Parliamentary body calls for police intervention

Jun 23, 2011 News

---

– unearths cases of corruption

Areas of possible corruption and the refusal of current and former principal officers in government entities to comply with requests of the Public Affairs Committee caused the chairperson to recommend disciplinary action in some cases.
In the 2007 and 2008 reports on the performance of Government ministries and other public organisations, the PAC noted many areas of obvious over-payments to contractors, non-deliverance of paid-for goods, and misappropriation of funds, and questionable                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  spending that it called for remedial accounting, police investigation, or that errant officers be made to repay monies of the people of Guyana.
This parliament-appointed committee singled out one case in which it was recommended that a former permanent secretary in the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs be contacted and told that he has to arrange for repayment of $242,750 that was overpaid to a contractor.
This specific overpayment was for maintenance work on a female dormitory and an administrator’s building.
PAC Chairperson and Member of Parliament, Volda Lawrence, presented the report in the House last Thursday detailing public accounts of Guyana for the years 2007 and 2008.

She noted that the constitution defines public accounts of Guyana as all central and local government bodies and entities; all bodies and entities in which the State has controlling interest; and all projects funded by way of loans or grants by any foreign State or organisation.

It is the duty of the PAC to examine accounts of these entities showing money granted to them by the National Assembly, and its use in meeting public expenditure. Information for review of many of these accounts was based on findings of the Auditor General.
In instances of other overpayments PAC stated that the Auditor General reported that the Region Three administration overpaid $3.528 million on 13 contracts for the years 2005 to 2007.
Also for the years 2005 to 2007, Region Four paid a total of $8.709 million extra for 16 contracts.
“The Committee noted that the region [Four] continued to incur overpayments on contracts and continued to disagree with the findings of the Auditor General when they appear before the PAC,” the report stated.
Region Five was another administrative area found to be overpaying contracts during the years 2005 to 2007. In this case the excess amount was $8.184 million for 14 contracts.
The Ministry of Education overpaid $32 million to a contractor on the construction of a male dormitory at President’s College. Additionally, that Ministry made $15.77 million in overpayments on 13 projects.
The Supreme Court administration made excess payments of $441,150 on three maintenance of infrastructure projects; Region Ten administrators paid $1.799 million extra on six contracts.
Then there were payments for goods or services that were either never delivered or the supplies arrived long after payment.
The Ministry of Home Affairs in 2005 paid an overseas supplier $1.314 million for ammunition that is yet to be supplied.
In 2007 the Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Commerce bought a generator for $5.4 million that was delivered only in 2009.
As it regards misappropriation of public funds PAC said it examined an Auditor General report that stated the Guyana Elections Commission paid staff with $3.815 million that was budgeted for rental of buildings.
“The Head of Budget Agency [accounting officer] reported that the said amount was utilised on the payment of salaries to polling day staff. He indicated that his objections to the advancing of money without any proper documentation were overruled by the Chairman of the Commission,” PAC stated.
In further examples of financial irregularities PAC found that the Ministry of Finance continues to fund operations of the State Planning Secretariat from subsidies and money earmarked for contributions to local organisations although this entity should have been dissolved several years ago.
Also receiving funding from these sources is the Customs and Anti Narcotics Unit (CANU) instead of directly from the national budget.
“Monies collected from the lottery fund were not deposited into the Consolidated Fund, in contravention of Article 216 of the Constitution,” PAC stated.
Large sums of money for conference advances to government officers remained unaccounted for, and some of these persons are now dead.
Operations of the Ministry of Education Ministerial Tender Board continue to operate in breach of the Procurement Act, PAC stated.
Also violating the Procurement ACT are the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) and the Ministry of Health, both of which are using Cabinet approvals to purchase drugs and other medical supplies instead of issuing public invitations to tender so potential suppliers could compete for the contracts.
GPHC was also found to be violating financial laws by incurring expenses out of revenue generated although the institution receives an appropriation from the national budget.
The State Solicitor’s Office in the Ministry of Legal Affairs has 37 tenants occupying its First Federation Building but only one up to date rental agreement exists. PAC stated that 16 agreements were outdated – some reaching as far back as 2000, and 20 had no tenancy agreements.
Additionally the Ministry of Legal Affairs was found to have awarded two contracts for remedial works at the Deeds Registry.
“In one case the engineer’s estimate was not provided and in the other case the procedure followed was not in compliance with the Procurement Act,” PAC stated.
The Committee expressed disappointment with the Region Five administration for not being able to clear 102 cheque orders totaling $17.20 million for the years 2005 to 2007.
It was found that Region Nine was not only issuing money advances to employees from its Special Funds Account, but also to non-employees despite a circular from the local government minister advising that no such monies should be used for that purpose from the fund.
PAC stated that according to the Auditor General’s report, “…several statutory bodies under the control of the Office of the President have not produced financial statements for audit examination”.
Concerning the administration of the Supreme Court, PAC observed that instances of what it described as ‘apparent irregularities’ have been pending since 1992 and are yet to be resolved by the courts or the police.
“These apparent irregularities were uncovered at various magisterial districts and before the courts, or with the police.”

---

---