The Guyana Elections Com-mission (GECOM) is refuting allegations of internal corruption, saying that procurement of items is done in accordance with statutory procedures.

In a paid-advertisement placed in the national newspapers on Sunday, GECOM, responding to an article entitled “Massive corruption involving $$M underway” that appeared in the April 4 edition of the Kaieteur News, stated that the agency prides itself with the reputation of procuring goods and services with the approval of the Central Tender Board and/or Cabinet, as necessary. “There has never been a departure from this statutory procedure,” it said.

President Bharrat Jagdeo recently voiced concern over the manner in which the agency procures items, using the single source method. GECOM said it discussed President Jagdeo’s “concern” and noted that all of its procurement procedures meet the requirements as spelt out in the National Procurement and Tender Administration Act No. 8 of 2003. In addition, as required by the Fiscal Management and Accounta-bility Act No. 20 of 2003, the commission noted that it has in place a functional Internal Audit Section and among the responsibilities of its staff is ensuring that overall financial management is done, in keeping with the aforementioned legislation.

GECOM added that its accounts are audited annually by the Office of the Auditor General, which is currently working on such an exercise. “They have no knowledge of any ‘Massive Corruption’ at GECOM,” it said, while noting that the body also appears before the Public Accounts Committee to justify its budgetary allocations and expenditure. “GECOM never had any problem as an outcome of this statutory requirement,” it noted.

As a result of the newspaper story, GECOM’s Chief Election Officer Gocool Boodoo has written the Auditor General inviting a special audit of its accounts to verify whether there has been any breach of procurement procedure by the agency.

President Jagdeo, during a press conference last month, expressed disappointment with the manner in which GECOM procures some of its materials. Stating that Guyana spends a disproportionate amount on elections, especially when compared with other countries, he criticised GECOM for single sourcing materials instead of choosing an open competitive process, especially when these items were not of a proprietary nature. “I have a huge problem with the way they source materials at GECOM,” Jagdeo said.

Jagdeo added that while this may have been understandable when the country was rushing to hold general elections in 2006, there is no excuse now. “But now when we have all of this time, we knew local government elections were going to be held, and we have time to plan our procurement, we should minimise single sourcing, we should go to more open competitive tenders,” he said.  “…I am very appalled by the number of requests that we received for single sourcing,” he added.

The commission stated that there are “extremely” few instances relative to the many financial transactions undertaken by the agency that necessitates single sourcing and such must be approved by the Tender Board and Cabinet. GECOM also noted that it is in possession of an Integrated Financial Management and Accounting System (IFMAS) report which indicates that its finances are in order and monies allocated to agency are adequately accounted for. “GECOM conducts its administrative and technical affairs in a transparent manner which could withstand public scrutiny,” it declared.

The recently-released 2008 Auditor General Report has highlighted an irregularity as regards purchasing of items from a supplier by GECOM, in which some $24.633M was expended. The report stated that the supplier could not be contacted by business address or telephone and checks undertaken revealed that documents relating to the supplier’s business registration had been falsified.

The Auditor General  stated that a recommendation was made in the 2007 report for GECOM to investigate and report on the validity of purchases and to determine the circumstances surrounding the disparity in pricing as well as credentials of the supplier but the a report was not submitted to the Audit Office as recommended.

GECOM, in response to the findings of the report, stated that the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board was responsible for the transaction and as such the relevant documentation should have been with that agency.