Guyana Focus
In all democracies around the world, a successful no confidence motion against the ruling government would typically result in its resignation and the consequent hosting of new general elections.
But that’s not the case in Guyana, where the APNU+AFC government remains in power following a no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018. Although the government accepted defeat shortly after the vote, a number of questions about the validity of the no-confidence motion and the
legitimacy of the parliamentarian who voted against the government have since arisen, putting the no-confidence motion in question. Evidently, the coalition government is seeking to hold on to power and is using all means at its disposal – spurious or otherwise, to do so – creating wide divisions among Guyanese both at home and abroad, putting the country at crossroads.
For starters, the ruling party asked the Speaker of the National Assembly in early January to review the no-confidence decision but he refused.
Then arose the question which would send mathematicians scratching their heads for an answer. Does a 33 “yes” vote versus a “32” no vote in a 65-member National Assembly constitute a majority?
Ironically, in a country where a one-seat majority determined the balance of power for the last two governments, it now seems questionable that the governments were in fact legitimate because the courts are now currently deciding whether a one-vote majority is sufficient to pass the apparently successful no-confidence motion.
Three cases are now in court on the no-confidence motion: (1) Compton Reid vs the Attorney General, Persaud and the Speaker of the National Assembly – challenging the no-confidence vote; (2) Christopher Ram vs the Attorney General and Speaker of the National Assembly in favour of the vote; and (3) the Attorney General vs the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Opposition Leader – against the vote.
Chief Justice Roxanne George said last week that it is her intention to hand down a decision before the end of the month in the various cases. She also noted that she would not entertain a request by lawyers for a stay of the successful motion of no confidence which triggered a 90-day timeframe for the holding of general elections.
Whatever the courts decide on what constitutes a majority would not bring a quick end to the dilemma because both the ruling and opposition parties are likely to appeal the decision.
Moreover, the other issues surrounding the no-confidence motion could have even more far-reaching repercussions.
At the core is the fact that Charrandass Persaud, the AFC member whose vote led to the supposed success of the no confidence motion is also a Canadian citizen. Was he eligible to be a parliamentarian? Did he disclose that he is a dual citizen? Was he eligible to hold office? The answers to these questions could also have an impact on the validity of the vote.
But the result of this decision could prove to be a double-edged sword for several parliamentarians on both the government and opposition benches are believed to be dual citizens. So far, at least one government minister, Carl Greenidge, is reported in the press as saying that he holds dual citizenship. What if there are others? What would be the impact on the current composition of both parties?
Therefore, this issue could very well die a silent death or will otherwise open up a can of worms.
At another level, it is alleged that Persaud was bribed to vote against the government. Though he has denied that allegation, the police have reportedly opened up a criminal investigation into the matter. It is claimed that Persaud made inquiries into purchasing gold shortly before the vote, inferring that he was attempting to convert the cash bribe into gold. Persaud has claimed that he was making inquiries on behalf of his clients.
To bring some degree of stability to the country, the government and the opposition held a high level meeting on January 9 on the way forward.
In a joint statement issued after the meeting, it was noted that the parties met in an atmosphere of cordiality and iterated their emphatic commitment to work on all and any matters relating to the preservation and protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana; irrespective of any domestic political issues.
Among the items on the agenda were the constitutional and Legal situation; functioning of the National Assembly; functioning of the government; public services; public order; the dissolution of Parliament; general and regional elections: role of the National Assembly; operational readiness of GECOM; national registration of voters; and public information.
The parties recognized the high importance of continuous engagements between the Government and Opposition, the importance they hold for the national interest and the elevated public expectation.
Implicit among the items discussed are the potential for elections, subject to the readiness of GECOM to hold such elections.
But the discussions did not definitively resolve the question of the validity of the no-confidence vote and the future of the current government. Evidently, the government expects to retain power but it was necessary to get the opposition’s co-operation to legitimize its current position and to show the world that the country is not at crossroads.
It would therefore appear that the current government would remain in power, at least until the decision of the courts is handed down. And that might not be any time soon.
In the meantime, three new fringe parties, A New and United Guyana (ANUG), The Federal United Party (FED-UP), and the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) were launched earlier this month in preparation for elections. The PPP also appointed a new leader, Irfan Ali, to lead the party into general elections.
