Another matter for the constitutional Court

Feb 28, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

There is yet another constitutional crisis brewing. And the Peeper had warned about it.
It concerns the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). The Commission was appointed in the latter part of 2016 but it seems as if it is not fully in operation judging from the number of contracts which are still receiving ‘no objections’ from Cabinet.
We have seen reports recently about the need for staffing of the PPC. A report yesterday spoke about the need for an additional $100M to ensure that work of the Commission is carried out. It does seem as if a bureaucracy is being established to allow the Commission to exercise oversight over the administration of public procurement.
This is not, however, the role of the PPC as contemplated by the Constitution of Guyana. The role of the PPC is simply to monitor and review procurement systems, promote public education about the rules, procedures and requirements for public procurement, the monitoring of procurement bodies to ensure adherence with the rules and regulations, approving procedures for public procurement and investigating complaints.
These functions and the others which are spelt out in the Constitution may seem to vest the PPC with a role of managing public procurement. It does not.
The Public Procurement Commission is simply like a Board of Directors whose task is to ensure that the various tender Boards – national regional and ministerial – comply with the rules. There is no need for any elaborate bureaucracy for carrying out this function.
There is no need also for the members of the PPC to be paid salaries. They should be receiving stipends as any other member of State Boards.
In the context of what is happening at the moment, there is need for the government to seek an interpretation from the Court as to the role of the PPC in procurement and for a determination to be made as to the need for a bureaucracy to allow the PPC to execute its mandate.
If other constitutional commissions follow the lead of the PPC, then the Treasury is going to have to set aside hundreds of millions each year in order to finance the bureaucracies of the constitutional commissions.
But there is another major issue. It concerns the level of remuneration which is being paid to members of the PPC. We are told that the salaries are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the members of the PPC. What is to prevent the members of the other service commissions from demanding that they be similarly compensated?
The PPC should be treated like any other service commission or Board of Directors. There should be no extra-special treatment to this body nor should any bureaucracy be established. The PCC is only required to monitor the procurement systems to ensure they are compliant. You do not need a bureaucracy for this.
It is true that the PPC may be called upon to investigate alleged irregularities in procurement. But the members do not have to necessarily conduct the investigations themselves. They can appoint a tribunal to do this. In any event, there is already in place a Bid Review Committee (BRC).
The work of the PPC and the BRC cannot duplicate each other. This will present conflict.
The PCC should stick to oversight of systems and leave the Bid Protest Committee to investigate allegations of bias or favoritism or mistakes.
This problem which is arising with the PPC was bound to come back to haunt the new government. When the People’s Progressive Party was refusing to appoint the PPC because of differences between them and the APNU and the AFC over its functions, this was seen as the PPP prevaricating on the appointment because they had something to hide. As we are now seeing, the PCC is going to become a burden on the Treasury unless its constitutional functions are clarified.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News