New GPC lawsuit cannot silence public cries for Govt. to come clean on QAII deals

Sep 12, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Kaieteur News September 6 news story, “New GPC boss sues Kaieteur News for $200M,” also named me as a defendant for writing a letter that it claimed defamed and libeled it.
The New GPC put out a statement clarifying that the March 2008 MOU had nothing to do with medical supplies but the acquisition of the Sanata Complex.
Upon review of documents and articles pertaining to aspects of the deals, I own up to the error that placed the New GPC under the March 2008 MOU.
However, when the KN news story went on to note that the company is seeking to have a restraining order saying that publishing words to the effect that ‘suggest’ the New GPC Incorporated’s receipt of proceeds for contracts to supply medical and pharmaceutical products is or was illicit, illegal, unethical, dishonest, corrupt or in collusion with the Government of Guyana or Government Agencies, such as the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), there will be no acknowledgment from me.
A review of my August 4 letter, which sparked the injunction/lawsuit, will show it started out calling for the Amaila Fall Hydro Project to be sent back to the drawing board after it was revealed via a legibly printed copy in KN that Prime Minister Sam Hinds was a top government signatory in 2006 to an MOU for Synergy to build the hydro project and not just the road to the project.
The Prime Minister has since said that he can’t remember signing such a very important agreement four years ago.
My letter went on to note that subsequent to that Synergy 2006 MOU, Government signed another MOU in 2008 with Queens Atlantic Investments Incorporated (QAII), but since Government never made public the contents of that 2008 MOU, there was no way for the public to know whether the MOU was really limited to Sanata Complex and not encompassed the New GPC.
The question that now arises is why is the Government being so secretive? In an insightful and illuminating article, “A close-up look at the QAII deal,” (July 13, 2008), which focused on the New GPC deal, tax accountant, lawyer and columnist, Mr. Christopher Ram referred to “the famous MOU of March 2008 (as) still a state secret,” confirming my contention that the state, not QAII, was the party responsible for telling the public detailed contents of the MOU but refused to do so.
That secrecy or lack of transparency aside, if QAII stands accused of any of illicit, illegal, unethical, dishonest or corrupt acts, these were never mentioned in my letter.
However, it is a known fact that Government did grant waivers that circumvented the Public Procurement Act of 2003 (the law) to allow the New GPC to continue supplying the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation and the Health Ministry with products.
In an SN article, “Drug purchases from NGPC superseded law – Murray,” written by Ms. Miranda La Rose, PNC MP, Mr. Winston Murray contended that up to 2003, the Health Ministry might have acted properly under the authority of waivers granted by Cabinet, but once the Procurement Act was passed in 2003, “the Procurement Act is superior to any decision by Cabinet.”
He then lambasted the Health Ministry for relying on the expired Cabinet decision taken in 2003 and going out in 2005 to buy over $550M worth of drugs commercially via the New GPC.
In this instance, if there is any question of illegality or dishonesty, it is with the state and not necessarily QAII, because QAII could only have done what the Government allowed it to do, and this is why my focus has been on the Government to come clean with the public on its dealings with QAII.
I really don’t know if QAII’s New GPC lawsuit is trying to divert attention from Government’s role/responsibility to make public the details of the deals.
But if Government’s seeking waivers to circumvent the Procurement Act 2003 to do hundreds of millions of dollars in business with the New GPC was the only questionable act, it might be forgiven.
No one is perfect and almost everyone makes mistakes. Ironically, the Government went on to illegally grant concessions to QAII after the latter subsequently acquired another state property: Sanata Complex. Whatever happened to once bitten, twice shy?
It was only after the illegality was brought to Government’s attention by someone outside government that Government raced to have its parliamentary majority pass a law that retroactively corrected the illegality. But the damage was already done here as it was in the circumvention of the Procurement Act, and it then begs the question: Why has the government gone to such lengths, circumventing the Procurement Act with waivers for the New GPC and granting illegal concessions to QAII for the Sanata Complex?
Let the Government answer.
In closing, since the New GPC’s now public writ contends that the March 2008 MOU, which Mr. Ram described as a ‘state secret’, was between the Government, QAII and a group of companies, including Global Textile (Guyana) Inc, Health Life Sciences Inc., Global Printing and Graphics Inc., and Global Hardware Inc., I have a couple of closing questions: Do all of these named companies under the March 2008 MOU have current or are seeking to have contracts with the Government the same way the New GPC already has a contract to supply the Georgetown Hospital Corporation and the Health Ministry? And do these companies share the same owners or directors?
If the answer to both questions is yes, it could make Mr. Ram’s references in his above-mentioned article to ‘a favoured few’ being entrenched and enriched, and the creation of ‘a monopolistic situation at the expense of potential competitors and the economy’ appear to be true and not just a surmising.
Mr. Editor, if we cannot get the Government to come clean on the QAII deals, we might as well forget transparency and accountability on what happened to CLICO’s collapse, the Amaila Falls Hydro project, the Marriott, the cable from Brazil for some IT project, etc., because this has been the trend with Government and the people’s finances and resources: no transparency or accountability.
Emile Mervin

---

---