There is a difference between employees of the state and employees of the government

Dear Editor, Having read Maxwell E Edwards’ response to Chevy Devonish addressing the issue whether the President has the authority to direct the Police Service Commission not to act on the list which forms the recommendation for promotions in the Police Force, there arise issues for further deliberation.

The Guyana Police Force is part of the State not the government, and it follows that policemen and women are employees of the State not the government. Employees of the State continue in employment regardless of which political administration is in government, while employees of the government serve at the pleasure of the political administration. Mr Edwards did not make or recognise the difference and the importance of respecting it.

The Police Service Commission (PSC) (Article 210-212) is a constitutional body, guided by its own rules regarding its operation. Constitutional commissions are independent of interference into their dayto-day management, including interference from the executive branch. Note is taken of the articles referenced from the Constitution to lend the impression of permissible intrusion, yet none of these articles, expressly or implicitly, permits such action.

Constitutions are not written in vacuum but grounded in the people’s history, belief systems, dreams and aspirations. Article 89, as referenced by Edwards, that deems the President “the supreme executive authority” has to be interpreted in the context that influenced its presence. With the 1980 Constitution, the presidency moved from being titular to having executive responsibility, and with Guyana republican status to being the head of government, head of state and commander-inchief, shedding historical control by the Crown. Articles 89 and 99, which deal with the authority of the President, do not mean this authority allows expansion and interference into areas not authorised.

The stated articles cannot operate outside of the parameters of the Constitution, laws, international conventions, charters and universal acceptable principles that so constrain the president in the day-to-day administration of duties. Similar misapplication was done to Article 182, that grants criminal and civil immunity to the holder in the discharge of official duties. The deliberate misinterpretation was peddled and encouraged during the Bharrat Jagdeo presidency which witnessed the most egregious period in the nation’s history.

Persons who are placed in positions of privilege need to be careful that while they are insulated by the Constitution they cannot operate in vacuum in relation to what is happening in the society. Since there are concerns being raised as to the integrity of the process used by the Police Force for the compilation of the promotion list, the PSC, to ensure its integrity, should have commenced an inquiry into the matter. It is unfortunate that the President has given instruction that the body should be written to rather than having a discussion with it, based on what has been brought to his attention, and allow its members to benefit from his observation and in so doing make a decision on all the facts.

While the Constitution says the PSC is an independent body it does not prevent any citizen, including the President, from questioning the conduct of any of its members or the body in total. At the same time it is important to note that the right to question is not equivalent to any right to instruct.

This country needs constitutional education. Moving to justify misinterpretation of the Constitution or seeking to reform without seeking to know what’s ensconced is a wrong approach to bring about accountable/good governance. The politicians are once again called on to let the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform function. The functioning of this body, according to its Article 119A (1) would allow for, “continually reviewing the effectiveness of the working of the Constitution and making periodic reports thereon to the Assembly, with proposals for reform as necessary.” There cannot be good governance or effective reform in a sea of ignorance or cherry-picking the Constitution. The people continue to be victims of both.

Yours faithfully, Lincoln Lewis to create a nexus between him and Mr Parmasar’s legal wrangle. Mr Bacchus has already issued a public statement disclaiming any knowledge of this alleged investigation by SOCU.

In short, the clear intent of this article is to convey the clear and unequivocal impression that Mr Bacchus and his company are connected to, engaged in, associated with and funded by, illegal monies and the proceeds of international crime.

Mr Bacchus has received not a single cent of funding from any Bhagwandath ‘Bidjay’ Parmasar or any Yokohama Trading Company as is alleged in the said article. Mr Bacchus’s financing is from Trust Company (Guyana Limited) and Scotia Bank (Guyana), Wide Grace Limited and Global Trading Company Limited. Bhagwandath ‘Bidjay’ Parmasar and Yokohama Trading Company are not directors or shareholders of any of the aforementioned companies.

Additionally, Mr Bacchus has a rental arrangement with Pasha Global Inc, a Guyanese company which is neither owned by or connected to Bhagwandath ‘Bidjay’ Parmasar.

The aforementioned damning and defamatory publications have damaged Mr Bacchus’s character and reputation. They have also caused him and his family immeasurable pain, suffering, trauma and public humiliation. More significantly, the offensive publications have significantly tarnished and irretrievably stained his business as an international hotel. The resulting loss and financial damage are and will continue to be irreparable. Indeed, cancellations of reservations have already begun and are expected to continue unabated.

I must also say that the aforementioned publications may have also damaged Mr Bacchus’s prospects of being granted a casino licence for which an application has been made and is pending before the relevant authority.

In short, the publication has and is likely to cost my client hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and possibly, financial ruination.

Yours faithfully, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP Attorney-at-law