Dear Editor,
Many bemoan the fact that the asset recovery process seems inordinately long winded, or is not achieving its desired objectives. While I am not privy to the specific method of asset recovery being practised, I am possessed of an understanding of the stages and processes involved in the various approaches.
Given the fact that Guyana lacks a sustained ethos for honourable governance; a robust structural framework for fiscal accountability; and is in the early stages of the process, the emphasis at this juncture should be on total recovery, if at all possible, rather than prosecution. The reason for this approach is simple: it is better to negotiate total repayment and keep the individual under surveillance to uncover more extensive involvement in illegal activities, than to ‘hunt’ for a prosecution, which could prove protracted and costly.
The problem here is that the government and the average citizen is not on the same wavelength, so to speak. The basic principle of why a criminal investigation is carried out is to answer the questions: What has happened? Who is involved? How did it happen? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Why did it happen?
These investigations are not criminal investigations per se, and cannot be conducted as such from the outset, lest it result in civil lawsuits. This notwithstanding, if it is found along the way that criminal charges should be laid, then that course of action would be taken. It should be borne in mind that the asset recovery process has national, regional and transnational implications.
Yours faithfully,
Clairmont Featherstone
