Norton delivers grave blow to Govt.’s accountability image with crookish behaviour

Norton delivers grave blow to Govt.’s accountability image with crookish behaviour – Chartered Accountant

Aug 13, 2016 News

Chartered Accountant, Sase Singh

The image of a new type of Government that would actually adhere to the principles of accountability and transparency is what the APNU+AFC painted before the citizenry during the May 11, election campaign season. But the recent revelations that the Public Health Minister, Dr. George Norton misled the nation on what appears to be an extremely shady deal has essentially stained the “clean accountability image” of the administration.
This is the assertion of Chartered Accountant, Sasenarine Singh.
In an interview with this newspaper, the columnist said that the Health Minister has, by his very actions, tainted his reputation beyond repair and has delivered a grave blow to the Government’s image with his crookish behaviour.
Singh said that it is unthinkable that Dr. Norton would entrust $25M in tax dollars to a man for his warehouse in Sussex Street and it is not even completed. The Chartered Accountant said that what is even worse is that the contracted company for the drug bond, Linden Holding Incorporated, has no experience in the storage of drugs.
Singh said the fact that Norton actually avoided the tendering process and steered the contract into the hands of a particular company, clearly shows that the deal reeks of “a kickback scheme”. He insists that the Public Health Minister simply cannot be trusted anymore if this is the manner in which he chose to operate with the nation’s moneys.
Furthermore, the Chartered Accountant sought to stress when sole sourcing is actually used in Guyana’s laws.
He said, “Article 49 of the Procurement Act (2003) clearly states that the procuring entity may engage in single source procurement (non-competitive) where the services to be procured ‘have a unique qualification’.”
Singh said, “What is unique about the Sussex Street so-called drug storage facility? Is it only one of its kind? Does it have any distinctive features that no other pharmaceutical bonds have in Guyana? Is it incomparable in its construct that it is the only facility in Guyana that has secured the blessings of the Ministry of Health?”
The Chartered Accountant stressed that the spirit and principles of the procurement law was beyond the shadow of a doubt, violated by the Ministry of Public Health when it decided to procure these services from the owners of Linden Holdings Inc. He insisted that it was a flagrant abuse of the nation’s Procurement laws.
It was on Monday that the Public Health Minister was grilled extensively by members of the Opposition over $25M which was taken from the Contingencies Fund. It was revealed the sum was used as part of a security deposit for a warehouse in Sussex Street owned by Linden Holdings Inc.
Getting this information out of the Public Health Minister was by no means any easy task. But in the process, the political opposition was able to show that Dr. Norton’s statements were just not adding up.
The Opposition was able to reveal that Dr. Norton avoided the tendering process for the warehouse contract. But the Public Health Minister sought to defend the use of sole sourcing a contractor, by stating that the Ministry of Health and the Georgetown Public Hospital were in a hurry to find space to store drugs and other medical supplies. He insisted that it was an “emergency.”
But when checks were made at the Sussex Street location of the bond, not a single medical item was being stored there. In fact, the bond was still under construction.
Additionally, Dr. Norton told the House that in the interest of being cost effective, the administration had no choice but to go with Linden Holding Incorporated, as opposed to New GPC. He claimed that Linden Holding Inc. was only going to cost the government $12.5M in rental fees per month while New GPC was charging $19.2M. New GPC subsequently submitted a statement to the media which showed that Dr. Norton’s statements were far from the truth.
The company made it clear that it never charged a rental fee of $19.2M. In fact, it offered its warehouse for the past decade, free of charge.
Furthermore, the Public Health Minister failed to answer questions as to who are the principles of the Linden Holding Inc., its date of registration here, who signed the contract with the company on Government’s behalf and when it was signed. Even after these questions were repeated numerous times, he insisted that those details were not available at the time.
Also, Dr. Norton was asked to tell the nation why the Diamond storage facility was not being used to hold the drugs and other medical supplies. This too, he failed to answer in a straightforward manner. Instead, he said that Government hopes it would not have to use the warehouse belonging to the Linden Holding Inc. for too long.
What also shocked members of the Opposition was the failure of the Minister of Public Health to commit to presenting the bond contract in the National Assembly. Norton told the House that while Government would be interested in doing so, the disclosure of the contract would be dependent on the other party. He made this comment in spite of the fact that his Government had stated on numerous occasions that contracts should be made public, with the exception of those that deal with national security.
Another area on which the Public Health Minister was found producing mixed stories, was when the Opposition Parliamentarians asked him to say if the bond that was procured met international standards.
Norton told the House that it complies with the World Health Organization and Pan American Health Organization standards. But when challenged to bring the relevant certificates from the said organizations to the House in order to substantiate his claim, he changed his story and said it was the Ministry of Health that certified the safety of the bond.