admin

Under-16 Boxing moves to Vergenoegen tomorrow as weigh-in takes place today and tomorrow Sep 20, 2024 Sports Action set for Vergenoegen Rice Mill Tarmac from 17:00hrs tomorrow Kaieteur Sports – Guyana Boxing Association (GBA) Technical Director, Terrence Poole, has confirmed that the official weigh-in process for the Vergenoegen leg of the U-16 Championship will occur today for Georgetown teams at the Andrew ‘Six Head, Lewis Gym, and tomorrow for remaining participants at the West Demerara facility. Terrence Poole Steve Ninvalle The acquisition of the new boxing ring, which was facilitated by the Ministry of Culture, Youth, and Sport, will allow the entity to decentralise their existing U-16 programme, with Vergenoegen set to make its debut tomorrow. The event, which is hosted twice per month, will occur at 17:00hrs at the community’s rice mill tarmac with the utilisation of the older ring. The major gyms that have confirmed their participation are the Andrew ‘Six Head’ Lewis, Pace and Power, Pocket Rocket, Rose Hall Jammers, New Amsterdam Academy, Bailey, and Forgotten Youth Foundation. The annual initiative has formed the backbone of GBA’s nursery programme, and with the attainment of the new ring, will allow the association to utilise the older equipment to be transported to the various venues going forward. Linden is slated to host the initiative two weeks after Vergenoegen. Similarly, Berbice is scheduled to take centre stage following the conclusion of the Linden date. Terrence Poole, Technical Director of the GBA, said, “Tomorrow [today], the Georgetown-based teams will be conducting their weigh-in at the Andrew ‘Six Head’ Lewis gym. The teams from outside of Georgetown will conduct their weigh-in at the Vergenoegen gym on Saturday before the event commences in the evening. The official fixtures will be finalised after the weigh-in process.” He further said, “We anticipate 18 fights being staged on the night. Everything is being put in place. The logistics and the systems are being finalised for Saturday [tomorrow]. We are very excited for this event because it’s the first time we will be conducting this tournament outside of Georgetown.” Meanwhile, GBA President Steve Ninvalle said, “These initiatives, ventures, and mechanisms are what are required for the advancement of the discipline and, more importantly, vital to the unearthing of talents. Local boxing can only develop and improve at an exponential rate in such a manner.” He further established, “While we understand the importance of establishing a central role and hub for the discipline, a geographical reality associated with Georgetown given its proximity and status as the capital city, we believe that decentralisation is essential for the continued growth and development of boxing. That is our national approach and policy to ensure that we maintain our status as the leading light in the Caribbean. This is unquestionably development.” Related Similar Articles

O’Jeer relieved following High Court ruling Sep 20, 2024 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News, Sports Keith O’Jeer – GFF ordered to pay $2.4M in compensation By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Former football administrator Keith O’Jeer has expressed relief following the High Court’s ruling, which declared his suspension as an Executive Member of the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) over an “inappropriate behaviour” allegation to be both unreasonable and unlawful. The High Court handed down its decision on January 24 of this year, but the GFF has remained tight-lipped about the ruling. This contrasts with April 2018, when President Wayne Forde publicly addressed O’Jeer’s suspension through the local media. In 2018, O’Jeer was suspended to allow for an investigation by the GFF after allegations of misconduct surfaced. This led the Berbician to challenge the suspension in the High Court, where he was represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde. The GFF was represented by former Chief Magistrate and now Senior Counsel, Kalam Juman-Yassin. The High Court found O’Jeer’s suspension to be unlawful and further criticized the GFF for its failure to address the allegations within a reasonable timeframe, deeming their actions unjust and unreasonable. As a result of being suspended for 20 months, O’Jeer was awarded $2.4 million in compensation, reflecting his $120,000 monthly stipend as a GFF Executive during that period. Sources confirmed to Kaieteur News that the GFF has complied with the court’s ruling. “I am immensely relieved and gratified by the Court’s decision, which has brought a long awaited sense of justice to this matter,” O’Jeer told Kaieteur News yesterday. According to O’Jeer, “The ruling not only vindicates me but reinforces the principles of fairness. I remain committed to contributing positively to the development of football in Guyana.” He explained that in 2017, the GFF appointed a Commission of Inquiry, led by Lieutenant Colonel Eon Murray of the GDF, to conduct an investigation. According to the records from the Executive Statutory Committee Meeting on January 28, 2018, Lieutenant Colonel Eon Murray recommended that O’Jeer’s suspension be lifted immediately, citing a lack of evidence to prove his guilt. However, the meeting minutes indicate that GFF President Wayne Forde stated he would consult with some members of the Executive Committee before deciding on the way forward. He noted that because O’Jeer’s case was highly sensitive and a public matter that “can really tarnish the image not only of the Federation but of our own as custodians of the sport, and should have this report subjected to the judicial process of the GFF.” According to the meeting’s minutes, Forde recommended that the report be submitted to the Disciplinary Committee for review and analysis. The committee would then determine whether the matter should be pursued further or if the evidence provided is sufficient to close the case. Related Similar Articles

