There is a need for an Inspector General’s office

Mar 02, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Alliance For Change reportedly stayed away from the final day of Budget Debate over what they perceived as a failure of the Minister of Housing and Water to provide satisfactory answers in relation to their questions over a four-billion-dollar supplementary provision that was passed by the House last year.
The Alliance For Change wants to determine specifically whether the entire sum or any part of it was spent prior to its approval in the National Assembly, since if this is the case, they believe that they have grounds to file legal action against the concerned Minister.
They have already found themselves in an embarrassing position on this very question when the Chairman of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan, was forced to apologise to the National Assembly after statements in this newspaper quoted him as claiming that the official record of the parliamentary proceedings in relation to the debate of the four billion dollar supplementary provision, was not accurate.
It turned out that the record was accurate and this forced a retraction by the Alliance For Change member.
A new dispute has now emerged in relation to whether monies were spent prior to approval. And since the AFC is not receiving the answers it wants, it decided to stay away from the final day of debate on the Budget.
But this still does not settle the question as to whether any part of the four billion dollars was either disbursed or spent prior to approval by the National Assembly. So how does the AFC obtain this information?
It is unreasonable and unfair for the AFC to expect someone with the necessary information to leak this to them. In democratic countries and especially countries in which there is a commitment to transparency, the opposition should have access to such information and access to having the information verified.
There is of course the option of the matter being pursued through the Public Accounts Committee. But the AFC does not have the control of this body to force a special sitting to discuss this matter. In addition, there is no mechanism for the AFC to physically verify whatever information emerges from any hearing on this matter within the relevant committee.
The Auditor General does have the authority under the law to go into the relevant accounts and investigate whether any sums were disbursed prior to approval. But the Auditor General cannot be expected to simply act on every political dispute that finds its way into the public realm.
The Auditor General could only act based on credible evidence that is supplied and which satisfies a prima facie case being made out to justify such an investigation.
This is where there is an urgent need for an independent financial inspectorate division within the National Assembly that can carry out such an investigation. Had there been such a body in place and had it been directly accountable to the National Assembly, then such a body would have immediately been able to verify whether any part of the four billion dollar supplementary allocation was spent prior to approval of the National Assembly.
The Alliance for Change, during the Budget debate, extended an olive branch of co-operation to the government. The response of the government was that such an approach requires not just words but actions. Well the Alliance for Change should now move a motion showing that it is willing to be judged by its actions. Such a motion should call for the establishment of a Financial Parliamentary Inspectorate Division, which would have the authority to verify financial transactions undertaken by the government.
Since the government is said to be committed to transparency, it should have no objection to the establishment of an oversight inspectorate accountable to the National Assembly.
The United States has provided considerable resources to the government, under the Millennium Challenge Account, in order to boost fiduciary oversight.  It may thus be willing to help to improve this oversight through the funding of a Financial Inspectorate within the National Assembly.
Guyana is still a young democracy. As the process of financial accountability becomes entrenched, there are things that will emerge that require action to be taken so as to further improve accountability and transparency. Obviously it would be desirable if government officials take the lead in ensuring accountability and transparency.
But there should always be some institutional mechanisms to compensate for any shortcomings or misunderstandings in this regard. And this is why it is strongly suggested that what we need to settle these matters is for the immediate establishment of a Financial Inspectorate Division which would settle to the benefit of all disputes concerning government expenditure be it for the national housing drive or for official overseas travel.

---

---