Moving on Corruption

guyana chronicle editorial

October 28, 2015

OVER the last couple of weeks, several reports about the findings of the audit of government departments have appeared in the media. The State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU) has also presented a report to the Attorney General on the Pradoville scandal. If these reports are to be believed, there is seemingly some merit to accusations of corruption which have been levelled against the former government.

The parties which comprise the present government have long accused the PPP government of corruption, and have made the issue a centerpiece of their election campaign. But since coming to power, the government has appeared to be less aggressive on the issue than was expected. To date, only one former minister has been charged, yet the government continues to reveal its findings on a daily basis.

On the matter of the SARU report, one gets the impression that the Attorney General is uncertain about what to do. Is this a sign that the government itself does not have an agreed strategy on this matter? Is the government ready to move beyond using these findings to apparently score political points?

There is no doubt that Professor Clive Thomas and the SARU are serious about moving against corruption. He, for example, said in yesterday’s press that SARU is seeking powers to freeze the assets of suspects. He had earlier alluded that government needs to move towards enactment of the necessary laws to allow for prosecution. The investment in the SARU is sound, but if its work is not aided by the proper legal framework, its effect would be negligible.

Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, in an apparent show of confidence, has challenged the government to prosecute those found to have engaged in corruption under his watch. His colleague, former president Donald Ramotar, also told the media this past week that the government has exaggerated the instances of corruption discovered during his tenure, and presumably before. These statements from the two former Heads-of-State suggest that either the PPP is burying its head in the sand, or is confident that the government would not follow through with its promise to prosecute.

Judging from letters in the media, it seems that citizens, particularly government supporters, are getting impatient at this apparent cat-and-mouse situation. Political commentator Dr David Hinds, writing in his column this past weekend, warned the government that it could face a stern rebuke by its supporters if it reneges on prosecuting those in the previous administration that are found to be corrupt. According to Dr. Hinds, there is a “huge appetite” for prosecution of wrongdoers. He suggested that if the government wants to mend fences with its supporters in the wake of the fall-out from the controversy surrounding the salary hike for ministers, it should speed up the process of prosecution.

We are sympathetic with the government’s being mindful of strident charges of witch-hunting and ethnic cleansing, but we believe that the issue of official corruption goes beyond mere politicking. Small, economically challenged countries such as ours have been further stagnated by corruption, which has, among other things, taken bread out of the mouths of poor people. We cannot, and should not, continue in this vein.

We are aware that parties tend to soften their stance, or jettison campaign promises, once they attain office. We are also aware that this is in part conditioned by the realities of governing, which are much different from opposing. But as this government has learned from the furore generated by its recent salary hike, the country is in no mood for the politics of expediency. As we have editorialised, this attitude, by sections of the electorate, of pushing back against the government of their choice, is a most healthy development. The government must bear this in mind as it mulls this issue of confronting past official corruption.