Shaik Baksh enjoyed gratuity without GWI Board’s approval

May 27, 2016 News

A forensic audit into the Guyana Water Incorporated (GWI) has revealed that former Chief Executive Officer, Shaik Baksh, was enjoying a bi-annual 22.5 percent gratuity, despite the fact that no assessment of performance was conducted.

Shaik Baksh

The report considered the period 2012 to 2015, and was reviewed by the Board of Directors after some irregularities came up during an emergency meeting on May 28, 2015 between board members and Senior Management officials about Baksh’s conduct.
These included misappropriation of cash advances for site visits, abuse of authority in using the company assets, and overriding company policies.
During the period under review, Baksh, a former Minister under the previous administration – the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) – was employed by the Board of Directors on September 17, 2012. He resigned on June 25, 2015.
His contract of employment states that he was employed for a period of three years. During these years, he enjoyed a gratuity of 22.5 percent payable at the end of every six months.
However, the report showed that in accordance with clause 3.2 of the Chief Executive (CE) Employment contract, “gratuity should be paid subject to satisfactory performance”.
However, the auditors could find no evidence that an evaluation was done to determine whether his service was satisfactory or not. Further, the report also indicated that these payments would have been done without the board’s approval.
According to the Internal Audit, gratuity payments via payroll to Baksh from the date of employment, September 17, 2012 to 2015 were as follows:-

Year Amount Paid Duration
2013 $1,917,000 12 months
2014 $2,012,850 12 months
2015 $1,056,719 6 months

The auditors came to the conclusion that “it appears that the CE used his position to override policies and procedures and overstepped his authority with or without the approval of the BOD (Board of Directors)”.
The auditors also indicated that the new board should review Baksh’s contract to determine whether benefits paid were consistent with his contract of employment. If not, they should pursue all overpayments made to Baksh.