admin

Labour Ministry aims to integrate Venezuelan migrants into Guyana’s formal economy Sep 30, 2024 News Kaieteur News – With an estimated 28,000 to 40,000 Venezuelan migrants residing in Guyana, the Ministry of Labour is facilitating their transition into the legal economy. This involves addressing key issues such as training and development, health and safety opportunities and education on local labour laws. Minister of Labour, Joseph Hamilton In a press statement issued on Thursday last, the ministry highlighted a meeting at its Brickdam office that focused on supporting migrants in their transition to Guyana. The meeting included Minister of Labour Joseph Hamilton, Natecia Garraway, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer of the Board of Industrial Training (BIT), Juan Francisco Espinosa, Special Advisor to the International Organisation of Migration (IOM), Maria-Alexandra Bassermann, Regional Labour Mobility and Social Inclusion Coordinator, IOM-UN, Eraina Yaw, Deputy Regional Coordination Officer for the Caribbean and Chief of Mission for Guyana among others. Furthermore, Minister Hamilton informed Kaieteur News that such engagements are to ensure that the migrants become a part of the formal economy which will allow them to have access to education and other social services. In relation to programmes and training for the enhancement of migrants, the minister said, “That has already started; we (Government) hope to do more with support from international partners.” To that end, the Ministry stated in their press statement, “Upon the conclusion of the meeting, Minister Hamilton pledged his and by extension, the Government of Guyana’s support to partner with both parties to address this matter in a meaningful way.”   Related Similar Articles

Jackie Jaxx, D’Ivan seekIng audience with Culture Minister to discuss copyright reform in Guyana Sep 30, 2024 News Kaieteur News – Guyanese musicians Jackie Jaxx and D’Ivan have dispatched a letter to Minister of Culture Youth and Sport Charles Ramson Jr. to begin talks on copyright reform in Guyana. Guyanese musicians Jackie ‘Jackie Jaxx’ Hanover and Ivan D’Ivan Harry. According to a statement released to the media from their lawyer, “The duo who recently filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States, against One Communications (Guyana) Inc. and Tennicia De Freitas, known by her stage name NEKEITA, have written to the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Charles Ramson Jr., seeking an audience to discuss copyright reform and other issues affecting the music industry in Guyana.” The letter which was dated September 28th, 2024 the duo noted that as creative professionals they face numerous challenges as a result of insufficient intellectual property protections, and this raises a deep concern for the lack of stringent mechanisms to “safeguard the rights of Guyanese artists and content creators.” The lawsuit recently filed by the duo has created a buzz locally catching the attention of the Vice President and even the leader of the Alliance for Change. Speaking about her pending lawsuit against One Communications and Nekeita, Jaxx has said “My hope is that this lawsuit will force corporate entities to show respect for song writers and content creators by implementing proper copyright clearance policies for all works used at their events”. “Jaxx and D’Ivan contend in their letter to Minister Ramson, that rapid evolution of the global creative economy, creates an urgent need for Guyana to modernise its copyright laws and policies to ensure local artists are protected and empowered to meaningfully contribute to national development,” the release further stated. The Vice President’s view on the modernization of the legislation is welcomed and the duo has informed Minister Ramson that they would like a meeting to “discuss how Vice President Jagdeo’s declared commitment to protect the rights of local artistes could be made a reality.” On September 22nd this publication reported that Jaxx’ and D’Ivan have filed a US$1.6M lawsuit in a US District Court in the Eastern District of New York against recently rebranded One Communications for the unauthorized use of their musical compositions “Guyana” and “Oh Guyana”. Musical compositions during a rebranding event, hosted by One Communications. It is alleged in the lawsuit that One Communications and NEKEITA by performing, broadcasting and commercially exploiting the songs without obtaining the permission needed infringed on the copyright of the plaintiffs music. Harry and Hanover are contending that the company, One Communications, in particular has gained significant benefits when it infringed on their copyright protection. The lawsuit was reportedly filed after efforts made to have the dispute resolved with One Communications failed. Related Similar Articles

Genuine concern does not confer authority Sep 30, 2024 Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – Few things in government are more fraught with peril than the well-intentioned intervention of a high-ranking official acting beyond the bounds of his authority. It is one thing to possess genuine concern over a matter that touches on the public good; it is quite another to act without clear legal or constitutional backing. The recent intervention by the Vice President into the resignation of the administrator of the Burrowes School of Art raises precisely these questions. Was the Vice President acting out of a sense of duty, or was this a case of authority being overextended, if not misapplied? The drama began with an alleged racial slur—a private altercation between the administrator of the Burrowes School of Art and a private citizen. On its face, this was a personal dispute, best addressed through private channels or, at most, through administrative mechanisms within the government. Yet, what should