Politicians casual, tentative relationship with truth Sep 20, 2024 Editorial Kaieteur News – Corruption and truth are sworn, generational enemies.  Corruption flourishes when truth is pushed into the farthest corner and given no freedom to take its rightful place before men.  All Guyana needs to know, must be told, what happened to the Kaieteur and Canje oil blocks.  The blocks loaded with production potential were there, one moment in Guyana’s hands, then they were gone.  For next to nothing, to those who were strangers to the oil business, and under the cover of darkness when Guyanese were distracted.  National elections provided the perfect cover for what has every resemblance to political skullduggery of the highest order.  This was what the PPPC Government seemingly engaged in during the closing days of its 2015 administration, as the record confirms. The Kaieteur and Canje oil blocks are gone, and what PPPC Government officials have shared since then opens them to ridicule and suspicions about the strength of their relationship with truth.  One former PPPC Government minister insisted that he acted on the advice of the lawyers.  On that basis, and with the fullest confidence, he made his recommendations to President Ramotar to go through with the deal.  The issue is whether it was honest dealing, or cunning wheeling and dealing with the lucrative assets of this country.  The latter has been a consistent feature of one PPPC Government after another.  Strangely, the architect of the secret sale of the two oil blocks has developed some form of amnesia.  He remembers what he wishes to remember, and memory lapses have imprisoned him in solitary confinement: there has been mostly silence from him.  Two of the nation’s rich oil blocks disposed of in circumstances riddled with mysteries, and all that the people who own the blocks get is a former minister referring the issue to the then president, who himself has admitted to a serious information deficit about what happened.  Truth in its natural and unrestrained expressiveness, or truth condemned to the chopping block, is what has troubled citizens since news of the sale of the Kaieteur and Canje oil blocks came to light.  Or, to take the matter to another level, and probably where it is most appropriate, a nontransparent government and its secretive people trapped in a puzzle of their own making, but which is not a puzzle to anyone with basic intelligence. It is baffling that the APNU+AFC Coalition Government did not see it fit to investigate what really went on with those two oil blocks.  Like the PPPC Government, the Coalition also had its own priorities, which pushed the interests of Guyanese somewhere down the line, where honest and serious things did not enjoy much premium.  In a country learning about oil, slowly growing in understanding of the gifts that it has been given, different governments failed Guyanese.  They have either withheld the full truth from citizens or shaved the truths that were placed before the public.  When truth is the scarcest of commodities, then corruption becomes the government of the day.  To that point, no one in any government, PPPC or APNU+AFC Coalition, could give a straight and full account of what were the driving forces behind the sale of the Kaieteur and Canje oil blocks. When the issue of the two blocks were put before Vice President Jagdeo, he promised a deep investigation to get to the bottom of this mystery sale and clear the air, once and for all.  He didn’t have much to offer for a time, despite being reminded that the issue remained unanswered.  When Jagdeo did share what happened, it was a combination of the incredible, the outrageous, and the comically tragic: no laws were broken.  A sale to shadowy people with no oil experience, a dent to Guyana’s treasury, the quick flipping of the two blocks for real money and no laws were broken. When truth is tortured like this, obscured like this, then something becomes obvious.  What politicians say is what goes, what they do is justified by any frivolous rationales, and there matters usually die.  Government and politicians develop a casual and tentative association with truth, one that becomes their defining characteristic.  In a country, a government, that is ruptured by deceptions, truth dies daily. Related Similar Articles

Tinkering with the Constitution is no longer sufficient Sep 20, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – The present state of Guyana’s Constitution is a reflection of the futility of half-hearted reforms. The 1999 Constitutional Reform process, heralded as a watershed moment in Guyana’s political and legal history, did not structurally alter the 1980 socialist constitution. With each passing year, this cumbersome relic continues to groan under the weight of piecemeal amendments and meaningless commissions, all of which serve as a reminder of the country’s flirtation with socialism and its legacy of hollow bureaucracy. To claim that the current constitutional reform process should simply “review” the changes from 1999 is to be sold the same old rickety cart of reform. It is a cart weighed down with political baggage, inefficiencies, and the lingering scent of ideological decay. This review of a failed reform process is the bureaucratic equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. The truth is, nothing short of a comprehensive and radical overhaul of Guyana’s Constitution will suffice if we are serious about charting a course towards genuine democracy, accountability, and national development. The people of this country deserve a constitutional document that is not only reflective of modern governance standards but also one that they can understand. The current Constitution, with its Byzantine structure and antiquated