Should the $3B Loan Agreement between the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) and the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) materialize, it would represent the crudest form of financial lawlessness, said Member of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), Desmond Trotman and City Councillor and CH&PA Board member, Ranwell Jordan.
Trotman also believes that the Commission has no authority to lend the monies which are supposed to be transferred to the Consolidated Funds, on any basis. Compounding the problem as well is that Jordan said that he was not even aware that the CH&PA was seeking to borrow such funds.
With those considerations in mind, among others, the duo filed a legal challenge in the Constitutional Court before acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang on Friday last to quash the agreement believed to be inherently unlawful.
The CJ in acting on the matter instructed that come March 13, next, GGMC and CH&PA must prove to the court why a Writ of Certiorari should not be granted to prevent GGMC from going ahead with its decision to lend the monies to the Housing authority.
Chang also instructed that the Housing authority should justify why a Writ of Prohibition should not be dispensed to ensure that the mining commission is inhibited from making any further move on the loan on the premise that it is in breach of the law.
The Housing Authority was also directed to convince the Court that a Writ of Certiorari ought not to be issued to reverse its choice to present an investment proposal to the Mines Commission and enter into the loan agreement.
Representing the plaintiffs is Chartered Accountant and Attorney-at-Law, Christopher Ram.
Ram told Kaieteur News, yesterday, that his clients believe that they have a strong case and that he is particularly impressed with the timeliness with which the matter was handled by the Constitutional Court Judge.
He said that it appears to his clients that the matter is one which constitutes financial lawlessness of the gravest form, but said that it is important to bear in mind that in the final analysis, it is up to the court to pronounce on the case.
GGMC had said that the submission of an investment proposal by the CH&PA stated that the monies will be loaned for a period of one year and to be used for the development of the housing sector.
The Board of Directors of the Commission, it said, met and deliberated on the proposal submitted. It was noted that the interest rate being offered by CH&PA was five percent which was 3.2 percent more than what was currently being earned via the commercial banks and other investment options open to the Commission.
The parties involved articulated that the loan is for a period of one year with interest calculated using the reducing balance. In the event CH&PA fails to repay the entire amount by the deadline, the Commission has the right to increase the interest rate by seven percent.
GGMC said that at the level of the Board of Directors, it was agreed that the investment proposal was financially prudent and sound. And as such it was agreed to grant the loan subject to the terms and conditions enshrined in the Loan Agreement and any additional guarantees required by the Commission.
It claimed, also, that the CHPA project is pivotal to the realization of the Government of Guyana strategic target of allocating 30,000 lots under the Adequate and Affordable Housing Programme in order to maintain momentum in the provision of service land in several areas on the East and West Demerara.
The Board of Directors of the Commission, it said, met and deliberated on the proposal submitted. It was noted that the interest rate being offered by CH&PA was five percent which was 3.2 percent more than what was currently being earned via the commercial banks and other investment options open to the Commission.
The parties involved articulated that the loan is for a period of one year with interest calculated using the reducing balance. In the event CH&PA fails to repay the entire amount by the deadline, the Commission has the right to increase the interest rate by seven percent.
GGMC said that at the level of the Board of Directors, it was agreed that the investment proposal was financially prudent and sound. And as such it was agreed to grant the loan subject to the terms and conditions enshrined in the Loan Agreement and any additional guarantees required by the Commission.
It claimed, also, that the CHPA project is pivotal to the realization of the Government of Guyana strategic target of allocating 30,000 lots under the Adequate and Affordable Housing Programme in order to maintain momentum in the provision of service land in several areas on the East and West Demerara.
The announcement of the approval of $3B loan by the Mines Commission to the Housing Authority last month attracted much controversy and scathing criticisms especially among the political parties.
Opposition Leader, David Granger, had said that he felt this approval was not only out of order but outside of the law.
He had told members of the media that his understanding is that the rules governing the expenditure of GGMC’s funds are clearly defined and that they are only supposed to be used for activities that can advance the work of the Commission.
Granger had emphasized that it is outrageous that state funds which do not go into the Consolidated Funds could be used improperly for such a speculative matter in the housing sector.
Chairman of the GGMC Board, Clinton Williams, in spite of the concerns raised, insisted that the Commission’s action was within its laws. But his attempts to justify the decision taken by the Commission only proved to rouse more criticisms and incite protests by political forces.
He had told members of the media that his understanding is that the rules governing the expenditure of GGMC’s funds are clearly defined and that they are only supposed to be used for activities that can advance the work of the Commission.
Granger had emphasized that it is outrageous that state funds which do not go into the Consolidated Funds could be used improperly for such a speculative matter in the housing sector.
Chairman of the GGMC Board, Clinton Williams, in spite of the concerns raised, insisted that the Commission’s action was within its laws. But his attempts to justify the decision taken by the Commission only proved to rouse more criticisms and incite protests by political forces.
Post a Comment