Dear Editor,
A report published in Stabroek News on June 6 gives the public a look at the exchange between President Ali and entrepreneur Azruddin Mohamed about several issues. What stands out immediately is the contrast between the two accounts. One discusses a high-value car, reportedly worth $50 million in a specific currency, while the other barely touches on the topic and avoids direct quotes, using vague and evasive language. When you look at the President of Guyana’s track record on similar matters, some consistent patterns begin to emerge.
When a minister had fallen foul of public opinion and had been accused of indecent approaches to a woman of the indigenous nation, you will remember that this minister approached the President, who, by his own account, is constantly being approached. He enjoys the role of a father figure who resolves difficulties. In that case, he said the minister approached him and asked to be put on ministerial leave. There was no enquiry into the justification of the accusation against the minister. I don’t know if the minister admitted an offence.
Mr. Anil Nandlall, the Attorney General, informs us that he is relying on the article in the Burnham Constitution, which designates the President as “the supreme executive authority,” a provision that remains in effect and requires a referendum to change. The supreme executive authority can take various guises, sometimes resembling Father Christmas, as a father figure who resolves difficulties or intervenes. There is no role for a father figure in the Constitution.
However, the incident regarding the luxury car discloses an unhealthy permissiveness with all its implications. There is nothing in the President’s response that suggests they are referring to any specific car. This is a lack of transparency. Why go to that length to obscure the topic of discussion between this head of state and a citizen? The head of state is entering an area of decision-making that is not constitutionally within his power. The President was the first to disclose that the Mohamed family had provided security for him. Let’s examine this.
The moment a President is sworn in, he has access to the state’s security. Here, we have the intervention of private security. The entrepreneur is offering something as precious as a security detail to ensure the President’s safe delivery. This puts other citizens who are unable to do so at a theoretical disadvantage. The President may treat those who can offer him security and those who cannot with equal consideration. He may be that kind of person. Objectively, it must be presumed that one can outweigh the other. I am not making a judgment here, but I will make a concrete proposal because of this exploration.
The second feature of this transaction is that we don’t know how this affected the police. The state police are the individuals responsible for providing various security services to the president. According to the account, a private party intervened and assumed a function that the state should have provided. We do not know how it affects the police security department that is supposed to protect the President.
When we consider these factors together and reflect on the same president who acted unconstitutionally and dissolved the Police Service Commission because there were not enough people recommended for promotion who were friendly, we can see a pattern. We see a tangled web and many predispositions to an unhealthy relationship are developing.
I do not want to stretch this out; the President does not say what approaches he made to the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue. This is a public matter, and a citizen approaches him legitimately, and he discloses that he has acted, but does not specify what action he has taken. This is evasive and obscure. He invites citizens to guess their way, and this is an unhealthy outcome.
On the question of private security provided by a friendly family to the newly sworn-in president, was this done with the consent of the minister of home affairs, the chief of special branch, or on any such formal process, or simply a one-sided arrangement between the family and the president? This is not good enough.
What needs to be made clear is whether the President’s intervention affected in any way the amount of revenue due to the Revenue authority and received from the entrepreneur in question. I propose that the car imported by the Mohamed family should be fully taxed.
This whole episode is ripe for public investigation. This entire affair, as related by two witnesses directly involved, can only be justly pronounced upon after an urgent public inquiry, probably by the Integrity Commission.
Yours truly,
Eusi Kwayana