socialist provisions, reads more like a doctrinal text than a practical guide to governance. It is a hodgepodge of legal jargon and ideological detritus, as accessible to the average citizen as quantum mechanics. Let us speak plainly: Guyana’s Constitution, as it stands, is a document trapped in a time warp. Its socialist orientation may have suited the heady days of the Cooperative Republic’s early aspirations, but those days are long gone. The transition to socialism never materialized, and now the Constitution’s emphasis on centralized authority serves no purpose other than to hold the country back. This is not simply a case of adapting the Constitution to reflect modern realities, though that is certainly necessary. No, what we need is a root-and-branch transformation—a return to first principles, a rethinking of what a constitution should be. Guyana, like every other modern nation, needs a Constitution that empowers its people, limits the powers of its leaders, and creates structures for meaningful accountability. It needs a document like the South African Constitution, which not only spells out the rights and responsibilities of citizens but does so in a language that any literate person can grasp. The South African Constitution is widely praised as one of the most progressive and comprehensible constitutions in the world. It sets out clear, unequivocal rights and places limits on the powers of government. It is a Constitution designed for the people, by the people, with the recognition that true democracy requires transparency, accountability, and simplicity. Guyana’s Constitution, on the other hand, is an impenetrable labyrinth of legalese and bureaucratic doublespeak, more suited to an era of ideological dogma than to a vibrant, functioning democracy. One of the more absurd aspects of the current Constitution is its proliferation of commissions, most of which serve little or no useful purpose. The 1999 reforms gave birth to a slew of these commissions—commissions for human rights, commissions for ethnic relations, commissions for gender equality—none of which have made any meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary Guyanese. These commissions, while perhaps well-intentioned, are little more than expensive, ineffective appendages grafted onto an already overburdened system. Instead of fostering justice, equality, or accountability, these commissions have become the bureaucratic equivalent of dead weight. Any serious constitutional reform process must begin by jettisoning these useless commissions and replacing them with structures that have real power to hold the government accountable. And what of the presidency? In its current form, the Guyanese presidency is an office of near-absolute power. The President, once elected, is accountable to almost no one. The Cabinet, nominally an advisory body, has no real authority to challenge presidential decisions, and Parliament, when not hamstrung by partisanship, remains largely a spectator in the exercise of executive power. The idea that the President can act with such impunity, free from meaningful oversight or accountability, is anathema to democratic principles. Yet, this unchecked executive power is enshrined in the Constitution. The 1999 reforms did little to curb the presidential powers. Some changes were made, yes, but these were superficial at best. What Guyana needs now is a Constitution that places real checks on executive power, that elevates the role of Parliament, and that ensures that the President is subject to the rule of law like every other citizen. The idea of an imperial presidency is a relic of the past and has no place in a modern, democratic Guyana. The time has come for Guyana to abandon the trappings of its failed socialist experiment and adopt a Constitution that reflects the values of democracy, accountability, and transparency. The country’s name itself—the Cooperative Republic of Guyana—is an anachronism, a nod to a bygone era of socialist idealism that no longer exists. Guyana is not a cooperative republic. The name should reflect that reality. Enough with the tinkering. Enough with the piecemeal reforms. What Guyana needs is a wholesale reimagining of its Constitution—a document that is easy to understand, rooted in the principles of democracy, and free of the dead weight of commissions and socialist fantasies. It is time for Guyana to move forward, not with one foot in the past, but with both feet firmly planted in the future. Anything less would be a disservice to the people of this country and to the promise of genuine constitutional reform. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

ExxonMobil says remains committed to transparency Sep 20, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, The Kaieteur News article titled “Takes credit for investments but recovering cost from Guyana’s oil” in its Friday 13, 2024 edition continues the publication’s unfortunate habit of twisting facts. Our investment in training Guyanese workers is a vital part of developing local capacity in the oil-and-gas sector. These efforts directly benefit the local workforce, equipping thousands of Guyanese with the skills essential for their long-term benefit and for the country’s long-term economic growth, and they will enhance profits for Guyana and livelihoods for Guyanese. That’s a win-win. The Local Content Secretariat recently announced that 6,500 Guyanese workers are currently employed in the oil-and-gas industry – and we’re committed to training even more Guyanese so that number continues to grow. Investing in the Guyanese workers needed to produce Guyana’s oil and gas is as important as investing in the facilities. Cost recovery of all investments is a standard practice in global energy projects. With their new skills and experience, more Guyanese gain the high-value, technical and leadership skills they need to succeed in this industry, and that’s going to translate into greater career opportunities and higher incomes for them. It’s also important to note that as part of the Greater Guyana Initiative (GGI), ExxonMobil Guyana and its Stabroek block co-venturers have invested tens of billions of GY dollars in non-cost-recoverable education and training programs. The University of Guyana, the Centre for Local Business Development and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) programs across Guyana are all beneficiaries of our non-cost-recoverable GGI investments. ExxonMobil Guyana remains committed to transparency and to investing in the development of our Guyanese workforce. Sincerely, Alistair Routledge President, ExxonMobil Guyana Related Similar Articles

