Last Tuesday’s extraordinary outburst by Commissioner of Customs and Trade Administration (CTA), Lambert Marks has alarmed many people for various reasons. Ultimately the tax-paying, civic-minded citizen will want to know what caused the outburst and what it means for the efficient and transparent running of the CTA.
The drama started with reports in Kaieteur News and on Prime News suggesting that Marks had irregularly cleared various containers and that Marks’ superior, Commissioner-General of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Edgar Heyligar had agreed that Marks had acted improperly. These reports persisted and by his own account, Marks said he drew the reports to Heyligar’s attention but there was no retraction of them.
By last Tuesday, Marks went into overdrive and summoned a press conference where he accused Heyligar of not acting to clear him of the charges of wrongdoing and of pressuring him to clear containers for certain businessmen. He also charged that there was a campaign afoot to topple him from his position at the CTA.
But that was not the end of it. Marks delivered the coup de grace by ominously warning that the press would soon be hearing from him on various chilling crimes over the last decade. These included the deaths of Lloyd Bacchus, Herman Sanichar and a customs officer at Grove, drug trafficking and money laundering and overseas properties and bank accounts.
The following day, the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon wrote Marks saying that he had been instructed by President Bharrat Jagdeo to ask Marks to submit within 48 hours, information on the various crimes he had indicated he would be speaking to the media on.
So the public waited with bated breath only to be greeted with an anti-climactic response by Marks which lamely said he had no further information at his disposal on any of these issues. It was an amazing climb-down. There was no doubt in anybody’s mind that Marks had said that he would be speaking out on these issues and the clear impression was that he had all of the information at his disposal. If he didn’t, what was his sudden interest in the Bacchus and Sanichar cases? Did they now have some relevance to the customs work he was doing? If he did not have the information at his disposal, where would he get it from and why? If he was aware of these violations of the law why had he not pursued them in his incarnation as head of the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit? Why hadn’t he handed over the information to the police? Marks miscalculated badly when he launched into his tirade. Time will tell how serious his indiscretions were.
It all seemed like poorly acted drama. Perhaps, Marks’ threatened expose was triggered by the reports on him by the various media houses. Whatever prompted the outburst, the government, the GRA and the CTA have a lot of damage control work to do.
First, the unseemly row between Marks and Heyligar raises very serious questions. Can they continue to work together and have the required level of confidence in each other?
Second, this issue will have to be taken to the board of the GRA to determine what disciplinary action should be taken against Marks for his outburst, which Heyligar described as unethical. This matter should not be treated lightly.
Third, what is the outcome of the investigation mounted by Heyligar of various aspects of the CTA’s functioning and the clearing of containers following complaints by businessmen? Heyligar is on record as saying that if anything illegal was found he would have no hesitation in recommending Marks’ dismissal.
Fourth, given the allegations levelled by Marks against Heyligar should there not be an impartial person examining the claims made by both parties?
Fifth, and perhaps most crucial of all, has the CTA been performing properly, collecting adequate revenue and has it made a dent on the corruption that its predecessor was legendary for?
The answers to these questions are pivotal to the CTA getting over the tempest churned up by Mr Marks’ imprudent outburst. His indiscretion has however helped to position the GRA on the centre stage. Since the ambitious amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Department and the Inland Revenue Department under the GRA has it realised the operational efficiencies that were expected of it? Has it notched up increased revenue through streamlined operations? Has it been able to reduce evasion and non-compliance with the tax laws of the country? Has it deepened and widened the tax net to boost the contributions of the self-employed? These questions remain unanswered as the GRA has not readily granted interviews and its annual reports are still to be tabled in Parliament though it has been in operation for two years and six months. This is as good an opportunity as any for the government, Messrs Heyligar, Sattaur and Marks to present a report card on the performance of the GRA and its constituent divisions.