admin

Specious arguments are being made Jul 02, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – A silly debate has emerged about whether the newly-elected Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC) is in a conflict of interest because ExxonMobil is client of his firm. Some persons have sought disingenuously to import the definition of the politician being a politically-exposed person to claim that the new Leader of the AFC is in a conflict of interest. This is an absurd conflation or relationship. A person is not necessarily in a conflict of interest by virtue of being a politically-exposed person. Every Minister of the government is considered as being a politically exposed person but they are not necessarily in a conflict of interest by virtue of being politically-exposed persons. It is the specific situation that dictates whether a person is in a conflict of interest. The Leader of the AFC has pointed out that Exxon is a client of his firm. Thus, when it comes to matters and decisions concerning Exxon, it is clear that the Leader of the AFC will find himself in a conflict of interest. But there is a way out of this: by excusing himself or by not participating in the decision concerning the oil company. Many years ago, it was reported that a matter concerning the friend of a former President had come before Cabinet. The matter concerned the privatization of a state enterprise. It was known that the President and the person to whom the asset was being sold were friend. The then President said that he excused himself from the deliberations. If he did so, it would have been because he recognized that he would have been in a conflict of interest in him participating in a decision that involved the interests of his friend. In other words, it is specific situation that arises that places someone in a conflict of interest. Not by virtue of the person being a politically-exposed person or being known to the person. It does seem however that we are in the season of fig leaf politics in which all manner of specious arguments are being used as ammunition against political rivals. The AFC leader does not hold a government office as yet. As such, at that level he is not in any potential conflict of interest. But if he assumes a position in parliament, he could find himself in a potential conflict of interest if he attempts to speak about or to issues involving ExxonMobil. The same principle applies in relation to his party’s position on issues that involve his client. In order not to be in a conflict of interest, he would be required to recuse himself from any discussion, within his party, that relate to the interests of the oil companies. This does place him at a major handicap. The oil industry is the major economic sector in Guyana and is the main engine of economic growth. For any leader not to be able to be involved in either his party’s or government’s position on this sector, because of an existing business relationship, is a handicap and one which the delegates should have considered when nominating candidates for leadership of the AFC. But the deal is done and what one expects now is ethical conduct in the manner in which potential and actual conflicts of interest are dealt with. There are laid down rules which apply, including as mentioned before, recusing oneself from consideration of matters which involve, both directly and indirectly, a client. The government is no paragon of virtue when it comes to conflicts of interest. There was a glaring instance which surfaced recently and which was publicized in the press. The matter even formed part of arguments in court, except that the argument should have been made after the actual conflict of interest situation arose rather than before. In another case, a person was found to be in a conflict of interest. It was ruled by the Court that the person should have recused himself from the matter. A conflict of interest is inherently situational and occurs at a particular point in time. It is not a static or perpetual state but rather a condition that arises under specific circumstances where personal interests could or do potentially interfere with professional duties or decisions. A potential conflict of interest exists when there is a possibility that an individual’s personal interests could interfere with their professional or political responsibilities in the future. Potential conflicts of interest are based on hypothetical situations where a conflict might arise but has not yet materialized. On the other hand, an actual conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s personal interests directly interfere with their professional or political duties, impacting their objectivity or decision-making. The conflict is present and affects the individual’s professional or political responsibilities at a specific point in time. It is important to separate the arguments which have been speciously made recently. By being elected as a leader of a political party, the elected person becomes a politically-exposed person. But this fact in itself does not automatically place the individual in a conflict of interest. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

