The importance of Mr Woolford’s intervention

Wherever public servants function, an indispensable part of the work they do relates to their interface with the public on issues of importance and interest. Unfortunately, in Guyana, for many decades, public servants have been oppressed by successive governments with respect to what they could say and how to say it. The iron-fisted Burnham period and the intimidation and worse that public servants were subjected to cowed many of them and prevented them from speaking openly and professionally about their remit. One of the major aims of the PNC’s Public Corporations Act was to ensure that public servants were unmistakably aware that if they relayed anything that might embarrass the government – even if it was well within their normal functioning – there would be a price to pay. The Hoyte period saw an easing of sorts with some public servants feeling freer to speak about their functions but the culture of the earlier period prevailed and many public servants cocooned themselves in the presumed prohibition against them speaking about their functions.

The advent of the PPP/C did not improve the situation at all. A party with its ingrained marxist hang-ups about the dissemination and control of information made it clear via its actions and words to public servants – particularly those whom it perceived as not being political allies – that frank speech would have its consequences. The only free speakers are the politicos and those who know and have affinity with the political line.
Perhaps the highest profile casualty and most important of the PPP/C’s targets was the well-respected and hard-working Auditor General Mr Anand Goolsarran. Amid his announced intention to pursue a further investigation of the infamous export of dolphins from the Office of the President that ensnared presidential advisor Mr Odinga Lumumba and perhaps persons higher up, he became the target of a venomous campaign led by several officials at the Office of the President and helmed by President Jagdeo himself. Under the pressure of an unrelenting attack on him – the kind of which the public has become accustomed to from the President – Mr Goolsarran resigned and later took up a prestigious position with the United Nations. It was a severe loss to the country in terms of keeping the government accountable. The Office of the Auditor General is now a pale shadow of itself and supine in its interactions with the executive. Anything goes now and President Jagdeo and his leading officials can do as they please without fear of a serious rebuke from the office.

This is why the intervention of the Head of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) Mr William Woolford in Friday’s edition of SN in relation to a statement by President Jagdeo must be valued and welcomed in a theatre where too many are afraid or jaded to say what they should. Speaking at the GDF officers’ conference last week, President Jagdeo said that he needed some army officers deployed to the GGMC to root out corruption. “I need some soldiers in there. The corruption in the field is unbelievable, particularly with the price of gold where it is and I need to clean up some of this situation there too”, he told officers. It was an alarming revelation about the GGMC and surely one that its officials would have to be scrutinized on.

When approached by Stabroek News on the President’s statement, Mr Woolford agreed to an interview in the presence of some of his departmental heads and respectfully and firmly disputed the President’s assertion of widespread, evident corruption. He said “unfortunately, we don’t have the evidence of that at the moment and we’re prepared to act on any of the evidence presented”. He added that some allegations had been made but had not been followed up by the complainants. “We’re mandated to work with due process so anybody making an allegation, that is of concern to us and any allegation of corruption is of concern to us, we would expect that they would put it in writing”. He added “We are strong against corruption. We don’t tolerate it. We don’t support it. Our core values speak to it. Our approach in terms of training our staff…establishes that”.

There was clearly a deep difference of views and Mr Woolford should be commended for stating his position. What the extent of corruption is in the goldfields cannot be ascertained from the present exchange but very few officials of the standing of Mr Woolford would dare to express a view contrary to the President’s. Such is the vindictiveness and petty-mindedness of this government that professionals in both the public and private sectors fear to speak up as they should. This culture must be broken down. It has numbed the nation and detracted from good governance.

Unfortunately, Mr Woolford’s statement was not the last word on this matter and there is likely to be fallout. Before the day was over, the former Commissioner of the GGMC and the present Minister of Transport and Hydraulics, Mr Robeson Benn weighed in on the matter. He expressed himself as “extremely surprised” at Mr Woolford’s statement and said that it appeared that the leaders of the GGMC were, as he put it, in a “different world”. He then ended his statement rather ominously when he said “I hope that the honourable Prime Minister (Mr Sam Hinds who is also the minister with responsibility for mining) would look to a rectification of this type of statement and the GGMC sets about doing an urgent review of its leadership and particularly the problems in the field and the effectiveness on the ground”.

Minister Benn is either trying too hard to please his President or he has been designated to take on Mr Woolford because he ventured to differ with the President. Either way, it exposes more of the deadening wrath and malevolence that the government keeps in store for public servants like Mr Woolford. As a former commissioner, Minister Benn has no locus standi in this matter. He should busy himself fully with his portfolio or at the most defend whether his stewardship at the GGMC was able to successfully extirpate corruption that the President now speaks commandingly of. His call for leadership review is meant to intimidate or to set the stage for action to be taken against Mr Woolford. It is clear as day. This strategem has been typical of Mr Jagdeo’s tenure and is one of the reasons why he shall bequeath an unenviable governance record when he leaves office.
It should have been the Minister of Mines, PM Hinds in person or in his name who should have objected either quietly or publicly to Mr Woolford’s statement. His statement came in Parliament on Friday afternoon during the budget debate where he said that “allegations and counter-allegations are flying around” in the sector. His statement was reactive rather than substantive.

Further, corruption in the fields – the price of gold notwithstanding – has been spoken of for many years. One would have thought that the government and the Minister of Mines would have been addressing this matter internally with the GGMC and that the relevant officials would have been given instructions to take firm action failing which their jobs would be on the line. There is no indication that this has been done.

Why is President Jagdeo even involved in addressing this matter? Is it a national emergency, is the GGMC corruption putting the whole economy at risk? Even if President Jagdeo had good grounds for intervention what does the present urgency say about his 11-year tenure? What efforts did he make to reverse the situation or does his current interest have something to do with the Norway forest protection deal and the need to keep up the pressure on the mining community? The logic of the president’s pronouncement is also dubious. Why would he believe that army officers would be able to clean up corruption in the fields any better than the GGMC officers when the army has been mired in scandal after scandal as a result of corruption?

The contretemps over the GGMC is the second instance in a single address where questions about the President’s credibility can be raised. The other is of course the assertion that a foreign power had asked whether Guyana would arrest President Bouterse of Suriname. Given the sensitivities of Guyana’s relationship with Suriname and the fact that they are both members of Caricom it would be an unthinking foreign power that would present such a request to Guyana. The US has said that it did not make the request and the Surinamese newspaper de Ware Tijd has said that The Hague has also denied making a request.

So it is not only a question of the President’s style in addressing the GGMC matter but also his credibility and this is why Minister Benn might have rushed headlong into the arena. Whatever the outcome, Mr Woolford must be applauded for having the courage of conviction to state his case. Too many in this country today are either afraid of their own shadow or harvesting the benefits of staying silent.