Dual role of GEA boss inappropriate – APNU MP

Sep 13, 2013 News

With the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA) not having a Board of Directors, Mahender Sharma, the entity’s Chief Executive Officer, is possibly carrying out the functions of the Board. This is highly inappropriate since in management there is need for segregation of duties, especially in Agencies, such as the GEA, that handle large sums of money and exercise a

Mahender Sharma

lot of power.
This was the assertion of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Parliamentarian, Jaipaul Sharma, during an interview with this publication. He said that GEA needs special attention, a proper audit, and an experienced accountant, particularly since it would automatically be responsible for the Amaila Falls Hydropower project when it is implemented in accordance with section 7 (1) of the Guyana Energy Act 1997.
He was at the time commenting on the findings of Chartered Accountant Christopher Ram, which highlighted improprieties and illegalities at GEA. Ram on his website, chirsram.net said GEA, which is responsible for a whopping US$350M of the nation’s transactions, practices poor accounting and members of the Board of Directors are unknown.
Ram stated that while the GEA came into existence in late 1997 and commenced operations in 1998, it was more than 12 years before any accounts were tabled in the National Assembly. The records indicate that audited financial statements, and not annual reports, were tabled in the National Assembly for years up to 2009.
And, according to the GEA’s 2012 activities, the audits for the years 2010 and 2011 have been completed, but these have not been tabled.
While commending Ram on his works, Sharma sought to clarify certain conclusions drawn by the Chartered Accountant in relation to the National Assembly and the Public Accounts Committee.
According to Ram, “The Assembly for 15 years voted subventions for this body without once asking about how those subventions were being spent. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was equally not alert to the omission”.
Jaipaul Sharma, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said that the Auditor General Report presented to the National Assembly and scrutinized in the PAC, vaguely looks at statutory bodies and special investigations. He explained that because of the vagueness it is impossible to ask questions. However, separate audited reports are prepared for these bodies and tabled by the respective Ministers.
Being more specific, he said financial documents relating to GEA do not go to the PAC but rather to the Natural Resources Committee. In addition, the Minister of Finance is responsible for tabling the GEA’s financial documents and annual reports.
Attempts to contact APNU’s Rupert Roopnaraine and PPP Parliamentarian Odinga Lumumba, members of the Natural Resources Committee, were unsuccessful.
According to Jaipaul Sharma, the problems of GEA’s financial reporting are historical. He reflected that GEA was established on June 1, 1998, with the assets and liabilities of the Guyana National Energy Authority (GNEA) which was dissolved on May 31, 1998. The GNEA did not prepare and submit financial statements for the period 1985 to 1995.

Jaipaul Sharma

He noted that though GEA was being audited, Government never submitted the financial statements until June 27, 2013, for the period 1998 to 2009. Government had been delinquent for numerous years in submitting annual reports, and financial statements are now being released. But, with a new dispensation in Parliament – the Opposition holding a one-seat majority – the Government is now forced to release these financial documents. He was clear it had nothing to do with a change of presidency.
Sharma emphasized that even with this submission, the agency is still not in compliance with the law. According to Section 30 (1) and (2) of the Guyana Energy Act 1997, the agency is required not later than six months from the end of each calendar year to submit a report to the Minister, containing an account of their transactions throughout the year and a statement of accounts of the agency audited. Further, the report together with a copy of the Auditor General’s report shall be laid in the National Assembly.
A scenario of vagueness also exists for subventions offered to statutory bodies like GEA that comes under the Office of the President. Sharma said in the estimates prepared by Government, GEA’s subvention is listed and is reflected in the budget of statutory bodies’ details of revenue and expenditure.
He explained that because of the limited time being allotted to review the estimates and the reason for the expenditure, it can be easily deduced there is no reason to inquire. He further explained that for entities like the Government Information Agency, it is open for questioning, since the details of the expenditure are not reflected in the estimates.
In relation to the management of GEA, Sharma said the Minister responsible for the entity, in this case Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, is obligated by the Guyana Energy Act 1997 to appoint members of the Board.
Sharma emphasized that with the current structure of GEA, it is difficult to determine who the Chief Executive Officer is reporting to in the purported absence of a properly constituted Board. He said it is important to know who the members of the Board are, because one-third of all members of the Agency are needed to form a quorum for any meetings of the entity.
According to Sharma, besides improving on the accounting aspect of the entity, there needs to be a comprehensive policy governing its operations. He said the use of polygraph testing indicates that there is pervasive corruption in the agency, therefore this area needs proper guidelines.
He said that in addition to this, it appears that only subordinates are subjected to polygraph testing while senior officials are apparently exempted. Additional evidence of this, he said, could be seen with the missing employee and now the four employees implicated with taking bribes.