Is Nigel Hughes the ExxonMobil candidate? Jul 02, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, I am compelled to express my profound concern regarding Nigel Hughes’s recent election as leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC) and his refusal to immediately denounce ExxonMobil while clearly prioritizing his personal business interests over the welfare of the Guyanese people. Mr. Hughes’ relationship with Exxon is not just a mere association, but it’s a glaring conflict of interest. His law firm’s office in Houston, Texas, the heart of Exxon’s operations, is a stark reminder of where his loyalties lie. He cannot, in good conscience, position himself as a presidential candidate for the people of Guyana while simultaneously serving Exxon’s interests, even at this stage. These dual roles are fundamentally incompatible and betray the trust of the Guyanese electorate. Being embedded within Exxon might offer Mr. Hughes certain professional advantages, but the demands of national leadership require an unyielding commitment to the people. The national fight against exploitation by powerful foreign entities necessitates his full and undivided attention. Divided loyalty is simply unacceptable. The presidential aspirations of any candidate cannot coexist with the interests of an oil giant that has its own agenda. Mr. Hughes must make a choice. Will he prioritize the welfare of the Guyanese people, or will he continue to serve Exxon’s interests? The people of Guyana deserve a leader whose loyalty is unequivocally to them, free from the influence of powerful oil corporations. Anything less is a betrayal of the public trust and an affront to the principles of good governance. Sincerely, Alvin Hamilton Related Similar Articles

Guyanese Court should take a cue from US Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity Jul 02, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, The US Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling on July 1st on Presidential or Chief Executive power. The ruling should be studied by Guyanese lawyers and our judicial system in Guyana – High Court, Appeal Court and CCJ as the final court. As in other precedent setting cases, the US Supreme Court re-established itself as the arbiter of all legal disputes involving powers and as the institution that determines powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). Leaving out the parties in the case, the US Supreme Court empowers the President – immunes the Chief Executive from prosecution for official acts and denies immunity for unofficial acts. The apex court gave some specifics of what are official acts but largely has left it up to the lower court to decide what is an official and an unofficial act. The litigant, Donald Trump, has been given immunity for many of the charges for which he was indicted and was awaiting trial for alleged criminal misconduct. His indictment has been remanded back to the lower court for correction. American courts generally rule along ideological lines depending on the President who appointed them. Democratic President appointed judges tend to render ruling that favors Democrats and Republican President appointed judges render ruling that favors the Republicans. The court ruled 6-3 in favour of Trump. All six judges who ruled in Trump’s favour were appointed by Republicans with Trump appointing three of them during his four years in office. The other three judges were appointed by a President who was a Democrat. The ruling has been far reaching, demonstrating that a court could restrict or expand the powers of a President. The main take away from the ruling is that the court decides on the powers of the Chief Executive. Earlier compositions of the court expanded powers of the Chief Executive while some other earlier rulings restricted the powers of the President. President George Bush Sr., for example, said he had line item veto on budgeting and by extension legislation. The Supreme Court disagreed and denied him that power. The Chief Executive of Guyana has enormous powers, more powerful than the American President over the sovereign. Some of the powers are contradictory vis-à-vis powers of citizens and local governments. Lawyers should test the court especially on powers that challenge those exercised by the Chief Executive regardless of which party in office. Judges should decide whether the Chief Executive should have such extraordinary powers especially that the people were never given an opportunity to decide on the powers of the President and the central government. Citizens and local governments should seek judicial intervention whenever they feel that their powers have been usurped. The people and local governments (NDCs) should have maximum powers while the government (Chief Executive) should have least powers. Yours sincerely, Vishnu Bisram Related Similar Articles

NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Hurricane Beryl has dramatically strengthened in record-breaking fashion, becoming a monster Category 5 storm as it barrels westward through the southern...

.tdi_3.td-a-rec{text-align:center}.tdi_3.td-a-rec:not(.td-a-rec-no-translate){transform:translateZ(0)}.tdi_3 .td-element-style{z-index:-1}.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img{text-align:left}.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img img{margin:0 auto 0 0}@media (max-width:767px){.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img{text-align:center}} 1100 PM AST Mon Jul 01 2024 …BERYL BECOMES A POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN…...

In the official “summer mode,” people do not stay at home with a candle or a generator to overcome the blackouts. By Yoani Sanchez (14ymedio) HAVANA...

.tdi_3.td-a-rec{text-align:center}.tdi_3.td-a-rec:not(.td-a-rec-no-translate){transform:translateZ(0)}.tdi_3 .td-element-style{z-index:-1}.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img{text-align:left}.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img img{margin:0 auto 0 0}@media (max-width:767px){.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img{text-align:center}} (CMC) — Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dr Ralph Gonsalves Monday night confirmed that there...