If you want to stop corruption, start at the top

Sep 16, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is nothing wrong with warning public officials that procurement breaches will have consequences. In fact, it is long overdue that every person entrusted with public money understands that the public purse is not a personal purse.

But there is a fundamental question which the Government must answer if its latest warning is to be taken seriously. That question is: where does accountability really begin?

Does it begin with the Regional Executive Officer? With the Permanent Secretary? With the procurement officer? With the junior public servant who signs a document? Or does it begin at the top?

Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo has now warned Permanent Secretaries, Regional Executive Officers and other accounting officers that breaches of procurement rules will have consequences. The Government says it is strengthening monitoring of procurement and payment systems and improving accountability across the public service.

That sounds good. But accountability cannot be credible if it operates selectively. There have been serious allegations and controversies involving persons at the highest political levels which have generated considerable public concern, yet the response has often been remarkably different from the treatment meted out to lower-level public officials.

This is where the Government risks creating the impression of two systems of accountability: one for the politically connected and another for the ordinary public servant. And nothing destroys an anti-corruption programme faster than that perception. Consider what has happened with Regional Executive Officers.  All but one REOs were removed or replaced in the recent administrative shake-up without the public being told that they were afforded disciplinary hearings or given an opportunity to answer specific allegations of misconduct.

Removal from a position is not necessarily the same thing as disciplinary punishment, and the Government may have perfectly legitimate administrative reasons for changing personnel. But even if these REOs were removed because of performance issues, they are still entitled to due-process and they should have been given the opportunity to respond to the concerns over their performance.

If an official is accused of wrongdoing, there should be an investigation. If the evidence establishes misconduct, there should be consequences. If the evidence does not establish misconduct, the person’s reputation should not be left hanging in the public square. Due process is not a favour to public servants. It is a protection of the State itself. Yet at the same time, the Government has repeatedly spoken of serious procurement concerns at other levels. There were anomalies in the small-contractors programme which resulted in the suspension of Region Four’s awards for additional verification. The Government itself acknowledged complaints and anomalies and said further checks were necessary. The Government has also acknowledged problems involving multiple companies, family or household ownership and attempts by larger contractors to enter programmes intended for small contractors. Those matters should be investigated and resolved.

It has been acknowledged, at press conferences, that persons had attempted to “scam the system” by falsely presenting themselves as farmers and fisherfolk in order to obtain $150,000 grants.  There was also accusations of fraud involving the agricultural cash grant and these accusations came from highly-placed political persons and not from opposition sources. Yet, where are the prosecutions? Where are the convictions? The public therefore has a legitimate right to know what happened after the fraud was discovered. Were the cases referred to the police? Were investigations conducted? Were files sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Were anyone charged?

If the answer is no, then the Government’s repeated warnings about corruption and procurement breaches begin to sound less like a consistent policy of accountability. The public is entitled to ask: what happened after the anomalies were identified? Who was held responsible? What sanctions followed? What lessons were learned?

You cannot build an effective anti-corruption culture by threatening the people at the bottom while unanswered questions remain about wrongdoing at the top. The deterrent must operate upwards as well as downwards. There have also been serious allegations involving persons close to the political establishment. Those allegations should not be dismissed simply because the persons concerned are politically influential. The message must be that nobody is too important to be investigated, nobody is too connected to be questioned, and nobody is too powerful to be held accountable. The real test of an anti-corruption regime is not how loudly it warns the weak. It is how fearlessly it investigates the powerful. Clean government cannot be a message delivered downward. It must be an example demonstrated from the top. Because, if those at the bottom are warned while those at the top are protected, the lesson is not that corruption will be punished. The lesson is, do not get caught.

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

---

• corruption, Peeping Tom, procurement breaches

---