have remained a matter between private citizens soon escalated into a public spectacle. The administrator reportedly was summoned to the office of a Minister, and before long, the Vice President himself entered the fray. While one might argue that the Vice President had a legitimate interest in ensuring that public employees are not unjustly treated, the larger question remains: what was his legal standing to do so? It is one thing for a concerned official to offer guidance or counsel; it is quite another to involve oneself in a matter far removed from one’s own portfolio. The Vice President is tasked with overseeing natural resources, finance, and environmental matters. These are portfolios, by any reasonable interpretation, have little to do with the management of an art school. The Vice President’s reported involvement—calling the administrator to encourage him to reconsider his resignation—raises serious questions. Why was it necessary for the Vice President to intervene in this matter at all? Were there no proper channels through which such concerns could be addressed? The permanent secretary, after all, is the highest-ranking civil servant in a ministry and should have been the one to handle this situation. By intervening, the Vice President not only bypassed those channels but also risked politicizing what should have remained a private matter. But the situation becomes even more perplexing when one considers reports that the Vice President “spoke strongly” to, or even “scolded,” the Minister in question. If this is true, it needs to be asked what authority does the Vice President have to rebuke a fellow Minister? As a minister himself, albeit one with the title of Vice President, he remains a peer among equals. Unless specifically instructed by the President, he has no standing to issue commands or criticisms to his colleagues. In a functioning democracy, ministers are accountable to the President, not to each other. The division of powers and responsibilities within the executive branch is a crucial safeguard against overreach. Ministers have defined portfolios, and while collaboration is often necessary, overstepping those boundaries is a slippery slope toward a concentration of power. The Vice President may oversee critical sectors, but this does not give him carte blanche to involve himself in matters beyond his purview. Even if the Vice President acted with the best of intentions, the issue at hand is one of authority and process. If the President indeed delegated such power to the Vice President, then this raises additional concerns about the distribution of power within the executive. Has the President conferred upon the Vice President a quasi-presidential role, one that allows him to intervene in ministries not under his direct oversight? And if so, is this not a subversion of the very structure of government? The more pressing concern is what happens if such interventions go unchecked. If the Vice President can unilaterally decide to step into matters far removed from his portfolio, what prevents other ministers from doing the same? What then becomes of the principle of ministerial accountability? Without clear boundaries, the risk is that governance becomes a free-for-all, with each official asserting their authority wherever they see fit, regardless of their constitutional remit. This incident brings into sharp relief a deeper issue within the government. It is not merely about the specifics of the Burrowes School of Art or the resignation of its administrator, but rather about how power is wielded and distributed. The Vice President may have believed that his intervention was necessary, perhaps even noble, but the fact remains that he overstepped his bounds. He inserted himself into a matter that could and should have been resolved through proper administrative channels, without the need for high-level political involvement. Even more concerning is the precedent this sets. If the Vice President can involve himself in matters unrelated to his portfolio, and if it is true that he did reprimand a fellow Minister, what does this say about the balance of power within the government?. To be sure, the Vice President may have had genuine concerns—perhaps he feared that the resignation of the administrator needed to be reversed in the interest of fairness and justice. But genuine concern does not confer authority. Even in cases where an official feels morally justified, the exercise of power must always be grounded in clear legal or constitutional authority. Anything less risks undermining the principles of democratic governance. At the heart of this controversy is a question that demands an answer: By what authority did the Vice President intervene? And if he had no such authority, why did he feel empowered to act as he did? These are not trivial matters. They go to the core of how power is exercised within the state. The Vice President’s actions in this case, whether well-intentioned or not, raise more questions than they answer. Related Similar Articles

