Why did the AFC not insist on presidential assent to the local government bills before supporting Amaila?

Dear Editor,

The AFC’s change of position to one of support for debating the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric project is puzzling, as other available options would seem to have been more advantageous to the Guyanese majority.

Mr Ramjattan acknowledges that many questions about the project remain unanswered, that legitimate concerns exist. Yet he chose to fracture the opposition by breaking ranks with the APNU and giving up all his constituents’ bargaining chips for no tangible return. The AFC has agreed to raise the debt ceiling, and acquiesced to the passing of the Hydro Electric Power (Amendment) Bill. Why did the AFC not insist on passage of the bills facilitating local government elections and presidential assent to those bills before committing to supporting Amaila?

What if the President does not assent to any or all of the bills governing local elections? What if he assents to the bills but uses the usual PPP/C stalling tactics to further delay local government elections? If either of those things happen we are all back to square one with the PPP/C continuing to control local government.

The AFC have given away any leverage the Guyanese majority may have had and have gained nothing for their supporters. As it is, the PPP/C can use the AFC’s new position to bargain with Sithe Global, without having conceded a single thing. Mr Ramjattan says all questions would be answered by the IDB. Why the IDB? The PPP/C should, as the ruling party, already have all the answers. The IDB is only a lending agency.

If the PPP/C does not have all the answers, and it is clear that they do not, then the AFC should have insisted on getting those answers before giving away everything and selling out their constituents for nothing.

Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta

Around the Web

Comments