Dear Editor,
From all the discourse in the public domain, the Government appears to be the not too unwitting victim of a series of misbehaviours perpetrated by what is known as the Special Purpose Unit (SPU) of NICIL, ever since its creation three or more years ago.
At this point in time, there continues to be negligence in not substantively replacing the deceased CEO of NICIL; and in allowing the head of the SPU to act in that position for what appears to be an indefinite period. So that we are faced with the conundrum of the CEO of the SPU reporting to himself as CEO of NICIL – a situation which could have legal implications in terms of decision-making, and should be urgently addressed by NICIL’s board.
What perhaps should be of greater concern to the latter is the image that NICIL’s SPU has been projecting, in terms of organisational morality – one that negatively impacts on the high standards expected to be upheld by the current governance structure.
And it is perhaps the inconsistency with which this ‘Unit’ has dealt with the Guyana Sugar Corporation, for example, that might well have discouraged the seventy investors initially promised in 2017, and consequently reduced interest of just two in 2019, albeit with no indication of when the related transactions will be finalised.
In the process, one observes the reported behaviour of a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers, a historically professional body of auditors, selected to complete the valuation of the assets of the closed estates of Skeldon, Rose Hall, Enmore and Wales, surprisingly, indulging in inter-connections with the SPU in transactions which should not include the former.
Meanwhile, no comparable amicability obtains between the main actors; so that what are described as assets and hastily disposed of, are treated as not being GuySuCo’s business – when its operational estates can utilise some of the disposables.
Typically also, GuySuCo is reported not to have been consulted on being relieved of vital internet connectivity provided by its two towers recently sold. The legality of this transition needs to be seriously questioned, whether or not the announced recipient is politically favoured.
Intricated in the history of NICIL’s SPU is this projection of the absence of morality required of all organisations, private and moreso public. The latter in particular are those which citizens expect to set standards of behaviour that can be conscientiously emulated, at least by young and small entrepreneurs.
Overall, it is most disheartening that despite an extended and comprehensive Commission of Inquiry into the sugar industry that the very initiators have shown so little interest in the sustainability of the most important economic and cultural component of our history.
The indifference shown to the miniaturisation of this organisation by the SPU; the lack of concern about the demoralisation of its managers; and the concurrent impact on the employees with whom they work so closely, provide pause for deep reflection across an already anxious society.
The leadership needs to show greater sensitivity, and address the issue of GuySuCo’s future with the determination and caring it so much deserves.
Meanwhile, all seem to be overlooking the fact that the variable standards of behaviours by the parties are being monitored by dispassionate observers, resident and overseas.
Let it be known however that one reason why GuySuCo survived the vicissitudes of different administrations was the culture of discipline inherent in the organisation, however vicariously managed at times.
Notwithstanding, what we are witnessing now is a profound human problem.
Be careful that the behaviour of the S(mall).P.U does not serve as a disincentive to young professionals seeking a career in the sugar industry and contributing to its sustainability.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
