Restoration of AG’s functions after 1992 has not stopped systemic corruption in Govt.

Jun 24, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In reference to your lead news item, “Cabinet breached the law,” (Kaieteur News, June 23), I want to commend the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee for at least appearing to be finally doing its job of holding sit-down hearings on areas of concern raised in the Auditor-General’s 2006 Report.
I can only hope this marks the beginning of a new era of public accountability by this committee on how the Government is spending the people’s money, and that we don’t have to wait another three years before a review of the 2007 Report is done. Still, I do find the explanations and responses given by Government officials called to answer questions lacking the believability factor.
Following parliamentary passage of the Procurement Law (2004) the Health Ministry was required to stop going through Cabinet for permission to purchase pharmaceuticals and, instead, go through the National Procurement and Tender Administration (NPTA), but according to the Auditor-General’s (AG) Report, the Ministry did not follow the law and so it wound up making purchases totalling US$2.6M from the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation.
That is breaking the law, plain and simple, so that no amount of tendering letters from the NPTA stating the Cabinet did not object to the contract to purchase the pharmaceuticals can stand up in a court of law, because Cabinet is not above the law. Not even Parliament, which makes laws, is above the law, for the law stands on its own merits and strength. I can only hope readers are paying attention to a trend of selective disregard for the law by this Government, so that when it starts talking bout firing corrupt customs officers or seeking our armed criminals, it has no credibility as the supposedly biggest supporter of law enforcement. My first question here is this: Was the New GPC owned by the Queens Atlantic II group when the US$2.6M in pharmaceutical purchases were made in 2006?
If so, then it points to political favouritism, since this investment group was publicly welcomed with open arms by the President and even got some sweetheart deals that not only raised eyebrows, but raised questions that resulted in Government rushing to pass a law in Parliament that was made retroactive to cover a mistake in the QAII investments. Besides, whatever happened to public tendering so that other suppliers could have had a shot at doing business with Government on a leveled playing field? The procurement process continues to bother the AG, but not the Government. Why?
Then there is the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC), which was also affected by the Procurement Law (2004), but ended up having its pharmaceutical purchasing policy questioned by the Auditor-General. After 2004, GPHC was supposed to make purchases through the hospital’s tender board, while invitations for bids would be made public, so the question here is this: Since the GPHC has been separated from the Health Ministry, does the Procurement Law (2004) make provision for the Health Ministry to still be making purchases for the GPHC or is there an unwritten arrangement that exists outside of the law? There is something fishy about this relationship when there should not even be a relationship since they were separated.
Unless there is something amiss with your reportage, I also don’t get it when the news item said in one sentence: “The Auditor General report stated that the Health Ministry spent $608.4 million on drugs and medical supplies and could not “totally account for (these) drugs and medical supplies,” and in another sentence, “The Auditor General’s report had also stated that, during 2006, amounts totalling $608.4 million were expended on drugs and medical supplies, for which the corporation (GPHC) could not give total accountability.” Are we to understand that the two identical figures mentioned relate to the Health Ministry purchasing pharmaceuticals for the GPHC?
The discrepancy in reportage aside, what I am bothered by is the fact that no one could account for the items purchased; not even by way of records.
Was the money spent on thin air? I am not comfortable with the lax record keeping system under this Government, and when Minister Ramsammy reportedly said ‘this has now been corrected’, a follow-up question should have been: “Are you talking about the procurement procedure or the record keeping procedure?” Because once public money is spent to purchase items there must be a well maintained record-keeping system that is accessible by authorised personnel and also the Auditor General so that the public won’t have to read or hear that no one could give total accountability.
And someone should tell the Health Minister Guyanese are not a bunch of idiots. His lame excuse for a lack of total accountability was attributed to the fact when the supplies were purchased, the corporation did not have the storage space for them, and so the GPHC asked the supplier to release the supplies over time.  “…if I have ordered 100 crates and I have space for only five, I would take the five and collect the rest later.
So we took possession of the 100, but we only have five with us, and then as we move on, we take the rest. We have always accounted for our supplies.”  Oh, really? He even added that some of the drugs would be stored at a small GPHC bond and the remainder at the Health Ministry bond, but here is where he loses all credibility: when the Auditor General checked, he could not find all the drugs at the GPHC.
Here is my question: Even if the supplies were used up or destroyed because they expired, where are the records of receipt and re-distribution or destruction, Mr. Minister? Is this how you run an organisation involving public funds?
If you do your job then you won’t have to blame the Auditor General for ignoring your alleged response to his requests for clarification, because records speak for themselves.
Matter of fact, has it occurred to anyone high up in Government that the Auditor-General has also noted that unspent funds disbursed to Government agencies for specific purposes have not even been returned?
Where is all this money going? Why is there an appearance of a deliberately lax system to facilitate corruption? When will we have genuine reforms in the way Government does business with public funds?
PPP apologists love to gloat that since their party returned to power, it has brought back the functions of the Auditor-General to report on public accounts; unfortunately, that has not stopped systemic corruption under the PPP regime.
If anything, the players have become bolder to the point of openly ‘dissing’ the AG and having no fear of or respect for the criminal justice system.
There is almost a sense that the lawlessness we are witnessing on the streets, in Government and now in the Cabinet, is integral to the effective operation of Government.
Emile Mervin

---

---