Although there is yet no clarity on the potential for early elections, it would not be premature to suggest that the electoral machinery is already spinning, so much so, that it was alleged in the press that the army was preparing for elections – a claim that the army flatly denied.
The underlying cynicism of the allegation draws on the past role of the army in the electoral process which presupposes the scope for rigged elections. Therefore, the longer the current administration holds on to power – beyond the 90 days constitutionally required following the no confidence motion – the better prepared will be the electoral machinery.
This delay raises concerns in some circles that the election results could be manufactured and that foreign intervention could very well play a part, as has happened before.
Evidently, Guyana is at a crucial juncture in its history – one at which instability could derail its economic prospects which is tied to oil. Therefore, the need for collaboration and co-operation among the major parties is essential if the country is to move forward.
The current coalition government stands the most to lose if the no-confidence motion is deemed successful. Following its loss at the recent Local Government Elections held in November, it would be hard pressed to turn around the results of the General Elections, if called now. The opposition PPP, on the other hand, is anxious to regain power which it incidentally lost by the equivalent votes that amount to less than one seat. Therefore, the current theatrics about co-operation and collaboration could very well amount to a zero sum game.
For starters, the ruling party asked the Speaker of the National Assembly in early January to review the no-confidence decision but he refused.
Then arose the question which would send mathematicians scratching their heads for an answer. Does a 33 “yes” vote versus a “32” no vote in a 65-member National Assembly constitute a majority?
Ironically, in a country where a one-seat majority determined the balance of power for the last two governments, it now seems questionable that the governments were in fact legitimate because the courts are now currently deciding whether a one-vote majority is sufficient to pass the apparently successful no-confidence motion.
Three cases are now in court on the no-confidence motion: (1) Compton Reid vs the Attorney General, Persaud and the Speaker of the National Assembly – challenging the no-confidence vote; (2) Christopher Ram vs the Attorney General and Speaker of the National Assembly in favour of the vote; and (3) the Attorney General vs the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Opposition Leader – against the vote.
Chief Justice Roxanne George said last week that it is her intention to hand down a decision before the end of the month in the various cases. She also noted that she would not entertain a request by lawyers for a stay of the successful motion of no confidence which triggered a 90-day timeframe for the holding of general elections.
Whatever the courts decide on what constitutes a majority would not bring a quick end to the dilemma because both the ruling and opposition parties are likely to appeal the decision.
Moreover, the other issues surrounding the no-confidence motion could have even more far-reaching repercussions.
At the core is the fact that Charrandass Persaud, the AFC member whose vote led to the supposed success of the no confidence motion is also a Canadian citizen. Was he eligible to be a parliamentarian? Did he disclose that he is a dual citizen? Was he eligible to hold office? The answers to these questions could also have an impact on the validity of the vote.
But the result of this decision could prove to be a double-edged sword for several parliamentarians on both the government and opposition benches are believed to be dual citizens. So far, at least one government minister, Carl Greenidge, is reported in the press as saying that he holds dual citizenship. What if there are others? What would be the impact on the current composition of both parties?
Therefore, this issue could very well die a silent death or will otherwise open up a can of worms.
At another level, it is alleged that Persaud was bribed to vote against the government. Though he has denied that allegation, the police have reportedly opened up a criminal investigation into the matter. It is claimed that Persaud made inquiries into purchasing gold shortly before the vote, inferring that he was attempting to convert the cash bribe into gold. Persaud has claimed that he was making inquiries on behalf of his clients.
To bring some degree of stability to the country, the government and the opposition held a high level meeting on January 9 on the way forward.
In a joint statement issued after the meeting, it was noted that the parties met in an atmosphere of cordiality and iterated their emphatic commitment to work on all and any matters relating to the preservation and protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana; irrespective of any domestic political issues.
Among the items on the agenda were the constitutional and Legal situation; functioning of the National Assembly; functioning of the government; public services; public order; the dissolution of Parliament; general and regional elections: role of the National Assembly; operational readiness of GECOM; national registration of voters; and public information.
The parties recognized the high importance of continuous engagements between the Government and Opposition, the importance they hold for the national interest and the elevated public expectation.
Implicit among the items discussed are the potential for elections, subject to the readiness of GECOM to hold such elections.
But the discussions did not definitively resolve the question of the validity of the no-confidence vote and the future of the current government. Evidently, the government expects to retain power but it was necessary to get the opposition’s co-operation to legitimize its current position and to show the world that the country is not at crossroads.
