Dear Editor,
I am availing myself of the facility of your columns to comment on two issues of national interest highlighted recently in your columns –
(a) The funding of the Guyana Elections Commission: In this connection, I refer to Mr Eusi Kwayana’s letter published in your issue of Wednesday July 20, 2011 captioned ‘Gecom’s reliance on the government for funds undermines its independence.’ As a follow-up to Mr Kwayana’s letter, I wish to share with your readers the recommendation which the Commonwealth Group of Experts (of which I was a member from Caricom) appointed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General made for the funding of national elections in Zanzibar for the restoration of constitutional rule in that country. The Commonwealth Group recommended, as an important constitutional change, that the Elections Commission should prepare its own annual budget with consultations with the Minister responsible for finance and then transmit them directly to the Speaker of the legislative body for the consideration and approval of that body. In any review of Guyana’s Constitution, this proposal could be considered.
(b) The sale of St Barnabas Church: The sale of the historic church by the Governing Body of the Anglican Church has evoked reactions from members of the public, including Anglicans. The purpose of this letter is to bring to the attention of your readers and other members of the public the National Trust Act (Cap 20:03 of the Laws of Guyana) which, in my opinion, could have provided an alternative course of action. The Act, which establishes the National Trust, is intended principally to preserve structures declared as national monuments or historic sites. The declaration by the National Trust of a structure vests the property in the National Trust, subject to the payment of adequate compensation to the owners of the property as required by the constitution.
As an alternative, the property could have been made the subject of either a preservation order or a guardianship order. The advantage of either of these orders is that the structure remains the property of its owner but, importantly, the National Trust is authorized to give directions to the owner of the property concerning the preservation of the structure and there must be compliance with those directions. In my opinion, the National Trust can achieve much by exercising the powers conferred on it by the Act, but this obviously depends on the provision of adequate resources for that purpose. It should be mentioned in this regard that the National Trust Act provides that the funds and resources of the Trust consist of monies provided by Parliament and all other sums or property which may properly become payable to, or vested in, the National Trust in respect of any matter incidental to or in connection with their functions. In addition to resources made available by the state, the National Trust can be the recipient of monetary donations. I am aware that the Governing Body of the Church gave deep consideration to this matter resulting reluctantly in the final decision which was taken. Nevertheless, this letter is intended to indicate an alternative course of action which could have been considered for action. This could provide a guide for action in future cases.
Yours faithfully,
Brynmor Pollard
