Representatives of the parliamentary opposition parties have expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the awarding of land to a consortium of unknown investors for the construction of a hotel in Kingston, reportedly to carry the Marriott Hotels brand.
When this newspaper asked Prime Minister Samuel Hinds the week before last who the investors for the hotel were, he responded, “I think it is well known who these people are.” When informed that the Stabroek News did not know who they were, he replied, “Another time, not now.”
None of the opposition parliamentarians to whom this newspaper spoke was aware of the identity of the investors.
PNCR Chairman Winston Murray told Stabroek News that for the government to maintain its own integrity and the integrity of the Battery Road, Kingston hotel project, it needed to put all information on it in the public domain.
Apart from the lack of transparency associated with awarding lands to unknown investors, Murray told the Stabroek News there was also a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not the Marriott Hotels had given the franchise to the investors.
“We do not know what has gone on behind the scenes,” he said, adding that “if the Marriott withdraws its franchise, we do not know if the investors would be looking at alternatives or whether or not they would cut their losses and move on.”
With little or no information on the project coming from the government, it appeared, he said, that the Marriott might be reconsidering its endorsement.
The lack of transparency and accountability was a problem with the Bharrat Jagdeo administration, Murray said, citing the manner in which it was going about the hotel investment as a classic example.
There had been no bidding for the property in Kingston and no one knew on what terms the property had been awarded or to whom. The process, he repeated, should have been transparent.
He observed that he saw “no issue of confidentiality needed in that process,” and went on to refer to the land on which the National Archives was currently located on Main Street, where the government needed to do likewise.
“I don’t think the government does itself any good by getting into these transactions in an opaque manner; [it’s] an act of betrayal of accountability and transparency,” he said, adding that “they need to come clean on these projects and reveal the details to the public.”
The opaque manner in which the transactions had been done, he continued, represented a major drawback for the government since it left room for rumours to run rife in the society, which was not in the national interest because rumours tended to take on additional dimensions.
Nothing was wrong with swapping lands in the nation’s interest, he said, if the exchange was fair in terms of market prices. Once the land had been made available, certain negotiations and details of a project would be subjected to confidential arrangements which should be respected, Murray continued, but after negotiations had been completed those details should be revealed.
Noting that the government was treating the lands as though they were their private property, he said that the general public should have been informed about the availability of the land for investment and for what purposes.
Having had the chance to be a part of the tendering process and with the award completed with information made available to the public, he said that at that point it would be in the interest of the investors to argue for confidentiality.
Asked to comment on the Kingston hotel investment and the exchange arrangement involving the land on which the National Archives is situated on Main Street, GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin told the Stabroek News that that his party did not have enough information to comment intelligently on them. Because of this, he would like details of the projects to be made available, particularly on how the deals were structured and the identity of the investors, given that the projects in both cases were well underway.
“Once it is public lands the government cannot operate as though it is private property,” he said adding that at this stage when construction had already begun it was incumbent on the government to let the Guyanese people know who the investors were.
“It is not as though the investors have not acquired the property. They have begun the groundwork and at this point the government ought to make the details public. This would show clearly that they have nothing to hide,” he said.
He went on to say there was an added reason for revealing the identity of the investors given that citizens were still getting problems in obtaining leases and titles to state lands, and there was a backlog of applications.
In respect of the deal between the government and a local businessman to give land in Main Street in exchange for the construction of a building to house the national archives on Homestretch Avenue, Franklin said, “I don’t think there should be any secret about that, once it was done in accordance with the laws of Guyana.”
“If it was done in a transparent manner and after a proper evaluation and the government gets its value for money in the exchange, that should be acceptable. These are the things that citizens ought to know,” he said.
Like Murray, Franklin and AFC Leader Raphael Trotman questioned the lack of an open bidding process to give as wide a cross-section of the society as possible an opportunity to be involved.
In addition Trotman told the Stabroek News that the AFC welcomed investment to Guyana but due diligence had to be exercised because of the challenges posed to economies by globalization. Some of the challenges included money-laundering, which aided in funding terrorist organisations from the proceeds of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and weapons.
Trotman recalled that in the ’80s and ’90s the PPP was very critical of the PNC administration over the Barama and Guyana Telephone and Telegraph (GT&T) investments, forcing the government to be as transparent as possible.
He too said it was difficult to be satisfied with the investment in a hotel in Kingston and the deal involving the archives because the details of those transactions had not made public.
Usually there was a lot of fanfare associated with a project such as a hotel carrying the Marriott brand, and people would be apprised of it, “but in this case there is, instead, something that is making us uncomfortable,” Trotman observed.
Reiterating that we definitely needed to know more about these projects, he said that the PPP/C administration could find themselves saddled with another national embarrassment.
Apart from the National Archives land on Main Street, he said there may be a number of other government buildings on strategic sites that could be surrendered for private development. However, fair market prices had to be set for such exchanges so that they could stand the test of scrutiny. (Miranda La Rose)