It would therefore appear that the current government would remain in power, at least until the decision of the courts is handed down. And that might not be any time soon.
In the meantime, three new fringe parties, A New and United Guyana (ANUG), The Federal United Party (FED-UP), and the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) were launched earlier this month in preparation for elections. The PPP also appointed a new leader, Irfan Ali, to lead the party into general elections.
Although there is yet no clarity on the potential for early elections, it would not be premature to suggest that the electoral machinery is already spinning, so much so, that it was alleged in the press that the army was preparing for elections – a claim that the army flatly denied.
The underlying cynicism of the allegation draws on the past role of the army in the electoral process which presupposes the scope for rigged elections. Therefore, the longer the current administration holds on to power – beyond the 90 days constitutionally required following the no confidence motion – the better prepared will be the electoral machinery.
This delay raises concerns in some circles that the election results could be manufactured and that foreign intervention could very well play a part, as has happened before.
Evidently, Guyana is at a crucial juncture in its history – one at which instability could derail its economic prospects which is tied to oil. Therefore, the need for collaboration and co-operation among the major parties is essential if the country is to move forward.
The current coalition government stands the most to lose if the no-confidence motion is deemed successful. Following its loss at the recent Local Government Elections held in November, it would be hard pressed to turn around the results of the General Elections, if called now. The opposition PPP, on the other hand, is anxious to regain power which it incidentally lost by the equivalent votes that amount to less than one seat. Therefore, the current theatrics about co-operation and collaboration could very well amount to a zero sum game.
– Goolsarran
Georgetown – Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran has berated the Alliance For Change (AFC) for failing to hold its coalition partner APNU to account and for becoming a “rubber stamp”.
In his accountability column in last weekend’s Stabroek News, Goolsarran discussed traditional voting patterns and third party politics but lamented that AFC had been sidelined by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and had not asserted itself.
“There were signs that this pattern of voting was changing when the Alliance For Change (AFC) came on board, especially for the 2011 and 2015 elections.
However, since it entered into a coalition with the APNU, the AFC failed miserably to deliver on its promises to hold its senior coalition partner to account and to provide the much needed checks and balances against a party with a very checkered history of governance, transparency and accountability, especially during the period 1968 to 1985. As a result, the AFC has lost most of its political support, as evidenced by its extremely poor showing in last year’s local government elections.
“Notwithstanding the pretense otherwise, in reality there is currently no APNU+AFC coalition.
The AFC has allowed its senior partner to outsmart it on all fronts, despite having superior bargaining power within the Coalition. Its leaders, Ministers and parliamentarians have become so enamoured with their new-found positions of power and authority and the related benefits they derive from such positions, that they sacrificed the public interest and the public good to satisfy their personal ambitions and interests.
The AFC has become the rubber stamp for the actions of its senior partner and has been consumed by and subsumed into APNU”, Goolsarran declared.
Several AFC decisions while in government have been soundly criticised over the period since 2015. These include its support for the unilateral naming of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, its recent backing of PNCR Chairman Volda Lawrence over remarks she made at a party meeting and the decision to support the government claim that a majority for the purposes of a motion of no confidence in Parliament was 34.
In his accountability column in last weekend’s Stabroek News, Goolsarran discussed traditional voting patterns and third party politics but lamented that AFC had been sidelined by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and had not asserted itself.
“There were signs that this pattern of voting was changing when the Alliance For Change (AFC) came on board, especially for the 2011 and 2015 elections.
However, since it entered into a coalition with the APNU, the AFC failed miserably to deliver on its promises to hold its senior coalition partner to account and to provide the much needed checks and balances against a party with a very checkered history of governance, transparency and accountability, especially during the period 1968 to 1985. As a result, the AFC has lost most of its political support, as evidenced by its extremely poor showing in last year’s local government elections.
“Notwithstanding the pretense otherwise, in reality there is currently no APNU+AFC coalition.
The AFC has allowed its senior partner to outsmart it on all fronts, despite having superior bargaining power within the Coalition. Its leaders, Ministers and parliamentarians have become so enamoured with their new-found positions of power and authority and the related benefits they derive from such positions, that they sacrificed the public interest and the public good to satisfy their personal ambitions and interests.
