GFC should take major offenders to court to get to the bottom of the issues

GFC should take major offenders to
court to get to the bottom of the issues
Kaieteur News, 25 October 2007

Dear Editor,

The Guyana Forestry Commission should take major offenders to court.

I was pleased to see that all three major newspapers had carried, on
October 23, reports of the administrative penalties imposed on the
largest Asian-owned logging company by the Guyana Forestry Commission
(GFC). Given the magnitude of estimated earnings from illegal export of
unprocessed logs (US$3-5 million monthly) during the last several
years, the fines totalling G$106.4 million are a token penalty.

Recall that Samling Global Limited, the parent company of Barama,
secured US$269 million from its initial public offering (IPO) on the
Hong Kong Stock Exchange in March 2007, partly on the basis of its
claimed legality and sustainability of production in Guyana .

Given also that Barama illegally rents other forest concessions and has
logged Amerindian village lands in violation of the requirement to
‘negotiate in good faith with the Village' (Article 55(1) (d) of the
Amerindian Act 2006), surely it is in the national interest for the GFC
to take the offenders to court in order for the whole story to be
exposed through cross-examination by trained prosecutors.

Instead, the GFC has quite improperly used an administrative procedure
(called “compounding of forest offences”) which was designed to cover
small-scale and low-value offences and to prevent such trivial offences
from cluttering up the courts. The author of the standard text “The law
of forestry” (1955), barrister W. A. Gordon, who was also the
Conservator who drafted the Forests Act 1953 and associated Forest
Regulations for Guyana, states clearly: “The power of compounding is a
useful one which can greatly lessen the incidental work involved in the
task of forest protection. It is perhaps unnecessary to emphasise,
however, that there are dangers of its being turned into an instrument
of corruption and oppression” (page 358).

Compounding can be used only when there is an admission of guilt by the
offender and an agreement to pay an administrative penalty. Compounding
is final, preventing further action being taken for the same offence.
The Prime Minister's statement that Barama can appeal the fine, as
reported in Kaieteur News (24 October 2007) is simply incorrect.

So Barama has got off very lightly, on a token charge and with a token
penalty, for persistent and widespread law-breaking. After further
investigation of Barama's illegal activities, the Minister for
Forestry, Robert Persaud, and President Bharrat Jagdeo should insist on
the cases(s) being turned over to public prosecutors for legal action
and many other appropriate penalties.

Mahadeo Kowlessar