-at Transparency Institute dinner

Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan has mounted a stout defence of the government’s planned State Assets Recovery Bill, arguing that the civil retrieval envisaged is an action against property, not the person, and does not include a penal sanction.

Speaking on Saturday at Transparency Institute Guyana Inc’s (TIGI) annual fund-raising dinner at the Pegasus Hotel, Ramjattan also emphasised the important role of civil society and the media in ensuring good governance.

Citing the state assets bill as part of the country’s obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, Ramjattan said that whistleblower and witness protection bills are also currently with Cabinet.

Noting the controversy that has sprung up around the bill with the Private Sector Commission, the Guyana Human Rights Association and analyst Christopher Ram expressing grave reservations, Ramjattan said there have been major “misconceptions and misapprehensions” about the bill.

He contended that the bill pursues recovery of property which is the product of unlawful conduct.

“Just think of it for a moment! A person in possession of proceeds of crime or in possession of property which belonged to the State can have no constitutional grievance if deprived of their use. So like the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act of 2009 with the relevant amendments in 2016, this State Asset Recovery Bill of 2017 will fill another gap in our anti-corruption legislative landscape”, he posited.

He said that Guyana’s Constitution at article 142 (2) (a) (ii) provides the exception to the right to property when it caters for property acquisition “by way of penalty for breach of the law, whether under civil process or after conviction of a criminal offence under the law of Guyana”.

“Since the golden thread running through this Bill is to go after the loot, and is not so much directed towards the person holding the loot in that strict sense so as to inflict punishment or establish guilt for specific offences, the presumption of innocence is not under challenge. To the extent then that a presumption of innocence is part of a fair trial, civil asset recovery that are calculated using presumptions of illicit acquisition is very much compatible with our Constitution the UN Convention Against Corruption”, Ramjattan contended.

He pointed out that civil asset recovery already exists in the anti-money laundering Act of 2009 and under the State Asset Recovery Bill this will continue and as part of Government’s policy to shape an environment for transparency, honesty and integrity and a deterrence against corruption.

Adverting to the extractive sector, he said that the Government wants the scrutiny of international watchdogs such as the Global Witness which probes corruption in the environmental sector.

In addition, he said that the government wants the application to the European Union’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) to be dealt with speedily “so that another high threshold in matters of transparency and accountability will be met”.

He noted that the country’s EITI Secretariat has been set up, a Coordinator named, the MultiStakeholder Group launched and a number of requirements have already been fulfilled.