The AFC has become the rubber stamp for the actions of its senior partner and has been consumed by and subsumed into APNU”, Goolsarran declared.
Several AFC decisions while in government have been soundly criticised over the period since 2015. These include its support for the unilateral naming of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, its recent backing of PNCR Chairman Volda Lawrence over remarks she made at a party meeting and the decision to support the government claim that a majority for the purposes of a motion of no confidence in Parliament was 34.
Georgetown – Four long serving legal practitioners have been bestowed with the title of Senior Counsel.
The lawyers, who were identified to wear silk earlier this year, were last Thursday presented with instruments of commission by President David Granger, at a special Luncheon held at the Baridi Benab, State House.
During the brief ceremony, long serving attorneys, Kalam Azad Juman Yassin, Fitz Le Roy Peters, Andrew Mark Fitzgerald Pollard and Josephine Whitehead were recognized for their quality of service to the legal profession, and knowledge of the law.
Granger in his remarks noted that the elevated status of Senior Counsel is not perfunctory or ornamental, but rather it is a symbol of nationhood that promotes a sense of national identity by defining who Guyanese are as a people and the values for which they stand.
“I shall, with regularity, respect, recognize and reward deserving attorneys and legal officers by conferring these honours. This is the custom of our people. This is the convention of good government. This is the culture of a good society,” the President said.
“I congratulate the attorneys-at-law who, today, have received instruments of commission appointing them as Senior Counsel – a status of pride and prestige within our legal profession and tradition. The title is: a national symbol, alongside other symbols – national honours and awards, anthem, coat of arms, flag and motto – that define our Guyanese identity; a professional symbol that distinguishes attorneys of erudition, experience, eminence and excellence; a social symbol representing the values of duty and integrity and the standards of social responsibility and respect for the law.”
Last January, after a 20-year hiatus, President Granger elevated nine attorneys to the status of Senior Counsel and has since pledged to ensure that these honours are conferred annually.
The last set of Senior Counsel appointees included Attorneys Neil Boston, Charles Fung-A-Fat, Justice Alison Roxane McLean George-Wiltshire, Clifton Mortimer Llewellyn John, Rafiq Turhan Khan, Vidyanand Persaud, Rosalie Althea Robertson, and Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams.
The lawyers, who were identified to wear silk earlier this year, were last Thursday presented with instruments of commission by President David Granger, at a special Luncheon held at the Baridi Benab, State House.
During the brief ceremony, long serving attorneys, Kalam Azad Juman Yassin, Fitz Le Roy Peters, Andrew Mark Fitzgerald Pollard and Josephine Whitehead were recognized for their quality of service to the legal profession, and knowledge of the law.
Granger in his remarks noted that the elevated status of Senior Counsel is not perfunctory or ornamental, but rather it is a symbol of nationhood that promotes a sense of national identity by defining who Guyanese are as a people and the values for which they stand.
“I shall, with regularity, respect, recognize and reward deserving attorneys and legal officers by conferring these honours. This is the custom of our people. This is the convention of good government. This is the culture of a good society,” the President said.
“I congratulate the attorneys-at-law who, today, have received instruments of commission appointing them as Senior Counsel – a status of pride and prestige within our legal profession and tradition. The title is: a national symbol, alongside other symbols – national honours and awards, anthem, coat of arms, flag and motto – that define our Guyanese identity; a professional symbol that distinguishes attorneys of erudition, experience, eminence and excellence; a social symbol representing the values of duty and integrity and the standards of social responsibility and respect for the law.”
Last January, after a 20-year hiatus, President Granger elevated nine attorneys to the status of Senior Counsel and has since pledged to ensure that these honours are conferred annually.
The last set of Senior Counsel appointees included Attorneys Neil Boston, Charles Fung-A-Fat, Justice Alison Roxane McLean George-Wiltshire, Clifton Mortimer Llewellyn John, Rafiq Turhan Khan, Vidyanand Persaud, Rosalie Althea Robertson, and Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams.
Georgetown – When it comes to the petroleum sector, it is not uncommon to see governments providing individual companies or groups of companies, with investment incentives or tax incentives, which serve as additions or amendments to the legislated fiscal regime.
According to the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), these alterations may attract some investment, provide government revenue, and are sometimes used to encourage companies to continue extraction through to the mature stage of the project life cycle.