NO COMMUNITY PROJECT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT VISITS Sep 20, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, The government’s Department of Public Information informs us that students from Baracara are to be accommodated at the newly-renovated Amerindian Hostel in New Amsterdam as “a commitment made by President, Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali during a visit last year.” Indeed, a large number of government statements on community works (big or small) carry the words: “This intervention came about as a result of President Dr. Irfaan Ali’s visit to the community.” Whether we are talking about roads in Kitty or Plantation Farm, or whether it involves excavators for Leguan and Wakenaam, residents evidently had to await a visit and a promise from the President.  At several levels, much is wrong and unacceptable with this approach. It is extremely ad hoc, politicised, and puts lie to VP Jagdeo’s frequent brag that the PPP has a development plan. How could there be a development plan of any worth if demands for certain projects are ignored or missed and are only included when Mr. Ali visits? Should he not visit or should he not listen or should he not be convinced, then the particular needs of residents would not be fulfilled. Yet, the PPP calls that “planning.” The regional and local government system is supposed to be the forum where all such community needs are identified, discussed, and processed all the way to implementation. But, of course, for the PPP, that lacks the PR fanfare and breaks the chain of dependency between itself and citizens. As such, its preferred style of administration is for the President or a Minister to waltz into the community and be informed of one of the needs of the community. Residents, one imagines, are then supposed to be eternally grateful for this single act of government kindness and responsiveness. It is all crude and ridiculous, but also harmful. If residents of Baracara had to wait on a visit by President Ali before a plan could be hatched for their children to be accommodated in a hostel in New Amsterdam, then that cannot be good way to advance the wellbeing of people, where ever they are. I would advise my fellow Guyanese to reject such an approach to development, and the government that applies it as a norm. Yours Respectfully, Sherwood Lowe Related Similar Articles

Autocracy through the prism of the Guyanese reality Sep 20, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Political commentators at home and abroad have sought to characterize Guyana as; ‘a state that pursues racist policies;’ ‘a fascist state’, ‘an apartheid state;’ and now as having ‘shades of autocracy.’ It was Dr. Ramcharan who wrote on August 27, 2024 that ‘shades of autocracy are evident in Guyana.’ But just as all previous characterizations were effected shot down, it looks like Ramcharran’s will suffer a similar fate. Ramcharan premised his conclusion on claims that the PPP/C government has; 1) carried out official inquisitions into the tax status of NGOs; 2) made calls for new laws to ‘regulate’ NGOs; 3) initiated public campaigns of vilification against particular NGOs and their leaders; 4) uttered ‘from the highest level admonitions of judges carrying out their duties in good faith.’ Attorney General and Minister of Justice Anil Nandlall, has effectively dismissed these contentions. However, questions have been raised about how helpful was Ramcharran’s interpretation to the Guyanese Nation State. More importantly, is the question as regards which constituency was his claim directed, or even helpful? We know how helpful it will be for opposition forces, but what we do not know is how helpful his view was for external forces and to what end? These are searching questions that Ramcharran’s interpretation raises. In the circumstances, one thing is clear, based on comments by government spokespersons, Ramcharran’s characterization of the political situation in Guyana was certainly was not helpful to the PPP/C administration, on the contrary, what his contention did was to make political hay of claims made by the political opposition, certain NGOs and individuals as well as sections of the media. Rather than grasping at Anne Applebaum’s cudgels to determine the symptoms of autocratic governance which she claims exists in China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua” – the usual suspects in the playbook of the West, to whom they have an ideological fixation and an established narrative – Ramcharran for the sake of balance, could have shared, for the benefit of readers, real life authoritarianism or concrete steps in that direction in other countries. The alternative to early democracy was autocracy, a system where one person ruled on their own via bureaucratic subordinates whom they had recruited and remunerated. The word ‘autocracy’ is a bit of a misnomer in that no autocrat ever truly ruled on their own, though it does signify a different way of organising and exercising political power. The consummate autocrat is one that reigns irrespective to what society thinks, though experience has shown