I congratulate Guyana’s Private Sector Commission (PSC) for achieving a high watermark. In condemning WIN’s call for a boycott of two private banks, the PSC sounded a little too anxious, too shrill. The PSC had to take a position, but it went into rhetorical overdrive. Guyanese boycotting banks could lead to broader things.
When the banks made their decisions to close accounts in one instance, and terminate one employee in another, they went too far. Stretching matters, I may (may) see basis for those decisions, if the accountholders and employee are “US persons.” If they aren’t, those bank(s) actions suffer from overreach. Further, if there’s no record or suspicion of those impacted supporting wrongdoing by the sanctioned individual, then the two banks opened themselves dangerously. What grounds for their decisions to sever relationship with 20, then one? Did the risk profiles of those approx. 20 customers change? How are they a threat to the financial system? Still further, what could be the problem for banks, or private sector businesses, when one practice is to contribute to political parties? Or, when their own executives, managers, and workers contribute monetarily, or support, one political party or the other? Perhaps, this doesn’t happen here, which pushes reason into the graveyard.
Relative to Demerara Bank (Dem-Bank), I offer a fig leaf. Like any private business, the bank has a right to decide who it wants as a customer, with whom it doesn’t. Regarding the latter -caution. Decisions cannot be indiscriminate, or inconsistent. Nor can they go against existing standards and practices. Said differently, Dem-Bank would have difficulty justifying the termination of a commercial relationship that violate a common right. I think these apply to the 20 accounts closed. Because what Guyanese are observing is the severing of hitherto unproblematic relationships because of their association with another citizen, albeit an OFAC sanctioned one. To emphasize: there’s a blatant violation of rights. I don’t read of anything related to the initiation or perpetuation of some criminal enterprise, but there is Dem-Bank terminating accounts, and the PSC highlighting unstated risk concerns. If anything, the PSC’s manufacturing component must be hailed for outstanding craftsmanship. Regarding GBTI’s firing of Mr. Corwyn Austin, I contend that his right of political association has been violated.
Separately, Guyana’s double standards speak volumes. Dr. Vincent Adams, former EPA head, was found wanting due to his political affiliation. Today, such affiliation on the PPP Government’s side is celebrated. Former Permanent Secretary, Ms. Mae Toussaint Jr. Thomas is under US sanctions, through her prior association with Mohamed. No one, barring family, should have any of this kind of relationship with her. Can Guyana’s banks, especially Dem-Bank and GBTI say that’s where they are? However, the sanctioned Ms. Thomas is part of the PPP’s 35-member Central Executive; and likely still in that high circle. If I am right, and the ‘public servant on leave’ is still there and being paid via taxpayer dollars, then how is that for different standards, different application of what is now so feared? Meanwhile, an unsanctioned Corwyn Austin is sacked by GBTI for being on a political list. But the sanctioned Ms. Thomas sits regally within Guyana’s ruling political party. With such double standards, double-dealings and doubletalk, it solidifies that Guyana isn’t a country. Guyana is a snake pit on an ant’s nest surrounded by pimpla bush. Ants bite snakes; snakes eat spikes. Mayhem results. To all those weighing in about regulations and financial implications, where are the financial crimes of the secondary parties? If it’s associating with a sanctioned person, then Guyana is gone, dead.
Finally, the president came out to say that the PPP Government had neither hand nor say in the decisions of the commercial banks. Before that, the president and others in the PPP are also on record as insisting that government had nothing to do with US lobbying firm, Continental Strategy, singling out the WIN’s leader as a ‘Maduro puppet.’ The president himself may be kept in the dark to give him the cover of not publishing a falsehood (plausible deniability). This leaves Guyanese to believe that local and foreign developments that target WIN and its people, from its leader to some in his surrounding cast is random and a matter of independent decision-making. The commercial banks can claim risk concerns and the right to self-protection, and erring on the side of caution, on one condition only. They are consistent, and their records demonstrate so relative to other sanctioned locals.
This whole affair gives off a bad, lingering odor. Coming from a commercial context, I appreciate the conservative nature of banks. But I believe that more is at work here. As in the instance of Continental Strategy. And however, Ms. Thomas stands, both inside the PPP and probably in Guyana’s commercial sector. Different folks, different strokes.
