PPP Govt. never paid half a million in rent for any Minister

Jul 03, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In my response to the Clerk of the National Assembly, I posed the following questions: who made the “administrative decision” to rent a home for Ministers at a rate of $500,000 GYD per month? What factors were taken into account in determining such a rate of rental of living accommodation for a junior Minister, having regard to the fact that the law provides only $25,000 GYD, as a housing allowance for the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and senior Ministers of the Government? What process of competitive procurement was embarked upon, if any, in respect of this transaction? Finally, was the approval of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) obtained?
In this regard, I requested a copy of the rental contracts, if any, which the NPTAB approved. I also reminded the Clerk that a decision of an Executive President of Guyana to grant certain concessions to a most senior functionary of his Cabinet and senior Minister of Government and Attorney General, as part of the latter’s contract of service, resulted in the institution of a criminal charge which is still pending. I hope my insinuation was deciphered.
To date, we are told that the Parliament Office foots such rental bills for only two junior Ministers of the Government. However, we are aware that they are several senior Ministers who are living in rented premises. We are unaware what the rate of rental per month is and how these rents are financed. I am informed that the rental for one senior Minister is $1.5M GYD per month. I am told that this senior Minister vacated his own home; is living in rented premises and has rented his home to the Government in which a ministerial advisor resides!
This vital volume of information, I believe, is deliberately kept discreet and away from the taxpayers. It is clear that since the Parliament Office budget is now approved in a block vote, as a constitutional agency, and is no longer the subject of a line-item by line-item scrutiny, it has been converted into a ‘milking cow’ by this Administration. Under the PPP Administration, most if not all the expenditures personal to Ministers and members of Cabinet were part of the Office of the President’s budget and in some instances part of the budget of individual ministries.
Under such a construct, these budgets were and still are the subject to line-item by line-item scrutiny in the Committee of Supply. This facility of oversight is no longer available as these expenses now are hidden within and form part of a lump sum, which is approved for the Parliament Office’s budget. Having regard to the artifice which contaminated the salary increase saga, one cannot rule out that the sudden transferral of these expenses from Central Government’s budget to Parliament Office’s budget was a clandestine ploy to remove them from parliamentary scrutiny.
I see apologists for the Administration desperately contending that the PPP Government paid similarly high rates of rentals for their Ministers. The names Clement Rohee, Robert Persaud, Pauline Sukhai and Dr. Jennifer Westford have been mentioned. As a result, I made some inquiries. I learnt that Clement Rohee lived in a property owned by the state. Robert Persaud lived in a property either owned by or controlled by GuySuCo. None of these premises attracted rent from Central Government. Pauline Sukhai lived in a house for a period rented at a rate of $900 USD or $180,000 GYD per month. Dr. Jennifer Westford rental was $1,000 USD or $200,000 GYD per month. So there is no basis to compare.
Nothing short of a full and complete disclosure of all expenses paid from public funds, personal to members of Cabinet and Ministers of the Government will suffice. Bishop Juan Edghill was hauled before the Privileges Committee for disclosing to the people of this country that the salary increases imposed by this Administration for Ministers, members of Cabinet and other office holders will cost them almost $1B GYD by the end of their five year term in office. Those computations did not include the increase in per diem allowances paid to Ministers traveling overseas who can now take their spouses at the state’s expense; it did not take into account the gigantic rentals paid for Ministers living accommodations. If these are included the one billion may swell to two billion dollars.
In any event, the public does not know what else is being paid with public monies via official graft. Commissions of Inquiries are trending. A most compelling case exist for one to be launched, immediately, into the perks, privileges, allowances and other personal facilities enjoyed by members of Cabinet and Ministers of Government at the public’s expenses. A government committed to transparency and accountability will most willingly oblige.
Anil Nandlall

---

---