Internet Radio

Imran Khan resigns from NCN Board over appointment of new CEO

 

Imran Khan

Imran Khan

One of the Directors on the National Communications Network (NCN) Board of Directors, Imran Khan has resigned from the board given a decision to move ahead with the appointment of Lennox Cornette as the CEO of the state owned-company.

Khan has raised strenuous objections to Cornette’s appointment in the past given that he allegedly forged the signature of a Guyana Telephone and  Telegraph Company official while working for that company.

In a statement on Tuesday, Khan who also serves as the Director of Public Information said “Today, I submitted my resignation as Director of the National Communications Network to the Prime Minister and First Vice President, The Honourable Moses V. Nagamootoo.”

In the letter Khan expressed regret that the circumstances do not permit for him to serve the full duration of the term for which he was appointed.

“Specifically, I advised the Honourable Prime Minister that in light of the Chairman of the Board having reported to the Board, confirmation of admittance to an act committed by the individual recommended for a senior administrative position, that I could not associate my name with such an appointment. I therefore am of the conviction that continuing as a Director is untenable,” he stated.

The DPI stated that the decision of the Board to proceed with the appointment in light of the available information is “reckless and imprudent.”

Reports indicate that Khan may have also been having some issues over the appointment of Bish Panday as Chairman of the NCN Board.

Khan reportedly wrote to the Prime Minister complaining of the manner in which Panday chairs board meetings.

“The Chairman lacks the demonstrable capacity to effectively chair the NCN Board. Not only is he weak but he has proven that with regard to the most critical of decisions he is prone to act in haste and make decisions which puts NCN, a company at the centre of the state’s national security at risk,” Khan reportedly stated.

  • ExPPP_Man

    Prime Minister and First VP Joe Harmon appointed the honorable Lennox Cornette. How dare this peon challenge the VP and PM ? He lucky they don’t fire him completely.

    • Emile_Mervin

      If Moses preferred Woolford but Harmon preferred Cornette, then Harmon has more clout than Moses now that Cornette copped the position.

      Is it possible that the only portfolio Moses has is of little national consequence, but even here he has no real authority?

      Was the Cummingsburg Accord used as a scam to allow certain folks to get their hands on power for personal reasons?

      • rudeo

        Interesting thoughts…..the charade continues

      • ExPPP_Man

        AFC knows they are irrelevant, is like they dead , but just ashamed to close their eyes. Moses was never even given any portfolio, a mere rubber stamp. Same goes for Rumjattan, only a rubber stamp, the real Minister of Public Security is Joe Harmon. You think the Army, Coast Guard, Fire Service and Police, all will take orders from an East Indian ? Hell no.

      • Col123

        EM… You know the answers… come on…put more meat in your comments…

  • george wiltshire

    Why is t APNU sacrificing their goodwill for Harmon.?

  • Col123

    The chips are falling…Mr Naggarmotto is whining to nagara drums..and the celebration didn’t start yet!

  • Emile_Mervin

    Vincent, in deference to your inside knowledge of the political apparatus that controls the reins of power, I would agree the board’s decision should be considered in this case, but after observing this coalition – which I have backed in the removal of the odious PPP – I am convinced that decisions are made at the highest level and rubber stamped at the lower levels.

    Moreover, why else would Imran Khan say, as was reported by at least one local Internet news outlet, Moses Nagamootoo preferred Enrique Woolford if that was and is not how choices or selections have been made for certain government positions? There was even reason for observers to publicly question why mostly Blacks or mostly males were being picked for state boards and other positions, forcing the coalition to change the way it was playing the game. We noticed, Vincent, and we will continue to speak up.

    My friend, there is a prevailing perception, augmented by Harmon’s pre-disposition to play the role of the political alpha male in government, that the coalition is being run in favor of the wishes of the APNU faction, and until and unless there is a semblance of genuine inclusiveness, folks like me will continue to ask questions, as I did in my post above to which you ventured a response.

  • Emile_Mervin

    That broad brush was given to the public by successive regimes and people have been painting as the elements gave them images reflective of actions exhibited by political elements who controlled the reins of political power. Unfortunately, nor many could say, like you, that they were or are not the subject of any such dictat, but you have to honest and admit they exist.

  • Emile_Mervin

    After the Jagdeo-Ramotar eras I was hoping this coalition would gave ushered in the highest standards of governance. The challenge is still there for elements of the coalition to deliver, but just as we, the observing public, are willing to learn, so must these elements in the coalition. It is just disheartening that so early in the coalition’s existence it is beset with a litany of calamitous steps, because we don’t know if this will come to define the coalition into 2020. I hope there is corrective action going forward.

  • Emile_Mervin

    ‘There is no THEM in this, it is US’?
    ‘The problem is US all, not THEM alone’?
    Given the context of this discussion launched by my post atop and followed up with pointed posts, I fail to see your application of the US not THEM application, unless you are saying Guyanese are to blame for electing the leaders who turn around and crap on the very people who voted for them.
    Democracy allows for politicians to run for elected office, but since democracy is a process and not an act, then the people who elect politicians have a right to continually compliment or criticize those elected leaders based on performance or lack of it. The only time the burden is on US and not THEM is when we fail to exercise our democratic rights.

  • Emile_Mervin

    Your clarification that politicians are drawn from the larger society, of which we all are part, does not automatically incriminate wider society if or when politicians fail functionally, morally or legally.

    We do not blame wider society when a driver recklessly operates a vehicle causing injury of death or damages. We do not incriminate wider society when an individual violates the law, a rule or regulation.

    To me, each individual within society has an obligation to uphold or adhere to guiding principles – laws, rules, regulations, conscience – which will then be used in the application of punitive and corrective measures should an individual fail.

    It behooves everyone seeking public office, therefore, whether as an elected or appointed official, to recognize that even if s/he comes from a society with compromised values, the onus is still on that office seeker to be an exemplar to others. If there is a failing in this regard, and members of wider society point out such failing, then the office seeker, who becomes office holder, should heed the need for corrective action or face punitive measures.

    What is extremely sad, however, is when office holders are called out, they deny, double down and dig in to defend their behavior, and their supporters become attack dogs going after anyone urging change. This tells me that a person may come out from among US but is no longer one of US, which then distinguishes US from THEM. Intransigence is what creates THEM.

    • vincent alexander

      While holding those in office responsible/accountable a movement for good governance and a new political culture is equally necessary and important, otherwise we will be spinning top on mud.If we dont have national values we will be indulging in squabbles rather than nation building .engagements.A blinkered approach is short sighted and visionless. By now it should be obvious that elections may ameliorate but certainly not address our fundamental problem which is the need for national values and institutions