Last week I posed fifteen questions to AFC leader Nigel Hughes. Not unexpectedly, Mr. Hughes offered up a reply that must have shocked the conscience of the nation. Instead of clarity and truth, Mr. Hughes chose to offer glittering generalities and dodgy maneuvers, but no substance. He lost an opportunity hatched in good intent, to bring some measure of ethical and moral relief to his party that is knee-deep in the smut of election rigging, betrayal of election promises, and unconscionable conflicts of interest.
Hughes should know that the Guyanese electorate is well aware of the excesses of the AFC and its soulmate, the APNU. They must be deeply troubled that this slick new leader has begun his tenure with abject failure in the first test of political uprightness.
Allow me to review the AFC leader’s answers. This should not take long.
1- Election Delays Post-No-Confidence Vote.
In his reply to why it took 437 days to call an election after the December 2018 No Confidence Vote, Hughes writes “The delays following the No-Confidence Motion were the subject of significant legal and procedural interpretation.” The truth is that the APNU-AFC came up with a lot of legal malarkey specifically intended to dodge and delay the constitutional requirement to call an election within three months. The tricks pulled off between December 2018 and 2020 are remarkably similar to what President Hoyte did between 1989 and 1992.
Let me remind Nigel Hughes of a salient fact. In December 1989, the Carter Center got President Hoyte to agree to free and fair elections. It took 1,009 days to get the polls. All kinds of constitutional crises and legal pretentions were employed to divert, delay, and defeat the historical inevitability of free and fair election. You may recall that infamous speech of Mr. Hoyte on April 4, 1992, when he minted another “constitutional crisis.” Mind you it took 151 days for the APNU-AFC to concede the 2020 elections. You see the pattern?
2 – 33 vs. 32 Majority Argument
Mr. Hughes claims that the 33 v 32 was first raised by President Donald Ramotar. I spoke to the former president on the matter, and he told me that Hughes’ claim is nonsense. Nothing more needs to be said because I contacted the source on which Hughes’ story is based, and that source confirmed that the AFC manufactured a self-serving narrative.
3-4 – Allegations of Election Rigging.
I asked Nigel Hughes about the 2020 rigging in which the AFC was fully deployed. In this instance, Nigel Hughes used the old, but ill-conceived construct of ‘both sides’ being guilty. According to the AFC leader, he will “await the Court’s rulings on these matters and will respond accordingly.” If we take this matter seriously, we must believe that the APNU-AFC who were in charge of the election, allowed an opposition party with no state power, to engage in wrongdoing. That Sir, is absurd, and you know it.
5-7 – Layoffs of Sugar and Bauxite Workers
On the issue of firing over 7,047 sugar workers, Hughes at least offers a glimmer of truth. Here he is in his own words: “I acknowledge that there may have been better ways to deal with the issue.” You bet there were better ways than Ramjattan’s “right-sizing.” In any event, the little truth we get here is lost in what is not mentioned. The whole truth necessitates acknowledgement of real fact like the selling off of GuySuCo property to party comrades at rock-bottom prices, and the fact that Wales Estate practically disappeared, with millions of dollars in property that went missing.
8-9 – ExxonMobil Contract and Signing Bonus
I asked Hughes about the signing bonus with (now) EMGL. In this case, rather than answer the question about hiding the US$18 million so-called bonus from the public, Hughes presumptuously assumes the air of an elected leader. Mr. Hughes – it is imperative that you as the AFC leader own and apologize for the fact that it was an AFC man who signed the “suboptimal” contract. And, in the name of transparency and accountability, you must provide an account about the US$18 million diversion. No excuses will now.
10 – Tax Records and Transparency.
I asked for Mr. Hughes to release his records that will contribute to transparency and accountability. Instead of meeting the request, he offered vague assurances with no path to verification. I regret I cannot accept assurances from a party leader whose party, the AFC, only four years ago, attempted to steal an election in broad daylight.
11 – 200 Taxes Allegation.
I asked that Mr. Hughes take responsibility for the fact that the AFC connived with the APNU to burden Guyanese individuals, households, and businesses with 200 new taxes (GY$264.8B) during the APNU-AFC reign. His party along with its master, the APNU, also ran up GY$86.4B in debts. Instead of owning up to things, Hughes simply implies that things were bad. Same old excuses from the days of PNC misrule. Sir, I ask again, why did the AFC go along with the 200 new taxes on the Guyanese people?
12 – “Because We Care” Cash Grant
I asked Hughes about the AFC-APNU callous withdrawal of the Because We Care cash grants from 184,000 students (annually). His answer is that it was inflationary! I do not know which is worse – the withdrawal, or the laughable justification of it. Mind you, I am told that during the APNU-AFC administration, $1,000,000,000 was chewed up in food and refreshments. True?
13 – Uniformed Forces Bonus.
I asked Nigel Hughes the reason they took away the one-month bonus from the Uniformed Forces. His answer is disrespectful of the sacrifices made every day and night by those who put their lives on the line to protect the nation. The AFC leader’s answer is wholly unsatisfactory. All he offered was that things were tight. The first time I asked Mr. Hughes to apologize to the Uniformed Forces. Now, I demand that he either do so, or resign.
14 & 15 – Conflict of Interest with ExxonMobil Representation.
I asked Hughes how he could possibly reconcile the massive conflict of interest he has with EMGL. In my last letter I clearly stated that many of Guyana’s interests are NON-NEGOTIABLE. What will you say to EMGL, Sir, if you must also represent their interest? This conflict of interest is amplified by the fact that it was an AFC ‘hand’, (Raphael Trotman), that signed a lopsided deal in the first place. Instead of a clear answer, we get language about a firewall. Sir, that just won’t do. The fact is the AFC has a shady history, and only clear-cut answers that are verifiable will suffice.
I end this reply to Nigel Hughes with the caution that unless honest and verifiable answers are provided, or until apologies are offered to the Guyanese people, I will keep up the fight.