AFC youths appeal to GWI to address water woes in Guyana Sep 30, 2024 News Kaieteur News – The youth arm of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Youth for Change (YFC) is calling on the Guyana Water Incorporated (GWI) to address challenges citizens in sections of Guyana are facing to have access to potable water. Member of YFC Member of the YFC Onix Duncan in a statement last Friday at the patty’s news conference told reporters that the access to clean water is a human right that has an impact on the heath of the public as well as the quality of life. Duncan noted that there has been an ongoing issue with inadequate to no water distribution in regions across the country and has urged  the government to prioritise addressing such. “There are known reports from Prospect, East Bank Demerara, Tuschen, East Bank Essequibo, La Parafait Harmonie, West Bank Demerara, Beterverwagting and Plaisance, East Coast Demerara and communities in other regions. The water situation cannot be ignored any longer. Guyana is known as the land of many waters, and it is discouraging for citizens to be struggling to access potable water. This water situation will affect the health and wellbeing of citizens for not days or weeks but months, disrupting daily life, and hindering economic opportunities,” Duncan said. He further stated that the company has remained silent for the most part, failing to both address the concerns citizens have raised and to provide any considerable updates on the situation as calls to the customer support hotline are unanswered. “This lack of communication by GWI is most unacceptable and undermines the trust that consumers have in organizations that provide critical services. Guyana Water Incorporated (GWI) was allocated GYD$17.7 billion in the 2023 budget and another $22.5 billion in the 2024 budget to improve access to potable water in the hinterland and coastal communities,” he lamented. They also suggested that the GWI should reach out to the communities affected to be able to get a better understanding of their needs and use the feedback to incorporate into their plans to provide a better service. There should be regular communication and open forums established to ensure that residents are informed as well as involved. Duncan further stated that, “Customer support is unreachable. GWI needs to ensure that Guyanese can enjoy the right to clean and safe drinking water. ( Youth For Change is led by a group of vibrant young people who operate within the framework of the Alliance for Change (AFC). The YFC is focused on issues that affect young people in marginalized communities while promoting social change and equity. The YFC champions youth policies and initiatives that promote the wellbeing of Guyanese.)” On September 14th 2024 this publication reported that, the GWI in a statement said that it has commenced pipe replacement works along Avenue of the Republic and High Street as part of its Georgetown Transmission Replacement Programme. The company explained that the current transmission mains, installed between 1920 and 1960, are being replaced due to frequent leaks and breakages, which have made them costly to maintain. This initiative, backed by a $1 billion investment from the Government of Guyana, aims to upgrade the city’s water supply network. C & L Construction Inc. has been contracted to complete the works. Notably, the replacement works will be executed in two phases: Lot 2 covers the section of Avenue of the Republic between Hadfield and Church Streets, while Lot 3 focuses on High Street between Hadfield and Broad Street. Each lot is expected to take six months. Moreover, GWI said that it is actively engaging with stakeholders, including residents, businesses, and public agencies, that are expected to experience disruptions during the project timespan. In August of this year the company came under fire from customers who are voicing their frustrations online over the company’s ongoing water supply issues. Many customers expressed outrage, claiming that these issues have persisted far longer than GWI acknowledges. Some residents report that they have been struggling with water supply problems for weeks, if not months. In the comment section of GWI’s Facebook post, frustrated customers did not hold back. One user, Oshaviyah Kattow said, “This has been ongoing for WEEKS now. Months, actually! Residents of Georgetown have been receiving little to NO water for MONTHS now and the water we have been receiving has been of absolute poor quality! If is not y’all making our lives hell, it’s GPL. Sick of this! Make haste and FIX IT cause we don’t beg ayo. WE PAY.” Like Kattow, numerous other customers shared similar experiences, stating they have been receiving little to no water for an extended period. Others posted alarming images showing the brown, murky water coming from their taps. Natalie Ann Gammell, another dissatisfied customer, posted, “Woke up this morning to cook and this was the colour of the water running through the tap. Yall really need to do better…Fed up.” The quality of the water has raised concerns about potential health risks, with some residents worried about the effects of using such water for bathing. Related Similar Articles

Vincent Alexander and constitutional reform’ Sep 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor Yesterday I commented on presentations made at the Forbes Burnham Foundation’s Elvin McDavid Memorial Symposium 2024 ‘How can an Electoral System for Guyana engineer a system of Governance that`s responsive to the Plurality of the Guyanese Society?’ The invitation was most timely as last week I argued that in Guyana most of the values of a liberal democratic society, e.g., freedom of information, checks and balances on the executive, the rule of law, independence of the legislature and judiciary, principles of local democracy and focus on the common good instead of parochial ethnic appeals and coercion, are absent. On behalf of the Foundation, Mr. Vincent Alexander began his presentation with an opinion that captures a very important element of Guyana’s chaotic political story. ‘Guyana by virtue of its diverse population: Amerindians, Europeans, Africans, Chinese, Madeirans (Portuguese), and Indians, is a plural society. Diversity in such societies is manifested in the difference of traditions, customs, belief systems, values, cuisine, dress and other aspects of the groups` cultures or ways of life, across the ethnic groups, which are in themselves each identified by their internal commonalities of the differences earlier referenced. Societies thus populated have constituent groups, whose ways of life, and trend of thoughts are incongruent thus resulting in diverse approaches to resolve the same societal issues. … In that regard, the question of Governance looms large. … It stands to reason that the ‘by whom’ has to be a representative body of the diverse groups and the ‘how’ has to be a convergence of thoughts, consensus and the understanding that the common good should prevail over partisan group interests.’ I drew attention to an 1861 observation made by the eminent British philosopher, John Stuart Mills. ‘Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.  Among a people without fellow feeling (the essence of nationhood) … the united public opinion necessary to the working of a representative government cannot exist.  The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country.  An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another.’ Mills considered liberal democracy impossible in the environment outlined by Mr. Alexander, and it is no wonder that the notion of ethnic geographical partition is periodically raised in Guyana. I also noted that from the very inception of the notion of nationhood, Guyana has been plagued by ethnic strife. So much so that in 1954, the report of the British Robertson Commission, observing the views of another 1951 British Commission which stated that ‘Race is a patent difference and a powerful slogan ready to the hand of unscrupulous men who can use it as a steppingstone to political power’, made Mill’s important structural point that has troubled Guyana ever since. ‘We do not altogether share the confidence of the Waddington Commission that a comprehensive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse origins.’ In the 1960s, MG Smith, the Jamaican who helped to popularize plural society theory also predicted that once independence was in the air, African and Indians would struggle for power. As regards the issue of governance and the possibility that ‘the common good should prevail over partisan group interest’, I noted that at a period when ‘ethnic assimilation’ was acceptable, after he won the 1964 elections, Forbes Burnham in his address to the nation, having referred to the ‘apparent’ ethnic cleavage that existed in Guyana, blamed ‘the dishonest, deceitfulness, opportunistic, racist propaganda and policies of the PPP’ and promised  that ‘beginning immediately my government will behave fairly and will demonstrate to PPP supporters that there is nothing to fair but all to celebrate’ and look where we still are today! It was Sir Arthur Lewis (Politics in West Africa (1965) who made a seminal contribution to making liberal democracy possible in ethnically divided societies. ‘Majority rule’, he argued, ‘is dysfunctional for plural societies. The most important requirement of democracy is that citizens have the opportunity to participate, directly or indirectly, in decision-making. This meaning of democracy is violated if significant minorities are excluded from the decision-making process for extended periods of time. Under such circumstances, narrow majority rule is totally immoral, inconsistent with the primary meaning of democracy, and destructive of any prospect of building a nation in which different peoples might live together in harmony.’ But Guyana is not simply a plural society: it is a multiethnic, bicommunal, society with added problem because two large ethnic groups control over 80% of the population. And ‘[t]o the extent that the constitutional arrangements ignore this (structural) development, tension, alienation, disturbances and underdevelopment result. There is little point in blaming the community leaders for in the competitive political environment their stories are fit and do win them maximum support. There is little point in pleading right-doing for with similar facts the opposite story can also be told. Nowhere has this story not played out and it’s a mistake to blame the outcome on anyone. Power sharing becomes inevitable because of the logic of political cleavage in competitive democracies.’ (Orr, Scott The Theory and Practice of Ethnic Politics. Aug 2007). Mr. Alexander told his audience that ‘democracy, has three pillars: representativeness, responsibility, and responsiveness. Inherent in this proposition is that no single group should be able to dominate. Conflation and consensus should prevail over domination.’ Among other things, government should be limited at the national and regional levels based on the Catholic principle of ‘subsidiarity’ – nothing should be done at the national level that could be done well or better at the most local level. The determination of who is president should be a function of a process in the legislature that allows for the president to appoint a cabinet based on proportionality and a prime minister based on the consensus of the legislature. The powers of the executive and the legislature should be significantly reduced. Mr. Alexander appears to have taken the democratic pathway, but his conceptualization needs far more clarity particularly given that he is closely associated with a political party that has previously reneged on its promises. Jimmy Carter walked away from Guyana in 2004 complaining that the PPP did not want to change the winner takes all system. In 2006, the International IDEA, an NGO that supports the development of democracy worldwide, noted, ‘If any generalization about (political) institutional design is sustainable, …it is that majoritarian systems are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious and other emotional and polarizing divisions.’ Recently, USAID and the US State Department recommended that the system be changed. Guyanese are not so dense as not to take cognizance of this kind of advice coming from largely disinterested expert sources and other factors must, therefore, be in play. Sartori’s observation that self-interest usually pervades the constitutional reform process is spot on. After some half a century of everyone trying to tame the ethnic structural beast, the PPP has given up and has simply chosen the only other alternative: an autocratic pathway that is more in keeping with its ideological and political socialization, i.e. democratic centralism and racism that have been its traditional organizational and mobilization tools! SincerelyDr. Henry Jeffrey Related Similar Articles

