Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mr Christopher Ram‘s letter which was published in the Sunday Stabroek of February 26, under the caption, ‘If the SARA Bill is not radically restructured it will be challenged in the courts’. Ram’s missive speaks volumes. In his letter he has revealed his true self in many respects.
Mr Ram chose in his letter not to confine his critique of the SARA Bill to its legal and technical aspects and its objectives of recovering stolen state assets and to stop or reduce the annual loss of wealth to the nation by corrupt practices. Instead, he made several vicious political statements and in the process directed scurrilous remarks to the person of Distinguished Professor Clive Thomas, as the central theme in his self-serving missive. Having decided to walk down this road Ram has opened the door for similar kind of polemics in response.
For the benefit of the public I wish to state that I have known Christopher Ram for many years during which time he has been intimately associated with the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), the party of which I am a long-serving member. His relationship with the WPA has been more than ordinary. Given Mr Ram’s present hostility to the WPA and particularly to Professor Clive Thomas I believe it is important for his reputation to reveal to the Guyanese public, in the most honest way, what has been the nature of his historic association with the WPA. I don’t think this is asking too much of a person who, when it suits his purpose, raises in public issues of transparency, political and professional accountability. If Mr Ram fails to do what I am asking him, then the nation will have good reason to question his sincerity and credibility.
The hostile behaviour of Mr Ram to Drs Thomas and Roopnaraine has often surfaced in party political relations and has gotten worse in recent years. His difficulties with these two comrades and in particular, Dr Thomas, have been in the area of their outstanding academic and political achievements.
Let me quote from his letter to substantiate my contention: “While his contribution as an adviser is unclear, his role in the sugar and SARU has done little to match his academic reputation.” He continues, “… On top of that, he appears not to have advanced a single solution to sugar’s problems leaving it once again to the politicians. Sugar is in the same messy and uncertain state as when he assumed leadership of GuySuCo.” Readers would note that none of the above has anything to do with the rights and wrongs of the SARA Bill, but all to do with Ram’s attempt to throw mud on Dr Thomas. His position on Professor Thomas’s role and achievements as Chairman of the GuySuCo Board revealed his profound dishonesty, since he is aware that Thomas, the GuySuCo Board and the management of the corporation have submitted to the cabinet comprehensive recommendations for the reconstruction/restructuring of the ailing corporation. Ram is fully aware that Dr Thomas, the Board of GuySuCo and the management personnel and the other staff members are yet to be informed by government about its preferred line of action. All of this is in the public domain. It is interesting to note that in his criticisms of Professor Thomas’s tenure at GuySuCo and the problems it is faced with, Mr Ram has said nothing about the years of decline of the industry under the PPP regime. I wonder why. Mr Ram cannot deny that as matters stand the future of GuySuCo lies in the hands of the government, opposition and the parliament and not with Thomas and the GuySuCo Board. But in his obsessive desire to indict Dr Thomas, he has shown no concern for his own reputation as a Professional Chartered Accountant, an aspiring political leader and a lawyer.
Ram writes, “Still, it is Thomas’s role in SARU that causes the greatest concern. While he has every reason to be concerned about recovering assets of the state, to suggest that the Private Sector Commission (PSC) is not being principled is uncharacteristically arrogant and deceptive.” Mr Ram continues, “In defending the SARA bill, all Thomas seems willing to cite is a single article of the UN Convention against corruption. He knows that there are other articles, such as Article 7 which deals with the funding of political parties and their candidates, which bears heavily on corruption in Guyana”. This is Christopher Ram the politician and hopefully the leader of the new ‘third force’ he is attempting to establish. I say no more.
I now cite more evidence of Ram’s attitude to Thomas, “Prof Thomas, putting himself at the centre of the debate…It is not surprising that neither he nor any of his colleagues has so far been able to defend the bill or his fanciful economics. Now desperately hoping that he will be named Director of SARA…” I emphasise his remark, “fanciful economics”.
In concluding I wish say two things. The first is that in as much as he pretends that his views on the matter of the SARA Bill are unblemished, Mr Ram is fully aware that a number of the senior legal minds in the country do not support the position he holds. My second point is that Mr Ram in addressing a demand to Prof Thomas, demonstrated what his intention really is. He wrote that “Dr Thomas claims that he has all this information about hundreds of billions being lost to the state annually,” and then requested that Thomas and SARU hand over to the police details of this critical and important information. He did this fully aware that the Guyana Police Force has been compromised by the criminalisation of the state during the PPP’s 23 years rule. Mr Ram is aware that even up to today the police force is still trying to extract from its ranks those with association with the criminal underworld.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