NRGI noted however, that such incentives can be problematic, and therefore, careful analysis is always needed by emerging producers such as Guyana to ensure that its leaders are not putting the nation at risk of giving away too much.
Expounding further on this matter, NRGI said that the incentives can be problematic for four reasons.
The Institute said that first, tax competition between countries is a growing phenomenon in which governments try to attract capital away from their peer countries. However, as all countries “race to the bottom,” the result merely reduces global tax rates, without necessarily attracting more capital.
Second, NRGI said that there is a risk that a government gives too much away. It explained that economic conditions are constantly changing. It said that a project that is profitable one year may not be the next, and vice versa.
NRGI added, “Investment incentives do not usually take this into account and risk sacrificing revenue on a project that would have been profitable even without the incentive.”
Moving on to its third reason, NRGI said there is a risk that investment incentives are not given on a purely economic basis, but as a result of lobbying.
And the fourth point for consideration is that those investment incentives create multiple fiscal regimes, making tax administration more difficult.
According to NRGI, investment incentives are best avoided, but if a government does use them, it is better to make changes to the overall fiscal regime than provide incentives to individual companies.
NRGI said that taxation in accordance with legislation makes it more likely that changes are being made in the interests of the country, rather than as a result of company lobbying of individual officials. Furthermore, NRGI said it is better that investment incentives are limited to deductions from the tax base rather than consisting of complete exemptions from taxes, such as tax holidays.
It said that this ensures that the authorities still collect information on the taxpayer that is useful for the administration of other taxes.
It added, “For example, information on royalties is useful for the collection of corporate income tax, and vice versa. Investment incentives sometimes proliferate when different government agencies, such as the ministries of finance, commerce or investment, are able to give incentives. However, limiting discretion to one authority can be helpful.”
According to the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), these alterations may attract some investment, provide government revenue, and are sometimes used to encourage companies to continue extraction through to the mature stage of the project life cycle.
NRGI noted however, that such incentives can be problematic, and therefore, careful analysis is always needed by emerging producers such as Guyana to ensure that its leaders are not putting the nation at risk of giving away too much.
Expounding further on this matter, NRGI said that the incentives can be problematic for four reasons.
The Institute said that first, tax competition between countries is a growing phenomenon in which governments try to attract capital away from their peer countries. However, as all countries “race to the bottom,” the result merely reduces global tax rates, without necessarily attracting more capital.
Second, NRGI said that there is a risk that a government gives too much away. It explained that economic conditions are constantly changing. It said that a project that is profitable one year may not be the next, and vice versa.
NRGI added, “Investment incentives do not usually take this into account and risk sacrificing revenue on a project that would have been profitable even without the incentive.”
Moving on to its third reason, NRGI said there is a risk that investment incentives are not given on a purely economic basis, but as a result of lobbying.
And the fourth point for consideration is that those investment incentives create multiple fiscal regimes, making tax administration more difficult.
According to NRGI, investment incentives are best avoided, but if a government does use them, it is better to make changes to the overall fiscal regime than provide incentives to individual companies.
NRGI said that taxation in accordance with legislation makes it more likely that changes are being made in the interests of the country, rather than as a result of company lobbying of individual officials. Furthermore, NRGI said it is better that investment incentives are limited to deductions from the tax base rather than consisting of complete exemptions from taxes, such as tax holidays.
It said that this ensures that the authorities still collect information on the taxpayer that is useful for the administration of other taxes.
It added, “For example, information on royalties is useful for the collection of corporate income tax, and vice versa. Investment incentives sometimes proliferate when different government agencies, such as the ministries of finance, commerce or investment, are able to give incentives. However, limiting discretion to one authority can be helpful.”
Saipem, ExxonMobil Guyana’s prime contractor for subsea installation services has offloaded its second shipment of 2684 pipes for the Liza Phase One project.
A release from ExxonMobil said that the pipes arrived in Georgetown on January 14th and the shipment is the second of multiple shipments adding to the 1519 pieces of pipe received in December.
The release said that the delivery comprises oil production flow-lines and gas and water reinjection pipes. These pipes will be laid on the seafloor at the Liza Phase One Development, offshore Guyana.
The pipes will be stored in Georgetown before being transported offshore in the second quarter of this year to be installed by the Saipem FDS2 pipe laying vessel.
