directors, according to the Act shall be selected from among persons who have wide experience and ability in legal, financial, business or administrative matters. It was noted that one of the Board members shall be nominated by the National Assembly along with one from the private sector. The Bill states that the directors shall be appointed for a period not exceeding two years and shall be eligible for reappointment.
With respect to its functions, the Board is responsible for the overall management of the Fund, reviewing and approving policies of the Fund, monitoring the performance of the Fund, ensuring compliance with approved policies, exerting general oversight of all aspects of operations, and ensuring the Fund is managed in compliance with the Act and other applicable laws. The Board is also responsible for preparing the investment mandate.
Earlier this week, though adamant that the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act was illegally passed in the National Assembly last December, the Opposition said it will nevertheless submit suitable candidates to sit on the respective boards as prescribed by the law to manage the oil and gas revenue.
Making this disclosure was Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Mr. Aubrey Norton during a press conference hosted on Tuesday. Norton told members of the media that it is imperative for the opposition to be able to scrutinize the allocations of the revenue from the oil sector, in the interest of good governance. He stressed, “If you leave the Natural Resource Fund without scrutiny, one; you will be excluding yourself from knowing what is happening, and two; you will be making the ground much easier for the PPP to continue to expand its corruption…but in the interest of the people of Guyana we will scrutinize and monitor to ensure we can contribute to a reduction in PPP’s corruption and to work toward the resources of our people going toward benefitting our people”.
In addition to the Board of Directors, the NRF will also have a Public Accountability and Oversight Committee which shall comprise of one nominee from the National Assembly, three representatives of the religious community, two representatives of the private sector, two from ‘organized labour’ and one from the ‘professions’.
When it comes to the appointment of these individuals, Norton said he believes the process should have been a transparent one where suitable candidates apply for the respective positions, rather than be “handpicked” by the President, Irfaan Ali.
The Shadow Minister for Oil and Gas, David Patterson previously vented his concerns with regard to the powers given to the President to appoint these members, whom he believes may be inclined to do the government’s bidding. He said, “We still have extreme concerns because the Act has no clear designations and qualifications in general terms like for legal or financial (persons) and there are no clear guidelines on selecting those people. I mean like what are the qualifications and the background for these persons and how its set up, the President will pick three on his own deliberations with no input from anyone”. The MP argued that this section of the law drafted by the government, gives no room for Parliamentarians or even the regular citizen to challenge or question who the President decides to appoint. Taking this into consideration, along with the fact that there was poor consultation on the NRF Act, and the symbol of authority in the House, the Mace, was absent during the passage of the Bill. Norton during his media engagement said that the coalition will continue to regard the Bill illegally passed. In fact, he shared that the Party is still compiling a case to challenge the passage of the Bill.
”We believe the Natural Resource Fund (Bill) was rammed through the Parliament. We believe that there wasn’t adequate consultation. We also believe that with the absence of the Mace, it could not have been passed legally and therefore as far as I know, work is still being done to put together the entire case to challenge it,” the Party Leader explained.
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]