Hardly an hour goes by in homes, offices, markets or the streets without some discussion of the monthly `light’ bill from GPL, an encounter with its disconnection crew or a harrowing visit to one of its offices. It has become one of the burdens that ordinary citizens have to bear in this very difficult economy.
Stories are numerous and range from the mundane to the distressing. Residents who swear that they can count on their fingers the number of appliances they use only to face a hefty bill that bore no resemblance to their energy consumption are frequently heard from. Faced with a cut-off deadline they line up at some GPL office only to be given short shrift by unsympathetic personnel or denied in a hostile manner any satisfaction about their queries on the number of units consumed. The deadline passes and the householder begins to dread the almost certain arrival of an unrelenting disconnection crew. To add insult to injury on numerous occasions customers who are fully paid up have also been cut-off because of problems with GPL’s own record keeping.
The `light’ bill is one of those things that all citizens have to prioritise payment for. If you use the service then you must be prepared to pay for it. It isn’t cheap but the state is providing the service at an enormous cost and subsidies cannot be never-ending although the burden would be less were the power company to significantly cut line and commercial losses.
But if it is the case that we must all scrupulously pay our bills on a monthly basis or face disconnection, surely this must apply to us all no matter how big or small we are. Which is why the single mother who faces disconnection over one month’s arrears or the grandfather who couldn’t make this month’s payment because of a medical emergency should be suitably incensed over a series of reports in this newspaper about Buddy’s Hotel being allowed to run up a $58M bill dating back to February 2007. How could this be? How could Buddy’s have been allowed to rack up such a bill when ordinary folk would have long been in the dark with candles for illumination? Where were the diligent disconnection crews or the accounts supervisors who should have known that Buddy’s was just not paying up?
In a nutshell, the story is as follows. One lawsuit was filed by GPL for $50M in April 2008 and another for $8M in May 2008 –around the time the sale of the hotel to a Turkish group was being concluded. When the matter came up this year in the Commercial Court there were several hearings and then curiously an order dismissing the matter for want of prosecution. The very day the dismissal of the matter was reported in this newspaper, GPL itself issued a press release advising that the order had been recalled though there was no subsequent explanation by the court of what happened. After further hearing the court ruled that Buddy’s should pay GPL $35M as some of the arrears had already been repaid and transformers had been returned to cover the remainder. A payment schedule has now been worked out for Buddy’s.
The troubling question of why Buddy’s was allowed to run up a debt of this magnitude must still be clearly answered by GPL considering its often desperate need for cash – particularly during 2007 when oil prices were extremely high – and the rigid and an unbending pursuit of the ordinary householder and small businessman.
Observers of this government would deconstruct the attitude to the Buddy’s bill in this way. The investor behind the project is one of those favoured by the government and had undertaken the Herculean task of erecting a hotel for the accommodation of cricketers, officials and sponsors for Cricket World Cup. He therefore had virtual carte blanche in terms of energy consumption. This investor was also given other preferential treatment in the form of cash to complete the hotel and when he couldn’t repay that amount he was allowed to pay back the remainder in the form of room nights to the government. The investor then turned around and sold his hotel less than a year after the world cup. It is by no means clear that the cash amount advanced to him has been accounted for and it would be a very interesting exercise for both the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament and the Auditor General’s office to check on these repayments. The financial aid to the investor also came amid another court case which involved a charge of fuel smuggling against him which was subsequently thrown out by a magistrate’s court.
The government complains very often about people not paying up their electricity bills but the Buddy’s case defied all logic. Prime Minister Hinds, who has responsibility for the electricity sector, the board of GPL and its management must explain to the public why this bill was allowed to balloon to $58M and whether ordinary customers of GPL who are unable to pay up their bills because of financial exigencies will be given a grace period.
This enormous bill starkly exposes the special connection between the government and certain investors and how this could override established procedures which in turn overrides good corporate governance.
