Dear Editor,
I write in reference to Mr. Vinceroy Jordan’s recent statement touching and concerning issues at the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GUYSUCO). As pointed out in the Ministry of Agriculture’s previous statement responding to Jordan another of the many unfounded allegations by the MP, the ministry correctly demonstrated his consistent, established pattern of falsehood. The Opposition seems bored and can hardly find substance to credibly challenge the Government, and in that thirst out of emptiness, Jordan is espousing a great degree of excoriation towards GuySuCo, albeit borne completely out of political mischief. In so doing, he is engaged in a rapid perpetuation of prolix verbosity, in an enormously obfuscatory manner.
That being said, I now turn my attention to the following.
First, Jordan must make up his mind. Does he want GuySuCo to hold its officers accountable or not? The position is straightforward: it came to management’s attention that the staff in question were not following the standard operating procedures, and an investigation was launched. As stated before, no chemicals were missing. Management is nevertheless enforcing the rules with which staff are required to comply. The absence of an inventory loss does not excuse non-compliance with the procedures designed to safeguard that inventory.
There is no contradiction here. Establishing that no chemicals were missing and addressing a failure to follow the SOPs are entirely consistent exercises in accountability. A show-cause notice concerning procedural non-compliance is not proof of theft. Jordan is attempting to turn the enforcement of safeguards into evidence that those safeguards concealed a loss. That inference does not follow.
That is the extent of the clarification required. Beyond confirming that no chemicals were missing and that management is enforcing compliance with the SOPs, GuySuCo should not be drawn into adjudicating an internal disciplinary matter in the public domain. The individual matters must proceed under the applicable rules, procedures, collective agreements and labour laws, with the relevant union’s role respected. Jordan’s political grandstanding does not entitle him to turn that process into a public tribunal.
Accountability means protecting public resources while respecting a fair process for employees. Neither political intervention nor the absence of a stock loss removes the obligation to comply with the SOPs. Equally, enforcing those procedures must not become a pretext for victimising anyone who raises a genuine concern. The merits of individual disciplinary cases belong within the established process, not in an exchange of political statements.
His statement also blurs two different arrangements. The Ministry described daily issues for estate cultivation; the Tuesday-and-Thursday restriction concerned issues to cane farmers. That distinction matters when questioning movements on a particular day. The proper test is the correspondence between stock balances, authorised issues, usage, returns and security records—not the suggestion that all chemical movements were restricted to two days each week.
Jordan should also revisit the Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under APNU+AFC in 2015. Its recommendations were explicit: management should be insulated from undue political interference; unions and management should respect their agreements; and disputes and disciplinary matters should be settled through established procedures, with unresolved major matters referred to the Ministry of Labour. Why does he now seek to disregard the institutional approach recommended by the inquiry commissioned under his own party’s Government?
And if he wishes to debate the treatment of sugar workers under APNU+AFC, let him address the closure of Wales, East Demerara, Rose Hall and Skeldon in 2016 and 2017. The Ministry of Finance’s account of the ILO study launch records those closures and the resulting hardship for workers and dependent communities. A party with that record should approach workers’ livelihoods with greater humility, not imagine that a new press statement erases the past.
As for the call to dismiss the Minister of Agriculture, such a demand is nothing short of frivolous and vexatious. Mr. Jordon is fully aware that GuySuCo operates under a comprehensive governance and management framework, supported by an experienced management team and overseen by a Board of Directors.
We will answer evidence with evidence, not surrender institutional decision-making to political theatre. The Opposition is free to challenge GuySuco; it is not free to substitute volume for verification, insinuation for proof, or prolix verbosity for a credible alternative. Jordan should make up his mind: does he want officers held accountable through proper procedures, or does he merely want another headline? Guyana deserves accountability. What it does not need is political mischief masquerading as concern, or an internal process into an Opposition tribunal.
Yours faithfully,
Fazal Bacchus
Head
Finance and Marketing
