Georgetown: Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall has charged the APNU with intentionally misleading the nation about changes it intends to make to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Bill.
The Minister said that as of Saturday, February 8, there were no amendments or suggestions to the Select Committee from APNU in relation to the bill. It was not until Sunday, February 9 that the party brought amendments to the select committee, but not in relation to the bill, but the Principal Act. He pointed out that what this basically meant is that 10 months ago, the bill could have been passed in the National Assembly.
“It is clear therefore, that the entire country was misled for the last 10 months by the leadership of the APNU when they continuously repeated in the public domain, in the National Assembly and elsewhere, they had substantial amendments to make to that bill, because as I said and I repeat for emphasis, Saturday the committee completed its work in relation to that bill, and apart from some numbering mistakes and some minimal and inconsequential printing errors which were identified, no amendments were made to that bill by the APNU, so Saturday the committee completed its work,” the Minister reiterated.
The Bill was laid in the National Assembly in April 2010, and since then APNU has been stating, in every forum that they want to make amendments, however for the past 10 months, the Opposition party did not produce to the nation, the press, the National Assembly or the select committee any proposals. Therefore, this bill could have been passed 10 months ago.
Proposals conflict
On Sunday for the first time in the 10 months, two proposals were however, produced to the select committee; one from Jaipaul Sharma and the other from Carl Greenidge, Minister Nandlall said.
He said that upon a most peripheral and cursory examination of these separate pieces of paper, presented by two members from the same party, it was apparent there was conflict. Both documents also contained several grammatical errors and were disconcerted in relation to the way in which the thoughts were expressed. “So here we have two members of the same select committee, from the same political party, presenting two papers dealing with the same issues and they are colliding with each other. Significantly, the proposals were not in respect of the bill which was before the committee, but they were in relation to the Principal Act.”
The Minister said he objected to them and pointed to a standing order that provides very clearly that a select committee is confined in its mandate only to consider the bill which has been transmitted to it, and that there is no roaming mandate or jurisdiction or authority to wander outside of the four corners of the bill that was before it.
“The amendments which were proposed as conflicting as they were, as disconcerted as they were, were not in relation to the bill, they were in relation to the Principal Act. So I raised the objection that it would be ultra-vires, the authority and jurisdiction of the committee and volatility of an express standing order for the committee to dwell with the proposals that were both before it,” he said.
However, the government side was overruled by a majority vote, and in fact it has become an established proclivity and a tendency demonstrated by the opposition to continuously disregard norms, democratic traditions, merits, rules, regulations, the constitution, and recently court rulings, the Minister pointed out. “So you have a standing order being thrown out of the meeting by way of a vote, because they have a majority, and that type of tendency has serious implications for democracy…these are embedded tendencies of political leaders of a particular political party that have a history of dictatorship and authoritarianism, and we are seeing nothing different in this select committee,” he said.
In the end, the select committee adjourned the meeting for nearly two hours for Sharma and Greenidge to reconcile their conflicting proposals into a single proposal.
“What that means is that at the eleventh hour they came up and scrambled together these proposals. It means that for 10 months they did nothing in relation to this bill or even in relation to the Principal Act,” the Minister reiterated.
Police and Customs Officers
After holding Guyanese at ransom for all those months, APNU is now proposing that police and custom officers be given the power to stop and search persons, and if such persons are found with $2 million worth of currency or more, and currency is defined in the Act to include jewellery and precious metal, that currency can be seized and the persons arrested if the police or customs officer has reasonable suspicion that it is the proceeds of some serious offence or the subject of money laundering. The hapless victim then must get an order from a judge to release his currency.
This is susceptible to abuse and Government is concerned with the granting of such power to mere police and customs officers.
Guyana is a cash-based economy. In the ordinary course of business, it is not unusual for Guyanese to have in their possession over $2 million in cash. For example the rice farmer after he reaps his paddy is paid in cash, a person who is building his house will go with cash exceeding $2M to buy his hardware items. A police officer or customs officer can seize those monies.
“We are aware of the allegations of corruption against the police force and the customs department. This power in the hand of the wrong person can wreak havoc in our country. We believe that at least, there must be consultation with the Guyanese public before such a law is passed. In any event, this is not an amendment to the bill, neither is it part of the CFATF’s recommendations.
FIU
The APNU is also proposing to change the whole Government structure of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).They are removing the power of the appointment of the director of FIU from the Minister and placing it in a committee of the National Assembly. They further proposed the establishment of an authority comprising10 persons nominated by the National Assembly after consulting with stakeholders. Who these stakeholders are, the proposals do not state.
“The United Nations Security Council has produced a book in which they have examined all the FIUs around the globe. They have recommended the executive model to be used as it has proven to be the most effective. Guyana, the entire Caribbean, the United States and Canada have this model. In this model, the officers are appointed by the Executive however, whichever model is used, they emphasise that the FIU must be autonomous and independent, and that is why the important officers are appointed by a singular person. The rationale clearly is that if you have too many persons involved in the appointment, it compromises the independence of the unit, its confidentiality, and exposes it to conflict of interest scenarios with too many persons now being associated with the unit some of whom are their relatives or may be the subject of investigations themselves,” he stated.
In terms of confidentiality, these persons will have access to a huge amount of people’s financial and other personal information. For these reasons, the AG is doubtful whether these proposals will enjoy the support of CFATF as no part in the world such a model exists.
“The government proposed that since there is no amendment to the bill and the bill has already received the support of CFATF, and we have a deadline to meet in a matter of hours, the bill should be passed, and the amendments be studied closely, discussed with stakeholders and receive the input of CFATF and then can be passed separately. This proposal was rejected in the committee by the APNU,” the Minister concluded.
You must be logged in to post a comment.