In the aftermath of the disclosure of the President’s large farm at Long Creek populated with a variety of livestock and appurtenances an expectation has developed that Mr Ali will be forthcoming with all of the information that is reasonably expected to satisfy the public that his enterprise is above board.
Indeed, in St Lucia for the CARICOM Heads of Government summit, he responded on the day of the exposure of the farm with a brief statement in which he strangely and breezily said that he would organize a visit to it.
Ebullient as he spoke to the Starting Point programme, Ali said “Hi, I am at the CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting. You see all the excitement in Guyana? You have a President who practices what he preach(es). When I come back home we will go to the farm live and you will see how to do agriculture and you will see all that we do there. Don’t worry, together we will explore great techniques”. He then gave a thumbs up.
A carefully controlled visit to the farm will not answer the questions that have been raised and remain unanswered about the endeavour. It is not about the efficiency or effectiveness of the farm. It is about how it came to be. On his return from St Lucia, Mr Ali issued a 13-minute video in which he tried to quell the controversy that has brewed over the farm. While he did not succeed, he at least provided hints which cut through a little of fog but which expanded the number of questions requiring answers.
Aside from the vituperation levelled at the Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed for his unveiling of the farm to the public and at the media for reporting on it, President Ali made declarations that will add to the body of evidence about this farm.
One of the most important disclosures was that the farm was nowhere near the size that had been claimed by Mr Mohamed. As a matter of fact, it was less than half of that, Mr Ali said. So we are now potentially dealing with a farm that is less than 75 acres. If that is so it still begs the essential question of when were those acres acquired? All at once or in several stages? Were any acres acquired after he became President? These questions remain unanswered.
The President then sought to disabuse the public of the notion that the state or public funds had anything to do with the financing of the farm. He was emphatic in declaring that a “huge” loan had been taken out to finance the operations and that he could account for “every single investment in the farm”. When was this loan taken out, from which institution and what were its terms? Those answers would help the public to decide whether there was risk that either side could have benefited unduly.
Finally, the President disclosed the lands that make up the farm are held by lease and that all the conditions that apply to other leaseholders in the area also apply to him. What exactly are the terms of the lease and when was the document drawn up? With each passing disclosure the questions rise and the public requires answers.
In his video, the President also rebuked Mr Mohamed for the claimed discovery of the farm. The President asserted that Mr Mohamed knew of the farm and that people in business and others in the area had knowledge of it. That may well be so however it cannot be contested that the general public knew nothing of this large farm. There is not a smidgeon of evidence that Mr Ali publicised the fact that he owned a substantial farm over the last six year which makes his promised tour of it just a convenience to alleviate the serious questions that remain as to how he was able to afford and run this farm.
Mr Ali also tried to assuage concerns by stating that he had made the relevant submissions to the Integrity Commission. That is of no consequence at all as for all intents and purposes the Commission seems to serve no useful purpose and the real test would be the release of all returns spanning the existence of the venture. Will Mr Ali voluntarily release these? He must know that his transactions particularly while he is President must be open to scrutiny for any sign of impropriety.
There is one self-evident truth about the President’s farm that might have escaped Mr Ali. It is that every single transaction that he might have undertaken in relation to the farm while he was President now becomes a hotbed for the leveraging of influence on either side to the detriment of good governance.
For argument sake, let’s say that Mr Ali wanted to purchase chicks for his poultry farm. Did the vendor give him a hefty discount with the hope of consideration of some benefit in another area?
For argument sake, let’s say the government instituted incentives for banks so they could more easily make loans to poultry farmers. Was that initiative tainted by the fact that the President is potentially a beneficiary and might have intentionally constructed the policy in that manner?
For argument sake, let’s say the President desired to have black belly sheep on his farm. Was the arrangement with Barbados for the supply of those animals intended to benefit his farm while also aiding others?
For argument sake, consider that the state is investing heavily in poultry feed in Berbice. Couldn’t this venture have been constructed to aid the President’s livestock operations?
For argument sake let’s say the President was desirous of having electricity supplied to his farm. Can one even imagine the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) possibly deciding that the area was desolate and not worth the effort to provide service as other people in this country have been told? Where is the application to GPL for service to the area and when and how was that handled?
By virtue of his farm, President Ali has created a veritable quagmire for his presidency, the surface of which has not even been scratched. There are innumerable intersections and conflicts between his role as President and his desire to simultaneously have a private farm. How all of that is disentangled now has to be deliberated on by the executive, Parliament and civil society. The vulgarities of the Burnham constitution which the PPP/C has enthusiastically adopted puts the President at the apex of everything when he himself should be as accountable as the most junior public servant.
What has transpired with the President’s business holdings provides sufficient grounds for a Commission of Inquiry but how can one such be organized when the President is the one who convenes such things? The Burnham constitution left the country bereft of a largely ceremonial Head of State who could still however perform crucial tasks like deciding whether and how an inquiry into the President’s business affairs could be conducted.
How President Ali addresses the need for disclosures about his farm will have a great bearing on what calls are eventually issued for accountability on his part. The country watches.
Discussion