President Jagdeo slams Hinckson's blatant lie and total fabrication
AFC (PNCR junior) joins PNCR in destabilization campaign
"....Not a rumour, but a report from a reliable source that the PNC/R is harbouring thoughts of closing down the country, a belief that the late Desmond Hoyte once promoted. This time around, it was announced at a recent public meeting held at the venue under the popular cork tree in the area of the original Laing Avenue Flats. Clousseau can only listen and will be making mental notes in the event that future use of some help in determining the veracity of whatever emerges from the current criminal activities...."
"....On the matter of negotiation with criminals, Jagdeo said, "any person who could watch an innocent child sleeping and kill [him or her], won't listen to reason."
Meanwhile, two days after the Bartica massacre, Jagdeo had visited the area after cutting short a visit to New York. He said the two killings were committed by the same group and the only way to "end this" would be to pursue the killers and find them "since you can't reason with people who commit these types of crimes". ..."
OP slams Hinckson’s mediation offer claim as ‘total fabrication’, ‘blatant lie’
THE Office of the President yesterday vehemently denied as a ‘total fabrication’ and a ‘blatant lie’ , the claim circulated yesterday by sedition accused Oliver Hinckson that a mediation offer he made last February 1 was discussed with a representative of President Jagdeo.
In a statement, distributed at Court by Defence Counsel Nigel Hughes, Hinckson alleged that, after the press conference hosted by Mayor Hamilton Green on February 1, the Head of State sent a high ranking Member of Parliament (MP) to meet with him.
Hinckson said the purpose was to engage him specifically on his proposal and the trusted emissary, who is a member of the Central Executive of the ruling political party, met with him at a prominent social club for two and a half hours.
The statement also claimed the two had extensive discussions on issues which arose out of the mediation offer and, at the conclusion of their meeting, the President’s representative assured Hinckson that he would contact him, shortly, on what had been discussed.
The statement said the subsequent preferment of charges against Hinckson is an act of gross political vindictiveness.
But the Office of the President, in a prompt response, said the statement circulated by Hinckson is a ‘total fabrication’.
“President Jagdeo wishes to advise that the claim in the (Hinckson) statement is a total fabrication and a blatant lie,” the OP said.
“At no point in time has the President dispatched any emissary and/or made arrangement for any engagement whatsoever with the sedition accused, Mr. Oliver Hinckson,” the Office of the President declared
“It is the President’s contention that the statement is clearly intended to mislead the public and create confusion about the President’s rejection of talks with criminals,” OP contended.
Opposition boycott of National Stakeholders Motion ill-timed- Minister Rohee -
Gov’t has no power to change outcomes of consensus THE refusal of the Parliamentary Opposition parties yesterday in the National Assembly to engage in discussion on government’s Motion on the National Stakeholders Meeting has been described as ‘most unfortunate’.
The boycott by the Opposition was done on the basis that the Motion was intended mainly for political grandstanding by the government and refusal to make certain amendments to the Motion.
On the other hand, the administration maintained that the amendments which the Opposition was seeking were out of the administration’s control since it was not agreed to by the stakeholders involved.
Advisor on Governance at the Office of the President and People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament Ms. Gail Teixeira, outside of the House, explained that it would be an act of bad faith if the government had gone in that direction.
“We were told yesterday that they had a combined Opposition amendment. We looked at it and we advised them that they were adding in things that we had not reached a national consensus on at the national stakeholders and therefore, we should take a principled decision that if the stakeholders agreed to these six things we should replicate those faithfully.”
She further explained that, “We (government) have no authority to add on to the Clauses, issues that we had not reached consensus on, nor were they the primary thrust of the discussions of national stakeholders.”
The Opposition was seeking for amendments to be made to include Article 13 of the Constitution which deals with inclusiveness and they also wanted to include the need for equitable access by Parliamentary parties to the state media.
“…the AFC and Mr. Corbin raised the issue of access to the state media. However, in the five meetings this was not the number one issue nor when we drafted the agreement. Therefore, the government took a principled position that we could not do a disservice to the stakeholders and we had no authority to speak on behalf of all 40 of them to change what were the issues or add to what were the issues agreed to by the 40 organisations,” Teixeira argued.
The ‘be it resolved clause’ of the government motion which was put forward by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, was sought for the National Assembly to take note of the engagements of the National Stakeholders meeting and accept the output as reflecting national consensus on the agreed upon actions.
The ‘further resolved’ clause sought for the House to accept the national consensus arrived at during those meetings with the President and what the stakeholders undertook to provide its (Parliament) fullest support and to assign its highest priority in implementing those commitments that called for action by Parliamentary bodies.
The Opposition parties were in receipt of the Motion since March 17.
Meanwhile, Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, during his presentation, made the point that the Opposition parties were trying to achieve what they could not have during the National Stakeholders meeting, through the Parliament. This, he said, is “sad” since matters on security should not be used for political gains.
“I do not want to speculate the reason for it (boycott) but it is most unfortunate that the opposition benches would seek to use three factors, one of which is that what they did not achieve in the negotiations they try to bring it here to achieve it…These are flimsy grounds,” Minister Rohee said.
The Home Affairs Minister further stated that the document does not belong to the Parliamentarians so it would be unfair for them to make whatever decisions they choose.
“The document does not belong to us only in this Parliament. Those decisions that were taken belong to others who do not sit in this Honourable House and therefore, if that process belongs to a much larger grouping of people, one will obviously have to consult with those people.”
The administration, through President Bharrat Jagdeo, began discussions with Parliamentary Political Parties and civil society following two shocking massacres at Lusignan on the East Coast Demerara and Bartica in Region Seven, which are believed to have been perpetrated by criminal gangs.
The outcome of the meetings which involved a number of recommendations by the stakeholders included the establishment of a new Parliamentary Standing Sectoral Committee on national security, with Ministerial representation and the appointments of the six (6) Constitutional Commissions within 90 days.
Attorney-at-Law Nandlall clears air on meeting with Hinckson- has no authority to make presentation on behalf of President
ATTORNEY-at-Law Anil Nandlall yesterday clarified what he called misleading information being peddled by ex-soldier, Oliver Hinckson, in relation to a meeting between the two gentlemen.
“I want to say categorically that I have never met with Mr. Hinckson for and behalf of the President or for and behalf of the PPP or the Government of Guyana. I have no authority to do so and I never met with him as an agent of any of those entities and or persons whom I name above.”
A statement purportedly signed by Hinckson was circulated yesterday to the media indicating that President Bharrat Jagdeo made arrangements for a top level People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) political functionary to meet and discuss matters related to Hinckson’s proposal for mediation.
Nandalall pointed out that even if he was approached by Hinckson to represent him, he will not.
“I met with him in my capacity as a private Attorney-at-Law in practice and we had certain discussions with which the ethics of my profession prevent me from disclosing…I have not been consulted and I have not been retained on those matters and I will not be appearing for him even if he attempts to retain me,” he said.