Considering the controversy generated by plans for casinos it is not surprising that President Jagdeo's statement that he intends to move ahead with the requisite legislation has generated concern.

Under ordinary circumstances there is nothing wrong with the government presenting contentious legislation to Parliament and making tough decisions. With its handsome majority the government can override any objections to legislation no matter how persuasive and take the ultimate step as is expected of every elected government. The difference in this instance is that it was the President himself at a forum for Christian leaders at State House in March of this year who pledged to have a full consultation with the religious community on the matter, stating that no decision had been taken but that the government was leaning in the direction of gambling at casinos for non-Guyanese. This statement was later reinforced by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Luncheon.

It was commendable that the President was seeking to reach beyond the traditional stakeholders in influencing the legislation passed in the National Assembly. After all, Article 13 of the revised constitution envisages this even though it has avoided defining a framework: "The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being".

The religious community and its cry to be heard fall well within the construct of Article 13. To proceed with the tabling of legislation in Parliament without having the full consultation that the President promised would be a breach of the public trust. Indeed, up to this point despite having made his statement over two weeks ago and despite having signalled since March that this was his intention, there is no sign that the government is preparing for any type of consultation on casino legislation. The perfect course would be to have a consultation, not the sprawling type that goes on endlessly, but a tightly managed one-day forum. The views harvested from this forum could be used to inform the legislation and didn't even have to be incorporated considering that this is to be merely a consultation. But to go ahead with legislation without the consultation would be to trifle with the views of the religious community.

As things stand, the public is left to wonder whether there had been serious intent to have a consultation with the religions as it appears that casino legislation was being handled with great secrecy and is intended to facilitate a few investors who appear to have the influence to drive the process.

It was only in December 2004 when a businessman was reported to have floated the idea of casino gambling in the Rupununi that the public got wind of what was afoot. Up to that point the government had not shown its hand even though some in the Rupununi had been told that draft legislation was already in existence. The influence of the investor is even more apparent in the case of Buddy's Hotel which would be the only hotel qualifying in time for the world cup to host such a casino. It had been alleged that the hotel was being built on the basis of a number of promises, including that it would be able to offer casino gambling. And this is where the opaqueness of the Buddy's project becomes a serious issue, especially in the light of concerns about the absence of transparency and how the absence of transparency can efface the propriety of the government's actions.

It is yet to be properly explained to the public how the government identified the Buddy's investor to construct the hotel on state land at Providence for the purposes of Cricket World Cup 2007. No details of what was promised to this investor or the terms of a contract were made available. The public is also completely in the dark about the financing arrangements for this hotel. The issue arose quite recently when on one of their key visits here CWC officials stressed that the completion and availability of the Buddy's hotel was an absolute imperative for this leg of the tournament to proceed. Anyone reading between the lines would immediately apprehend that something had arisen in the arrangements for the hotel that could impact on its readiness for CWC 2007. The proprietor of Buddy's Mr Prakash Shivraj has since assured that all is well and the project will be completed on time. But the question of what was promised to the investor particularly in relation to a casino licence and what would happen if it wasn't granted remains unanswered.

This murky atmosphere won't be alleviated at all by rushing through with casino legislation without having the full consultation which had been promised by the President.