THE VOICE OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS…DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT WHAT YOU DO WHILE IN OFFICE

Aug 18, 2016 News

---

By Sase Singh
 

INTRODUCTION
The Contingencies Fund was abused in 2016 by amounts totaling $63M which were drawn to fund

expenditures that did not meet the eligibility criteria as defined in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMA Act). This money is being utilized superciliously to fund an “incontinent” contract constructed under the Granger administration.
Why is the Senior Minister of Public Health hiding this contract from the taxpayers even though their money is being used?  This act, under the Granger administration, reminds me of a very profligate time in our history when respect for our financial rules and laws was totally disrespected.  Are we back to square one after only a year?
In accordance with Section 41 of the FMA Act, the Minister of Finance “may approve a Contingencies Fund Advance as an expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund by the issuance of drawing rights”.
The criteria that empower the Minister to exercise those drawing rights clearly state that the expenditure must be ”urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen” for which: (a) no moneys have been appropriated or for which the sum appropriated is insufficient; (b) moneys cannot be re-allocated as provided for under this Act; or (c) moneys cannot be deferred without injury to the public interest….”.
An unwarranted public injury was caused because this expenditure does not fulfill the spirit and intent of Article 220 of the Guyana Constitution. If the good governance advocates, the private sector business leaders, and labour leaders do not raise their voices now and nip such acts in the bud with immediate effect, a year from now all Guyana will be weeping buckets of tears.  All law-abiding citizens of Guyana must combat these budding attitudes of financial monstrosity, frontally.
THE CONTINGENCY FUND
The Senior Minister of Public Health admitted in the National Assembly that he was party to a single sourcing of a contract without any competition. The reason used to justify this was that the transaction was urgent, unforeseen and unavoidable. Those who have advised this path undoubtedly cannot reconcile themselves to the traditions of a democracy by following the rule of law. The law states unmistakably that we can only single source when the following criteria are met:
1.       Unforeseen – meaning that it was an emergency that you did not anticipate.  But there was already G$31 million in the original 2016 budget set-aside for this expenditure, so the argument that this new G$63 million was unforeseen is nothing but malodorous malarkey from the Minister – violation number 1;
2.       Unavoidable – meaning that you had no alternative but to engage the principles behind the Sussex Street building.  This blatant untruth being propagated goes to the probity of the issue at hand. There are clearly better alternatives in Guyana than the operations in Sussex Street – violation number 2.
If the Minister feels that he has a justifiable reason to switch out an internationally certified bond, then at minimum he must replace the outgoing supplier with an equal or better supplier, at a better value. This clearly did not happen, since the supplier in Sussex Street is charging three times more per square foot than the outgoing supplier. To add salt to the people’s wound, the Sussex Street operations do not meet any quality assurance standards while both PAHO/WHO and the US Government have certified the outgoing supplier. Very little adds up, when it comes to this transaction.
3.      Urgent – what is the urgency to charge the Guyanese taxpayers three times more per square foot in exchange for the elevation of the associated medical and financial risks by going with the operations in Sussex Street?
Hundreds of millions of dollars in medical supplies are now being exposed to substandard storage conditions, which will cause them to lose their potency.  If drugs are stored at the wrong temperature or in the wrong conditions, they can become useless – violation number 3.
THE BIGGER ISSUE
Why was Article 220 of the Guyana Constitution framed?  To cater for true emergencies such as broken seawalls, flooding, and other such related activities.  It was never fabricated to facilitate vindictive politics or financial skullduggery. It was framed to provide the government with funds in times of national emergency and national catastrophes.  Those kinds of transactions can easily tick the boxes labeled – unavoidable, unforeseen and urgent.
To add salt to a wounded Treasury, the Public Health Minister had the audacity to inform the nation that he has no evidence to substantiate that the relevant tender procedures were followed in the procurement of these services under his watch, because his team unilaterally and arbitrarily sole-sourced this supplier.
The Procurement Act 2003 (PA 2003) unmistakably establishes that the procuring entity may engage in single-sourcing procurement when set conditions are met. The conditions are:
1.  The goods/services are only available from a particular supplier who has exclusive rights to the goods/services being sought.  For example – the army might need a specialized piece of equipment urgently for the Bell helicopter from the Bell Company in the USA in the middle of a border situation. In such a situation, we sole-source by going straight to the Bell Company to procure the parts.  Such pre-conditions do not apply to this contract with this Sussex Street bond – violation number 4.
2.  The service is of a complex nature and is only available from one source.  Again, this pre-condition is not relevant to the Sussex Street bond. I am personally aware of two other establishments in Guyana that have medical supplies storage space, and that are internationally certified – violation number 5.
3.  Owing to a catastrophic event, there is an urgent need for this service. Did we in this case have a “seawall” breaking away that urgently needed boulders to save villagers and their crops from further flooding? Again, more evidence as to why this was a gross violation of the procurement laws by the Ministry of Public Health with respect to this financial transaction – violation number 6.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the buck stops at the President’s desk. Executive vacillation on this matter by His Excellency will just add energy to the terminal infection that is slowly crawling its way into the Ministry of the Presidency.  That primitive attempt at asking cabinet colleagues to investigate their fellow cabinet member has all the ingredients of elitism and medievalism from a different era.
Whatever happened to an independent inquiry? We could have arrived at their conclusion even before they started their “kangaroo” sessions.  The boys are circling the wagon in an attempt to prevent the taxpayers from finding out the details of this highly embarrassing fiasco, and in the process, expanding the depth and breadth of blemish on the Cabinet.
The people voted for good governance and respect for the rule of law in May 2015.  We must acknowledge their wishes and munificently work beyond the call of duty to ensure that any attempt at ossification when it comes to financial recklessness, shall be surgically severed from the system, to prevent a repeat of history.
The Public Health Minister should be ashamed of himself for attempting to pull wool over the people’s eyes on this financially vulgar transaction.

---

---