Access to information Sep 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Knowledge is what we want. Schools are successful when they eventually show students how to acquire knowledge themselves. Knowledge is not merely information, though it is made up of information. It is not my intention to write a treatise on the processing and logics of turning information into knowledge by means of intelligence, but to remind citizens that civil society is characterized by upholding the right to know. Some of us use this criterion to help identify genuine civil society organisations (CSOs). Some international CSOs got together in 2002 to uphold the Right to Know, and September 28 was allocated a day on which this was celebrated. The United Nations (UN) took it up and recommended treaties that would bind States to uphold the right to access information. Guyana signed one such treaty 6 years ago, the Escazú Agreement, which binds her and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to provide citizens with rights of “access to information about the environment, public participation in environmental decision-making, environmental justice, and a healthy and sustainable environment for current and future generations”. The exponential increase of information and its processing via artificial intelligence contributed to the UN declaring since last year that September 28 be celebrated as International Day for Universal Access to Information. Governments in civilized countries are often the repositories of most of the information collected. Astronomical observations published in all inhabited continents thousands of years ago helped locate their respective agricultural seasons in time and led to some degree of predictability. Knowledge increases today because scientists have access to information. Since governments also spend money on behalf of citizens, they must be held accountable to citizens by transparent procedures and transactions. This means that information to do so must be accessible in a practical manner, without having to go through expensive, lengthy legal proceedings in the Courts to get it. The Organisation of American States (OAS) urged the Guyana government, and an Access to Information Act was passed in 2011. For a while this effort pleased the OAS and Guyana had a good rating. However, the Act is a contortion of words and nice sounding phrases that was really designed to strangle access to information. Here is its declared purpose: “AN ACT to provide for setting out a practical regime of right to information for persons to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government and public authorities and for the appointment of the Commissioner of Information.” However, the true nature of the Act is revealed somewhere in the middle of its 42 pages where it allows, in S.13(2), the Public Authority, from which the information is to be had, to classify the records “in accordance with the security level required as top secret, secret, confidential, restricted or general and the information contained in all documents which are classified as general shall be accessible by the public in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” And if you think you can get the document that is classified as general, think again. The Public Authority might decide that it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. If you are not weary and still believe you ought to get the information, the Act provides for a Commissioner of Information to whom you can appeal. Let me relate my experience. Three and a half years ago I asked the Ministry of Natural Resources (MoNR) for daily production and analysis of the oil and gas being produced offshore. I was never given that information. So, one and a half years ago I asked the Commissioner of Information, after learning of the procedure from him. He was very accommodating at the time, and acknowledged the request. But I still do not have the information and any further response from him. Here is what S.18 of the Act provides: “18. (1) On receipt of a request, the Commissioner of Information shall acknowledge receipt of the request within thirty days from the date of its receipt and advise the applicant if the request is approved or denied within sixty days from the date the request is received. (2) The Commissioner of Information may extend the period of sixty days for approval or denial and inform the applicant of the reasons therefor. (3) Where the Commissioner of Information fails to give access within the time-limit, he shall be deemed to have refused to give access.” Therefore, the Commissioner of Information is not even obligated to respond to me after 60 days. What kind of legislation is this that is full of procedures that get nowhere, exemptions that get nothing, and an official that can spend no time on a matter and get paid a salary most people could never get? Where are his annual reports to the National Assembly? The primary official source of public information should be the Bureau of Statistics (BoS). However, the officers swear an oath of confidentiality to the Chief Statistician, who swears a similar oath to the Minister of Finance. This pre-Independence legacy of the British still governs the BoS. Their website has information, but not information that enables us to make the government accountable. A measure of their usefulness to the citizen is the non-publication of census figures. My visits and requests to them for