A release from ExxonMobil said that the pipes arrived in Georgetown on January 14th and the shipment is the second of multiple shipments adding to the 1519 pieces of pipe received in December.
The release said that the delivery comprises oil production flow-lines and gas and water reinjection pipes. These pipes will be laid on the seafloor at the Liza Phase One Development, offshore Guyana.
The pipes will be stored in Georgetown before being transported offshore in the second quarter of this year to be installed by the Saipem FDS2 pipe laying vessel.
Approximately one hundred youths turned up at the Cliff Anderson Sports Hall on Saturday morning to participate in ‘Part Two’ of an interactive session on the oil and gas sector.
The first session on January 12 at the Umana Yana was attended by hundreds of youths. Due to the large turnout, many were forced to stand after the available seats were filled. Some were not even able to enter the venue as it was filled to capacity. As a result, arrangements were made to have the session repeated.
The event was a collaboration between the Ministry of the Presidency’s Department of Energy and the Ministry of Social Cohesion’s Department of Youth.
The event was held in an effort to increase the levels of awareness among youth on the oil and gas sector, educate them on the multiplier effects of the sector, and provide an opportunity for young people to participate in the discussion and decision-making process, with regards to the sector’s opportunities and potential challenges.
The first session on January 12 at the Umana Yana was attended by hundreds of youths. Due to the large turnout, many were forced to stand after the available seats were filled. Some were not even able to enter the venue as it was filled to capacity. As a result, arrangements were made to have the session repeated.
The event was a collaboration between the Ministry of the Presidency’s Department of Energy and the Ministry of Social Cohesion’s Department of Youth.
The event was held in an effort to increase the levels of awareness among youth on the oil and gas sector, educate them on the multiplier effects of the sector, and provide an opportunity for young people to participate in the discussion and decision-making process, with regards to the sector’s opportunities and potential challenges.
committee members.
Georgetown – With a view to creating a new governance system in which the main parties share executive power, A New and United Guyana (ANUG) was launched last Friday at Moray House pledging to be held legally accountable for its commitments and declaring that corruption will be tackled by calling in the United Nations and Transparency International.
This new political entity has made its entry at a time when elections could be just around the bend, with the passage of a no-confidence motion against the government on December 21.
The main players at the formation of this new party are Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran, former minister Henry Jeffrey and attorney Timothy Jonas. The task ahead now is to garner support and build a constituency in an environment where the population has traditionally gravitated to the the two behemoths – the PPP and the PNC – along racial lines.
In a detailed statement at the launching on January 18, 2019, ANUG identified youth, reducing poverty, consensus on governing the oil industry and climate change as major areas of focus.
Even before its launch, ANUG lost one of its key figures when businessman Terrence Campbell pulled out after he was targeted on social media. Businessman Beni Sankar has since been announced as a member of the steering committee.
In its statement, ANUG pledged never to enter a coalition with any other political party or any of its members for the purpose of securing a role in government and said shared executive power will be its utmost priority.
This new political entity has made its entry at a time when elections could be just around the bend, with the passage of a no-confidence motion against the government on December 21.
The main players at the formation of this new party are Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran, former minister Henry Jeffrey and attorney Timothy Jonas. The task ahead now is to garner support and build a constituency in an environment where the population has traditionally gravitated to the the two behemoths – the PPP and the PNC – along racial lines.
In a detailed statement at the launching on January 18, 2019, ANUG identified youth, reducing poverty, consensus on governing the oil industry and climate change as major areas of focus.
Even before its launch, ANUG lost one of its key figures when businessman Terrence Campbell pulled out after he was targeted on social media. Businessman Beni Sankar has since been announced as a member of the steering committee.
In its statement, ANUG pledged never to enter a coalition with any other political party or any of its members for the purpose of securing a role in government and said shared executive power will be its utmost priority.
Georgetown – The newly-formed Liberal and Justice Party (LJP) is looking to make a showing at the next General Elections by touting an inclusive approach to governance.
The party was launched on Saturday January 12 at the Georgetown Club before a sizable gathering – most of which comprised indigenous people.
The formal proceedings opened with universal prayers followed by religious prayers from the Hindu and Christian faiths. An overview of the political history of Guyana was read, providing context to the rationale for the emergence of the party.
A youth representative of the party, Latchman Dindyal then delivered brief remarks, highlighting the diverse nature of the party, which was once believed to be an indigenous one.
