We are yet to see if changes with anti-corruption implications will be effective

Dear Editor, The May 13, 2017 edition of the Kaieteur News (KN) included an article titled `Guyana on the brink of an Anti-Corruption Era – TIGI’. This headline is a misrepresentation of what I communicated to KN in my capacity as President of TIGI by phone the previous day. In addition to this, KN wrongfully attributed some direct quotes to me but the “quotes” are damaging to TIGI as they throw the organisation into the partisan divide.

Kaieteur News asked a question which referred to the achievements of the APNU+AFC government in the first two years and sought to obtain TIGI’s view on whether we are on the brink of a new anti-corruption culture. I avoided a direct pronouncement and indicated that while we have seen some achievements which cannot be denied, there are counterexamples that raise questions. The State Assets Recovery Agency is an important achievement given that it would be a backstop against corruption, especially in high places. However, the pharmaceutical bond deal is a counterexample that raises questions about how the government chooses which corruption issues to address. KN captured this point correctly and included my allusion to the legal issues raised about the SARA Bill. My approach was meant to

convey that the fact that the government has allowed the bond deal to stand is a counterexample (and there are others) to the generalisation. This is inconsistent with the headline used by KN.

The article also includes some words in quotation marks and some paraphrased that are attributed to me. KN used quotation marks for “poisonous shadow of corruption”, “brink of an anti-corruption era” and “… willingness to be an administration with a difference…” Whether these ideas are correct or not, these are not my words. Even when KN paraphrased what I said, it managed to insert ideas. For example, whereas my focus was on the government and not any political party, KN has attributed direct comparisons between the PPP (PPP era) and the current government to me. However, to assess the APNU+AFC government, I consider what the APNU+AFC government has done against what is required.

I will also note here that the conversation with KN touched on the Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman as avenues for recourse for citizens. The latter was raised by the reporter as a question. The absence of these entities limit the options available and therefore closes some possibilities for addressing corruption. These references were omitted from the KN article.

The KN article makes an important point which is overshadowed by the incorrect headline. There have been initiatives that are commendable but there are other issues with implications for corruption that have emerged. The government needs to deal with the corruption issues that have emerged decisively. Furthermore, some initiatives that can address corruption have only been partially implemented whereas others have been stalled. An overarching consideration is that we are yet to see if the changes with anti-corruption implications will be effective. I urge the government to take the necessary steps to address corruption and to capitalise on the expertise of the citizenry to strengthen such initiatives.

TIGI remains a non-partisan organisation that does not seek to create or negate favour towards political entities. It is imperative that the press understands the seriousness of the purpose of TIGI and it must represent the views of the organisation correctly.

Yours faithfully, Troy Thomas, PhD President of TIGI