Since the era of Forbes Burnham, the Guyana Chronicle has never succeeded in unshackling itself from the political forces of the day. Consonant with its past, it once again finds itself in the maelstrom generated by those political forces.
This time it comes in the form of Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo intervening to direct that former General Manager of the Chronicle, Sherod Duncan, be reinstated following his termination by the Chair and Board of Guyana National Newspapers Limited (GNNL) on April 2 this year. He had first been appointed to the post on June 1, 2018 on a probationary basis, and after questions had been raised in the media about financial impropriety on his part, among other things, it was no less a person than Mr Nagamootoo who had subsequently ordered a full investigation into his stewardship for the period June 1 to September 10.
The Board then asked the Auditor General to undertake the investigation, and while it was in progress, Mr Duncan was sent on administrative leave for the duration. As we reported, the audit found that the tender rules had been flouted and there had been various financial irregularities, in addition to which the company’s personnel policy and procedures manual had been bypassed during the recruitment, termination and dismissal of several employees.
Following receipt of the audit, the Chronicle reported that it was examined page by page by the Board in company with Mr Duncan, who had his attorney in attendance. Following his dismissal, the Board issued a statement in which it said that all Directors considered that the “numerous breaches” identified in the report were of a serious nature and that “some form of disciplinary action against the General Manager was necessary, especially given the fact that he was on probation.”
Of the six directors present (the seventh one was absent) three were in favour of termination and the others leaned towards lesser sanctions mostly involving extending his probation. Given the circumstances of a tie in the vote which followed, Chairperson Geeta Chandan-Edmond then used her casting vote in favour of termination, in accordance with Article 94 of GNNL’s articles of incorporation.
And now, two months later, without prior warning to the Chairperson and the Board, Mr Nagamootoo sounded a blast of vexation over the discharge of Mr Duncan. It came in the form of a letter dated May 31, where he accused Ms Chandan-Edmond of unilaterally terminating the former General Manager’s services, of misleading his office by claiming it was a decision of the Board and of not following due process and procedural fairness. “It should be clear that asking members of the Board their views on a situation does not amount to a vote,” the Prime Minister asserted, speciously reinforcing his claim with the statement that other Directors had informed him that no vote had been taken.
Ms Chandan-Edmond was understandably incensed and along with another of the Directors who had voted for Mr Duncan’s termination, Mr Mervyn Williams, tendered her resignation. The Chairperson maintained that all the relevant provisions of the articles had been adhered to in letter and in spirit, and that the process had been both fair and transparent, with the principles of natural justice being observed. There had been, in other words, due process. She deemed Mr Nagamootoo’s reference to the particulars about the vote provided by “Directors of GNNL” whom he did not name, as information “bordering on hearsay,” since there is no record of their submissions. “I respectfully submit,” she told the Prime Minister, “that we cannot effect policy decision at this institution of national consequence on such an inconsequential basis.”
The first question to be asked is simply one of fact: Was there a vote? Ms Chandan-Edmond said there was, and so did Mr Williams, who told this newspaper, “The Board took a vote and the majority decided, based on the findings of the Auditor General’s report, to terminate Mr Duncan’s services. There were no dissenting views from anyone around the table at the time of the vote.” As already noted, Mr Nagamootoo’s interpretation of what transpired is that it was just a matter of asking people around the table for their views, which did not amount to a vote. He cannot be serious. If the Chairperson used her power under Article 94 to break a tie there must have been a vote. If it had just been a question of persons expressing their views, she would hardly have needed to invoke the Article at all, and if she had done so she would surely have been told it was unnecessary in what was essentially an informal discussion.
The question must also be asked as to who the Directors were who informed the Prime Minister there had been no vote? It has emerged that they were Ms Juretha Fernandes and Ms Beverly Alert, both of the AFC where Mr Duncan holds a senior post. They have said that at no point during the meeting was a motion for a vote put before the Board. It might be observed that it now seems we are into casuistic territory. Because no motion in a technical sense was formulated and then moved, they have taken the view there was no vote. So what did they think they were doing when they voted, and more especially when Ms Chandan-Edmond used her casting vote? Why did they not say at that point that the Chairperson had gone ahead of herself because no motion had been moved? Furthermore, why did they not raise objections immediately after the statement was issued in the name of the Board?
As for the allegation that there was a lack of due process in the dismissal of Mr Duncan, one wonders how Mr Nagamootoo could make such an accusation when the former General Manager had been afforded the opportunity to have his say in front of the Board with his attorney present. In addition, it seems strange that Mr Nagamootoo should have wanted an investigation into Mr Duncan’s conduct as General Manager, but now does not want to accept the consequences of that investigation.
One can only wonder too why the Prime Minister bothers with a Board at all, since by this latest intervention in particular, he has to all intents and purposes made it expendable. It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time Board members have resigned; on the last occasion it was because of the termination of the columnists David Hinds and Lincoln Lewis. The Prime Minister no doubt wants the Chronicle to have a patina of independence, but, it must be emphasised, only a patina. It is clear from both the content of the paper and his actions that true independence is the last thing he has in mind. The AFC campaigned on the promise that it represented new politics, but Mr Nagamootoo is very much in the tradition of the old politics.
The one novel thing about all of this is that it does not involve APNU or the PNC at all; it is all about the AFC. The timing of the contretemps is oddly coincidental, because Mr Nagamootoo is currently engaged in a struggle to secure the slot as the AFC’s prime ministerial candidate. Whatever the truth of the matter, given the circumstances inevitably the public will be musing about whether there might not be a connection between events at the GNNL Board and the Prime Minister’s political ambitions.
