It will take a new board to reverse the decision to fire Sherod Duncan from the position of General Manager of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited (GNNL), which is the publisher of the state-run Chronicle newspapers.
This was confirmed by both Director-General of the Ministry of the Presidency Joseph Harmon and Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, who both addressed the issue on Friday.
“We respect the independence of these boards once appointed. My understanding is that the board took a decision with respect to the termination of Mr Duncan and therefore it will require another board to determine if Mr Duncan can return to work or stay dismissed. It is a question for the board and this has been our position all along,” Harmon told reporters at a post-Cabinet press briefing.
Harmon also indicated that the issue will be discussed at the next Cabinet meeting, while noting that Duncan is to remain off the job in the interim.
Duncan’s services were terminated with immediate effect in April following a meeting at which Chairperson Geeta Chandan-Edmond cast the deciding vote. However, at the end of last month Nagamootoo directed that the decision be rescinded, resulting in Chandan-Edmond and three board members resigning. As a result, no decision was taken on reinstating Duncan.
Hours after Harmon’s briefing, a statement released by the Office of the Prime Minister on Friday confirmed that the board had not rescinded the decision as well as the resignation of a majority of the board’s members. As a result, it noted that Nagamootoo is currently reconstituting the board, after which Duncan’s case is to be considered.
“The Prime Minister remains firmly of the view that the issue of the reinstatement of Mr. Duncan has to be the subject of a decision based on due process and procedural fairness. Such a decision must be based on the matter being put to a vote, which was not the case when Mr. Duncan was deemed to have been dismissed,” the statement noted.
It added that Nagamootoo fully supports the explanations given by Harmon while adding that they in no way override his directive.
A statement released after the meeting at which the decision on Duncan was taken had explained that “all Directors who were present were of the view that the numerous breaches identified in the report in all areas under review were serious in nature and that some form of disciplinary action against the General Manager was necessary, especially given the fact that he was on probation.”
The statement revealed that one director recommended a one-month suspension and an extension of the period of probation, while two directors recommended an extension of the period of probation. Three directors held the view that Duncan’s services should be terminated with immediate effect for “gross misconduct.” The board comprises a Chairperson and six directors, one of whom was absent at the time of the vote. As a result, following the call for a vote on the matter of termination of services, the statement said three directors voted against, while three voted in favour of termination, thereby resulting in a tie. Chandan-Edmond then exercised her right to a casting vote in favour of termination of services, the statement said.
Duncan’s lawyer, James Bond, later told Stabroek News that an appeal would be filed with the Office of the Prime Minister. He claimed that there were at least three grounds for appeal, chief among them being that “there was no formal vote” by the board.
In directing the reversal of the decision, Nagamootoo in his letter had said that he could not rely on Chandan-Edmond’s advice that the sacking of Duncan accorded with due process and procedural fairness.
Chandan-Edmond, a former magistrate, however, maintained that due process was followed.
On the issue of procedural impropriety, she said in a response to Nagamootoo, all relevant provisions, particularly the provisions of Article 94, were adhered to at all times in spirit and letter throughout the process that led to Duncan’s dismissal.
Article 94 states, among other things, that “Questions arising at any meeting shall be decided by a majority of votes. In cases of an equality of votes the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.”
“…I rely on my report to you into this matter and reiterate, that the process was fair and transparent, there was due process and all principles of natural justice were adhered to,” she stressed. “Your correspondence sought to discredit this process by making reference to information bordering on hearsay from persons you refer to merely as ‘Directors of GNNL’ with absolutely no reference to who those directors are and no record of their submissions in this regard. I respectfully submit, that we cannot effect policy decision at this institution of national consequence on such an inconsequential basis,” Chandan-Edmond added.