But Presidential Candidate, Lexon Shuman, seized the opportunity during the featured address to dispel that notion.
“I’ve heard that the party is an Amerindian party… we are not. People seem to identify parties by their leadership. But that is not where we stand. The Liberal and Justice Party is a non-racial, anti-racial, non-sexist and non-homophobic party…” he told the attendees.
Shuman previously served as a Toshao for St. Cutbert’s Mission, and Vice Chair of the Guyana National Toshao’s Council (NTC).
According to him, equality and eradication of racial politics is the priority of the party, and the provision of better services to the people of Guyana.
“We all deserve better as Guyanese. A better education system… better public service. Public servants should be among the most respected in society. But that is not what is happening” he opined.
Shuman’s 45-minute presentation touched on a number of social and political issues unfolding in Guyana, including the loss of jobs for sugar workers.
However, he made a concerted effort to examine the plight of minority groups, including youth, women, and the differently-abled.
The LJP leader said that his party aims to create a space to accommodate these persons, and once elected, reengineer Guyana to ensure it is a friendly space for those minority groups.
He pointed to the fact that many, if not all of the Ministries’ Offices countrywide, do not have wheelchair ramps.
“This is how we have to start thinking. To create a Guyana where no one feels isolated” he shared.
An international pilot by profession, Shuman said that his presence in the political arena is not by choice, but because of necessity.
“My presence here is not because I want to be here. I would rather be sitting in a spaceship circling the earth. Sometimes the things we want is not the things we need. What Guyana needs is far different from what Guyana wants” he said.
The LJP leader added that the leadership of the party believes that it is time for Guyana to have a paradigm shift.
He said that both the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the People’s National Congress (PNC) which held executive office for decades, “failed to transform Guyana into the modern powerhouse it was meant to be”.
As a result, he shared that the party remains committed to ensuring that its participation in politics will ensure all Guyanese have a better life in the future.
The party was launched on Saturday January 12 at the Georgetown Club before a sizable gathering – most of which comprised indigenous people.
The formal proceedings opened with universal prayers followed by religious prayers from the Hindu and Christian faiths. An overview of the political history of Guyana was read, providing context to the rationale for the emergence of the party.
A youth representative of the party, Latchman Dindyal then delivered brief remarks, highlighting the diverse nature of the party, which was once believed to be an indigenous one.
But Presidential Candidate, Lexon Shuman, seized the opportunity during the featured address to dispel that notion.
“I’ve heard that the party is an Amerindian party… we are not. People seem to identify parties by their leadership. But that is not where we stand. The Liberal and Justice Party is a non-racial, anti-racial, non-sexist and non-homophobic party…” he told the attendees.
Shuman previously served as a Toshao for St. Cutbert’s Mission, and Vice Chair of the Guyana National Toshao’s Council (NTC).
According to him, equality and eradication of racial politics is the priority of the party, and the provision of better services to the people of Guyana.
“We all deserve better as Guyanese. A better education system… better public service. Public servants should be among the most respected in society. But that is not what is happening” he opined.
Shuman’s 45-minute presentation touched on a number of social and political issues unfolding in Guyana, including the loss of jobs for sugar workers.
However, he made a concerted effort to examine the plight of minority groups, including youth, women, and the differently-abled.
The LJP leader said that his party aims to create a space to accommodate these persons, and once elected, reengineer Guyana to ensure it is a friendly space for those minority groups.
He pointed to the fact that many, if not all of the Ministries’ Offices countrywide, do not have wheelchair ramps.
“This is how we have to start thinking. To create a Guyana where no one feels isolated” he shared.
An international pilot by profession, Shuman said that his presence in the political arena is not by choice, but because of necessity.
“My presence here is not because I want to be here. I would rather be sitting in a spaceship circling the earth. Sometimes the things we want is not the things we need. What Guyana needs is far different from what Guyana wants” he said.
The LJP leader added that the leadership of the party believes that it is time for Guyana to have a paradigm shift.
He said that both the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the People’s National Congress (PNC) which held executive office for decades, “failed to transform Guyana into the modern powerhouse it was meant to be”.
As a result, he shared that the party remains committed to ensuring that its participation in politics will ensure all Guyanese have a better life in the future.
To advertise in ICW call
Call 905-738-5005