A special audit of public procurement

May 27, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- By now, the stench is impossible to ignore. It seeps out of the headlines, finds persons turning up their noses in quiet conversations and settles in the public’s nostrils. The issue is government procurement—specifically, the widening perception that public contracts are being handed out not on merit or through competitive bidding, but through the opaque and deeply suspect mechanism of selective tendering to friends and favoured persons. This is no longer a murmur on the margins. It is a roar demanding investigation and verification.

The time has come for the Auditor General to act. A special audit of government procurement practices, focusing especially on the prevalence of selective tendering or no tendering at all, is no longer merely advisable. It is imperative.

Let us be clear: public procurement, in theory, is a pillar of good governance. It ensures that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, that public works are delivered efficiently, and that merit—not favouritism—is the operating principle.

In practice, however, it has become something far more sinister. Across ministries and regions, across sectors and agencies, there are rumours circulating from sources who normally do not dabble in gossip, suggesting that  some persons are being handed contracts, not through competitive public bidding, but through shadowy processes that raise serious questions about legality and ethics.

Selective tendering is the euphemism. But we know what it often amounts to: backroom deals, closed doors, and the exchange of favors. It is the antithesis of transparency. And when applied unlawfully, it constitutes an outright abuse of public funds.

The damage done by such practices is not merely financial—though the monetary losses are significant. The deeper injury is to public trust. When citizens begin to believe that government contracts are auctioned to friends, donors, or insiders rather than awarded through an open and fair process, democracy itself begins to erode.

We have seen this movie before. The cast may change, but the plot remains the same: inflated costs, substandard work, and, eventually, some ritualistic sacrifice—an official suspended or reshuffled, a press conference held, promises made. Then the cycle resumes.

What is needed now is not a performance. What is needed is accountability. And that begins with independent oversight.

The Office of the Auditor General, by virtue of its mandate and credibility, is uniquely positioned to conduct a comprehensive audit of government procurement activities over the past five years. This audit should focus on identifying how many contracts were awarded through competitive bidding versus selective tendering or no tendering at all; whether proper justification existed for the use of selective processes; and whether legal requirements and procurement regulations were followed.

It must also seek to quantify the cost implications of these practices. How much more did the public pay because competition was stifled? How many companies were locked out of opportunities due to unfair tendering? Which ministries and agencies are repeat offenders?

This is not simply an exercise in number crunching. It is a test of our institutions. Can we honestly say that the systems designed to protect the public interest are functioning? Can we trust that procurement rules are being followed—or are they just legal wallpaper, meant to impress but easily peeled away when inconvenient?

The political class will not welcome such an audit. There will be protestations about timing, accusations of politicization, and procedural objections. But the Auditor General must resist these diversions. His office does not serve political masters; it serves the public. And the public has every right to know whether its money is being spent with integrity.

Let us also dispense with the lazy rationalization that selective tendering or no tendering at all, is faster, or that it delivers results. Speed is no justification for opacity. Efficiency without accountability is merely corruption on a deadline.

If procurement officials believe they have acted properly, then they should have no fear of scrutiny. A special audit would, if nothing else, help restore confidence. It would show that there is still some measure of oversight in a system that too often appears impervious to consequence.

But if there has been wrongdoing—and let’s not pretend the suspicion lacks foundation—then the audit must trigger consequences. Not just administrative wrist-slaps, but prosecutions where warranted. Because favouritism in public procurement is not a victimless offence. The victims are all of us: citizens deprived of better roads, schools, hospitals—because contracts went to cronies instead of the most qualified bidder.

This is not a left-right issue. It is a right-wrong issue. And the right thing is for the Auditor General to step in, decisively and independently. That office does not need to be asked to do the audit; it has the power to initiate it, and should.

Let the audit begin.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) 

---

---