Dear Editor,
Since news broke of the Auditor General’s report for 2006, there have been more questions than answers, and the taxpaying public seems no closer to knowing the truth about the large amounts of monies taken from the Contingencies Fund that have not been properly accounted for.
At the time of this writing, only the Ministry of Finance – which has no jurisdiction over the Auditor General’s office – and the Ministry of Health have attempted to clarify for taxpayers what seems to be the lack of physical evidence to corroborate expenses listed on billing statements showing monies were spent on specific items.
The Ministry of Health’s explanation that it purchased G $608.4 million in medical supplies, but decided to receive the items in a staggered manner for lack of space, appears to be as lame as excuses can get, and may need its own shot of B-12 to give its leg strength on which to stand.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, in 2003, received G $11.1 million for arms and ammunition, but a physical check by the AG’s office for the existence of these arms and ammunitions reveal nothing.
In 2003, incidentally, Ronald Gajraj was home affairs minister and Guyana was in the middle of a criminal warfare that pitted dangerous criminals against another set of criminals now known as the Phantom Gang, and, according to one report, over 200 people died. Is there a relationship between the crimes of this period and the missing 11.1 million dollars?
And how do this missing sum and or guns and ammunitions compare with the hasty demands of the PPP and its government, not long ago, for the PNC to account for some 200 guns that were issued in the late seventies but which allegedly still have not been accounted for? Meanwhile, there are other government departments, agencies and ministries that also have red flags flying over them in the AG’s report, but I want to remind Guyanese that the word ‘contingency’ basically means an emergency or unexpected event, so that when monies are withdrawn from the fund, they should only be for in cases of emergency or unexpected events, and there ought to be provable justification.
Do these areas mentioned in the AG’s report, as having benefited from monies taken from the fund, appear to justify the meaning of ‘contingency’?
Mr Editor, it is not good enough that the Auditor General would submit his report to the house speaker because the opposition leader requested same, and that’s the end of the story. We have a government that trumps its commitment to democracy, but democracy without transparency is like a bird flying freely in the dark of night. A crash is imminent if it can’t see where it is flying. But regardless of where this government ends up, we, the people, still need a proper explanation on this AG’s report that highlights shocking discrepancies. We need a parliamentary and criminal investigation here.
I have to tell you, sir, I thoroughly enjoy – not in the sense of elation, but in the sense of being informed and educated – reading Mr Christopher Ram’s breakdown of the government-QAII deal. If only he can be cloned to ensure there is no interruption in the flow of the type a man of his calibre can produce for the benefit of a people starving for relevant information on their government‘s financial dealings.
And that is why I am hoping Mr. Ram will oblige and help put the AG’s 2006 report in more concretized perspective, especially for overseas Guyanese who access the Internet daily for news out of Guyana but are not privy to what is being said on the ground in Guyana.
If no one ever did, then I am on record expressing my gratitude to Mr Ram for a sterling service. Guyana is richer for his contributions, but especially in Stabroek News where his opinions can reach around the world wherever Guyanese reside.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
