Dear Editor,
What exactly does Mr. Tiwarie mean that ‘he was advisor to Harmon, not gov’t’?
Mr. Tiwarie was not helpful or clear. He said three things in a statement to Stabroek News, (12/4/2016) namely, ‘…their relationship predated APNU,… his recent private business trip to China merely coincided with Harmon’s official visit to the Asian nation… and that he been appointed as a personal advisor to Minister of State Joseph Harmon and not to the government…’ Together, they constitute a curious confluence of circumstances indeed. The issue for us is the third element. On its face we think we understand what is meant by a personal adviser to Minister Harmon, however, the element ‘not the government’ raises questions. We were told by Minister Harmon that Mr. Tiwarie’s title was an “honorific title.” Mr. Tiwarie stated that the arrangement was pro bono.
First, what exactly is meant by “personal adviser to the Minister and not the government”? Based on Mr. Tiwarie’s statement one gets the impression that he is suggesting to the people of Guyana that this is as a sort of private relationship (not adviser to government) outside of the framework of government. It’s ridiculous; he was appointed and it was rescinded by the President. What instrument did the President revoke? Kaieteur News (31/3/2016) reported that an ‘Instrument of Appointment to Mr. Brian Tiwarie… was signed by Harmon, on January 19, 2016’. Signed by Harmon; in what capacity other than the Minister of State? Was the appointment within the ambit of government rules regarding honorific appointments? Official-dom needs to be observed, even in pro bono cases. Remember, Mr. Harmon is not a civilian. He is an officer of the State of Guyana, unless we are left to imagine that the APNU+AFC is operating an arbitrary government. Are we to believe that Mr. Tiwari can enter into an arrangement with Minister Harmon and there are no effects on the government? We know how advisers operate. What exactly is Mr. Tiwarie saying?
Second, the practical difference between a personal adviser to a Minister and an adviser to the Government through the same Minister seems rather small, particularly since the outcome will be the same. Unless the Minister, in that capacity, will use Mr. Tiwarie’s advice for his private purposes (which raises different issues), the effect will be that Mr. Tiwarie will influence government action, and very likely policy, through an influential and powerful Minister such as Mr. Harmon. Where does this leave the current AFC Minister of Business? Mr. Tiwarie will therefore have to explain how the ‘advice to Mr. Harmon and not the government’ was intended to be used. It seems to us that the Minister will either act directly on the advice or advise his government based on what he receives from Mr. Tiwarie. Either way the government will be affected. Mr. Tiwarie’s explanation of his relationship to the Minister and our understanding of that relationship will lead us to the same destination.
Third, on their face, the honorific title and pro bono arrangement seem straightforward enough. But is that the end of the story, since the practice of the relationship will matter greatly? Critically, we have no way of determining or predicting how influence under an honorific title, (in this particular case and in practice) in a country like Guyana would operate and be perpetuated. Guyana’s political and governmental cultures are murky. The evidence; a Minister can pick up the telephone and instruct enforcement officers from the Revenue Authority to back off, an ominous sign of misuse of authority. Could an honoree gain access to insider information about what the government is up to, and will he be able to gain a decisive advantage over his rivals, given the economic sector(s) of business interests? The Guyana procurement machinery is very weak and there is very lax surveillance and enforcement of business type law, including procurement and competition law. Mr. Tiwarie may not need a salary or fee, but what else does he want, nothing? Well, Editor, there may indeed be ‘different kinds of nothing’. An old saying in Guyana is that “there are many ways to skin a cat”. The Guyanese people should be vigilant and not be deceived; the pro bono aspect was not the decisive component.
Fourth, if Mr. Tiwarie meant to advise a Minister without any legal commitment and reciprocity, then why does he need an appointment? He could use their “relationship that predated APNU”, meet the Minister for coffee whenever he feels the need to do so and deliver his advice to the Minister. What’s the problem? The Minister could still use said advice in the manner described earlier, and there will be no tortuous issues of a personal adviser to Minister Harmon, or a government adviser advising the same Minister, or the rescinding of an appointment.
Yours faithfully,
Ivor Carryl