that society can frustrate in many ways any effort, creeping or otherwise to establish autocratic rule. As a seasoned academic, Ramcharran could have referenced better examples where ‘shades of autocracy’ are so evident. Take for example Hungary, which lacks a long tradition of democratic rule and where illiberal actions and rule are common place. Or take a country like the US, where it has been surprising to see the illiberal actions taken most often as a result of executive orders. In his book, ‘The Decline And Fall Of The American Republic’ Bruce Ackerman, a prominent American legal scholar, wrote that; ‘illiberal actions as a result of executive orders was something that occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations and that they carried the risk that the White House could become a ‘platform for charismatic extremism and bureaucratic lawlessness’. During the current election campaign, fresh details were added to a Republican economic agenda that would concentrate more power in the hands of the president such as threatening to jail political opponents and to expel millions of undocumented immigrants in a “bloody story.” What is emerging is an to approach what some scholars call ‘authoritarian capitalism.’ CNN’s Indian American journalist, Fareed Zakaria in his book; ‘The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.’ claimed that India was the largest illiberal democracy in the world.’ And In a 2015 Zakaria in a reportage said that ‘Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had become a textbook case of illiberal democracy.’ Since 2016, the Philippines under presidents Rodrigo Duterte and Bongbong Marcos has been described as being in an illiberal democracy and as a worldwide capital and stronghold of illiberalism culturally and politically. The economic record of authoritarians is mixed. On the good side, an authoritarian or autocratic leader who governs honestly can whip a poorly functioning economy into shape. The classic example is Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of modern Singapore. Autocracy has many faces; the ideological, the economic, the political and cultural and the educational. For example, authoritarianism views education as a way to instill in students the knowledge and skills deemed valuable by the autocrat. In this regard, no exam sat by Guyanese pupils or students are aimed at forcing students to comply with an autocracy and to provide the answers or the way of thinking that an autocracy wants. Apparently, Mr. Ramcharran has seen the trees but not the forests. He fails to appreciate the Guyanese reality in its totality and instead focuses his attention on the four criteria mentioned earlier. As an academic, he should have juxtaposed the factors he consider to be ‘shades of an autocracy’ with the actions and public policies of government relative to the factors he raised in order to demonstrate the complexity of the phenomenon and to exhibit balance in his analysis. The idea is to leave readers to draw their own conclusion rather than unilaterally drawing a conclusion for them. Ramcharran’s skimmed approach to convince that there are ‘shades of autocracy’ in Guyana is not even remotely conceivable in a multi-party, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracy where there is no stifling of the media and where the rule of law, the principle of accountability, and the powers of the legislature and political parties are firmly entrenched in the constitution of Guyana. Long before and after independence and republican status, the Guyanese society evolved creating an electoral democracy with contending social and political forces, who, while facing challenges at the political and industrial levels, nevertheless managed to establish a myriad of constraints to fight off the prolongation of PNC authoritarianism in Guyana. Moreover, in a globalized world of competing political and ideological forces, greater accessibility to information; a free press; the increasing redefining of non-interference in the internal affairs of states; enhanced military-civilian engagements; civilian oversight of the disciplinary services as well as institutional strengthening vertically and horizontally of the public services rendered to the three arms of the state, have cumulatively, helped dispel the claim of any shady or otherwise disguised drift towards authoritarianism in Guyana. On the contrary, what these measures have done is to help advance the conditions for the strengthening of democracy in Guyana. In Guyana, there is no institutional harassment of political opponents nor targeting of opposition parties and individuals by the coercive apparatus of the state. No prominent critic of the PPP/C government was ever dispensed with summarily. Nor has the government had to rely on extra-legal means to silence its critics. The government of Guyana has not monopolized the best of the nations’ human capital. Of recent, because of the dynamism of the national economy, many workers have migrated from the public sector to the private sector. Nor has government deprived the populace access to multi-cultural nor educational avenues for the advancement of their skills and talents, religious practice nor commercial activities within the meaning of an autocracy. The ruling PPP/C is not known to be on the extreme right ideologically, experience has shown that it is parties of that type that are the principal ones known to move to the extreme and to establish an autocracy. In Guyana, the rule of law, the principle of accountability; the powers of the legislature and the judiciary; the right of association and freedom of expression are firmly entrenched in the nation’s constitution. Government’s praxis in these areas should not be underestimated nor cast aside as propaganda. Practice is said to be the criterion of truth. Yours faithfully, Clement J. Rohee Related Similar Articles