A comprehensive audit of SLED is required

Aug 23, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

A controversy has erupted over the arrest of former Director of Sport, Christopher Jones, and the search of his home. Supporters of Jones have sought to focus on the actions of the police; while his critics have zeroed in on his eligibility to benefit from the Sustainable Livelihoods Entrepreneurial Development (SLED) Project.
Both sides have their arguments but there is no reason why both sides of the debate should not be the focus of a much deeper investigation. In other words, the issue of eligibility for grants as well as the legality of the actions of the police can be the subject of a much wider probe.
The police claimed that they were conducting an investigation into simple larceny. But it is difficult to understand how the police are going to establish simple larceny by someone who was granted goods under the Sustainable Livelihoods Entrepreneurial Development (SLED) Project. The elements of simple larceny do not appear applicable in this case.
For a conviction on a charge of simple larceny, a number of elements have to be established. One of those elements is having goods without the consent of the owner. If on the other hand, the goods are in the possession of someone who has not applied it to the purposes for which it is intended and have not returned the goods to the rightful owner, then this amounts to misappropriation, not larceny. But that is for the lawyers and prosecutors to argue about.
If the project has not materialized, then the State can repossess the property which was not used, as yet, for the intended purposes but it would appear a great leap to establish simple larceny. This is no different from the state giving someone materials to do a project. If the person does not commence the project within a certain time, then the state can repossess the materials since it belongs to the state.
Of more immediate concern of any investigation should be the process by which grants were disbursed under SLED. As far as public information is concerned, SLED allowed cooperative groups to be issued with grants so as to establish small businesses. The project was designed to help group and not individuals.
It was not intended to benefit single individuals and therefore there is a need to establish whether the case presently in the public domain was a single proprietorship venture or involved a group. If it was the latter then who were the other persons involved, and why were the items not put to use earlier. The project application would establish the name of the group, if any, and the identity of the beneficiaries.
SLED was not assigned a great deal of resources. This was a small programme with a limited Budget. It could therefore only have assisted a limited number of groups. As such, great care should have been taken to ensure that all the projects financed were viable, undertaken by groups or organizations whose bona fides were verified and that the funds or goods disbursed were utilized for the intended purposes and beneficiaries. How it is that the items were assigned to one individual rather than a group requires some explanation and the police would no doubt be ascertaining this fact.
A comprehensive audit therefore should now be undertaken of all SLED projects. The first objective should be to examine whether the criteria established was met in relation to disbursements of goods or cash. The audit should determine whether any private individuals benefitted under the initiative. According to reports in the media, SLED was geared to assist groups of persons who established cooperative societies. It would have defeated the purpose of SLED if individuals rather than groups received assistance.
Second, the audit should examine the bona fides of the groups assisted. This should be done to determine whether there was any partisanship in disbursements and whether any shadowy organizations benefitted from the programme. One would assume that at the minimum, the Ministry of Social Protection, which was administering the project, would have ensured that the cooperative groups society are not cardboard groups.
Third, the audit should determine whether the sums of goods disbursed were applied for the purposes for which they were intended. This will guard against misappropriation or the project being used for private benefit. Greater attention should have been paid to possible conflicts of interests.
Fourth, the audit should do an evaluation of the projects undertaken to see whether they were successful or not. This is an important aspect since it would make an assessment of how successful were the projects funded.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---