oil and gas data only yielded empty promises. No one, not even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could tell me in 1999 how much gold Omai Gold Mines Ltd was extracting. Only in my capacity as Head of the department of Chemistry at the University of Guyana was I able in 2001 to access the BoS data for annual chemical imports. Cyanide is used in known chemical proportion to gold, so its import data enabled me to estimate the astronomical amount of gold that was being produced while no profit was declared. Yet up to now, EPA and Ministries of Natural Resources are still unable to account for gold. There can be no excuse for the continuance of this ignorance. Mr. Burnham had a Latin aphorism he used when going back to basics. Let me use it on his regime-perpetuating method. Rigging of elections is the fons et origo, the foundation and origin, of denial of access to information. Years after the 2020 election we are still denied access to the PNC Statements of Poll. The PPP is responsible for the useless Access to Information Act and for allowing the oil companies to get away with not allowing us to check their meters. Parties with this kind of mentality will suffer no information to be given out which they imagine could cause them to become accountable. Whenever citizens detect inconsistencies in the operations of publicly funded agencies and write about it, paid regime apologists and salaried personnel of these agencies write to deny, but usually give no data. Without necessary information we will be unable to order it into useful knowledge, and school it into wisdom. Talented and hardworking citizens will migrate where they are adequately rewarded and the number of unruly people hustling for a living by any means will increase. SincerelyAlfred Bhulai   Related Similar Articles

Recognizing anti-fraud work of Counting Agents & Others of 2020 Elections  Sep 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Credit for deterring attempts at electoral fraud during the 2020 general elections was focused on the local and international observers, the foreign diplomats, the media, then opposition politicians, Caricom leaders, those who lobbied foreign governments and the court, among others. Virtually no attention and or credit or recognition was given to the counting agents of the political parties who monitored the verification of the SOPs and helped to expose the attempted fraud. The counting agents watchfully monitored the aggregate count with eagle eyes cross checking every SOP read by each regional returning officer against the numbers on their duplicate copies that were posted at the door of each polling place. The counting agents played a most critical role in discovering and identifying discrepancies and exposing the attempted fraud, bringing it to the attention of the observers and the party leaders. This writer (reporter) was at Ashmin building counting center from March 2, 2020 onwards and witnessed first hand the shenanigans of the region 4 returning officer. Among the individuals observed at the Ashmin Counting Center daily monitoring the count were: Azeena Baksh, Vindya Persaud, Priya Manickchand, Susan Rodrigues, Mae Toussaint, Sasenarine Singh, Peter Ramsaroop, Charles Ramson, Sonia Pariag, Indar Deodat, among a few others. Among the local observers inside the counting certification or verification center from the PSC were Kit Nascimento, Gerry Gouveia, and Roshan Khan. All of the above, as well as agents of other parties and foreign observers, were in an inner room on the left side as one entered the Ashmin building. Anil Nandlall, Bharrat Jagdeo, and Irfaan Ali made a daily presence on the outer section inside the building. Nandlall was there daily more for his legal skills rather than as an agent involved in certification or verification of the count of the SOPs. Jagdeo and Ali were there to provide solidarity to the party’s agents and to express grievances against attempted fraud and to address the media. Seeraj Dharamkumar was present daily inside Ashmin in the inner room or on the outer section to give support to colleagues. Lennox Shuman and Dr Vishnu Bandhu were there regularly. Chris Ram, Timothy Jonas, among others, were also seen at various times and were also in court; they too helped to save democracy. They too deserve recognition for salvaging the will of voters. Norman McLean was there occasionally to give support to the PSC colleagues as were a number of other individuals from that organization. There were also counting agents of other political parties (ANUG, URP, etc) that contested the elections. There were also PNC observers and agents. Members of Guyana AmCham had a presence as observers in the verification room. Besides the local observers, there were international observers, including former President Jimmy Carter’s grandson Jason, who had a daily presence the week after March 2. The diplomats from the ABCE countries visited the Ashmin building almost daily speaking out against fraud. This writer was at Ashmin daily observing proceedings. Besides being at the Ashmin building, this writer was at all of the press conferences related to the attempted rigging and occasionally at the court house on judicial hearings pertaining to the fairness of the count or attempted fraud. This writer was also present at the press conference when the Foreign Minister Ms. Cummings threatened to withdraw credentials of international observers. Everyone protested and volunteered to return them. The former Barbadian PM took his credential badge from around his neck and returned it to Ms. Cummings who refused to accept it. The counting agents are commended for their work exposing skullduggery. The agents, except those from the minor parties, were deservedly rewarded with political positions and or lucrative arrangements. Yours truly,Vishnu Bisram Related Similar Articles