…Guyana’s Opposition Leader
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo has expressed his disapproval of Government’s recent move to take over the operations of the Berbice River Bridge and said it could also create a negative image for Guyana to potential investors both locally and abroad.
“This issue about nationalisation and taking over private property, we don’t agree with it because we are seeking similar models to construct other bridges, hydro power and everything else,” Jagdeo told reporters on Wednesday at his weekly press conference.
The Opposition Leader questioned whether there is enough justification for the move taken by Government to nationalise the bridge. “Could there be some other remedy? The Minister (David Patterson) already had the remedy in the Act. He did not have to sign the toll order,” he said.
Jagdeo reiterated that any increase in tolls at the Berbice Bridge without the Minister signing the toll order under the Act would have been illegal. As such, he feels Government should not have made such a rash move to take over the operations of the bridge.
Jagdeo, who is also General Secretary of the Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP), feels that the decision taken by Government could be seen as a clever political move. He said, “it was contrived to get the entire media to play it out until November 12 so there is no focus on the other issues… the bridge issue is now dominating daily news headlines.”
The Opposition Leader reminded members of the media that the issue started with Berbice Bridge Company Inc (BBCI) Chairman, Dr Surendra Persaud, who also happens to be Chair of the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) and a member of the Alliance For Change (AFC).
But he recognised that the focus has now been shifted, and blame is now being placed on the PPP, even in light of the fact that the BBCI is in breach of the agreement to increase tolls by over 300 per cent and a request made to extend the life of the agreement for 19 years.
Justified
Jagdeo said the request from the company cannot by any means be justified, because it has been made clear that revenue is performing better than what was predicated in the concession agreement.
“So, clearly the company has to justify in very clear detail why it has not met its obligations to the shareholders and the investors, because they are two groups,” he noted.
Further, he made reference to statements made by Finance Minister Winston Jordan who claimed that the project was flawed, and sections of the media that reported that the bridge was used as a cash cow.
Jagdeo explained that the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) had invested in Bond One of the project G$300 million. The scheme received (not principle payments) G$270 million, a 90 per cent return on their investment. If they invested in treasury bills it would have been far less.
NIS also invested in Bond Two, G$760 million and received G$823 million in return.
