A special audit has cleared the Guyana Police Force of misusing contingency allocations totalling $90.649 million spent during last year’s elections, although record keeping breaches were found and some of the money that was not utilised was only paid back after concerns about spending were publicised.
The report on the special audit by the Audit Office, released by the Home Affairs Ministry yesterday, concludes that the force “incurred expenditure in relation to the advances for the purposes intended,” and recommends that it ensure “there is proper record-keeping for all funds related to its activities, especially the outlying Divisions.” It says too that gifts and other assistance received should also be well documented and accounted for.
It notes that the insufficiency of the funds allocated caused the force to request the two Contingency Fund Advance Warrants, in the amounts of $39.641 million and $51.008 million, which included funds for expenditure during the November 28 elections period. With this situation having recurred during the last three general elections, the report also recommends that funds should be budgeted in election years instead of the resort to contingency advances and that the release of such funds should be done in a timely manner. The funds released for food for ranks during the elections was paid into the Police Welfare Fund via cheques on Friday, November 25, 2011—three days before the elections.
Police Public Relations Officer Ivelaw Whittaker had in March 2012 said in a statement that there was nothing sinister in the handling of the monies as alluded to by the media. The parliamentary opposition parties, APNU and AFC, had also expressed concern about the accounting for the expenditure.
According to the report, in view of the parliamentary scrutiny of the two Contingency Fund Advance Warrants issued to the Guyana Police Force under Line Item 6261 – Local Travelling and Subsistence in the sum of $90.649 million, coupled with widespread media coverage, the Audit Office of Guyana decided to embark on a special exercise to examine the issue.
“We sought to ascertain the rationale used for the application of Contingency Fund Advance Warrants by the Force…We also sought to verify clearance of these advances, and ascertain whether they were utilised for the purposes for which they were intended, and whether essential records were maintained,” the acting Auditor General Deodat Sharma said in the report.
He said that the Audit Office examined records relevant to the application and utilisation of advances, including but not limited to cash books, payment vouchers and their supporting documents, returned cheques and stores records.
“We also visited various divisional headquarters to verify receipt and utilisation of goods and monies allocated to the said divisions. Discussions were also held with Divisional Commanders and officers,” the Auditor General said.
The report said that the first Contingency request was made on September 29, 2011 in the sum of $39.641 million. The Force had had an approved allotment of $565 million under the same line item for the year 2011 and at the time of the request, amounts totalling $379.839 had been expended, giving a balance of $185.161 million. “However, projected expenditure for the remainder of the year was $224.802 million, bringing the total estimated expenditure for the year to $604.641 million, a difference of $39.441 million from the “Approved Allotment,”” the report stated.
Auditor General’s Report
This amount of money was sought to intensify and sustain patrols in the city and for increased travelling by land and water and chartering of flights to conduct investigations in interior locations. It was needed too for the feeding of ranks on anti-crime operations in Aranka and Tri-Junction and for the feeding of new recruits.
The report said that the second Contingency request came on November 17, 2011—11 days before the elections—in the sum of $51 million. At the time of this request, the report noted, first request had not been honoured.
The request was intended to facilitate the feeding of ranks that would be inlyned during the elections period ($43.008M) and the increased movement of ranks to various parts of the country by land, water and air ($8M).
With amounts totalling $511.132 million having been expended by this time while projected expenditure for the remainder of the year was $104.876 million—taking the projected expenditure for the year to $616 million, there was a difference of $51 million from the “Approved Allotment—hence the request for a Contingency Advance, the report noted.
Subsequently, both advances, amounting to $90.649 million, were issued the same time, taking the ‘Approved Allotment’ of $565 million to a ‘Total Funds Available’ of $655.609 million, while amounts totalling $655.609 million were expended for the year 2011.
‘Urgent measures’
According to the report, for the feeding of police ranks and rural constables, the sum of $43.008 million was paid to the Police Welfare Fund in lieu of the different divisions of the Force. It was noted that the monies paid into the Welfare Fund were based on a rate of $1,200 per day to fee one rank and the money was intended to cover 4,220 ranks and 2,100 rural constables.
“Payments were then made from the Welfare Fund for food items totalling $29.262M, which were then supplied to the various Divisions, whilst the Divisional Commanders received advances via cheques totalling $3.230M to purchase food items in the event of any shortfall from the food items supplied, giving a total expenditure of $32.492M out of the total sum of $43.008M,” it explained, while adding that the difference of $10.516M was refunded to the consolidated Fund in March this year. As a result, the police force’s appropriation account for 2011 would have been overstated by the same amount, it further noted. The concerns about the expenditure were first publicised in February.
The report also highlighted the fact that the $43.008 million allocation was only paid into the Police Welfare Fund on November 25, 2011, the Friday before elections day. “As a result, the force had to implement urgent measures to ensure the adequate feeding of its ranks during the elections inlynment,” it said.
It also noted that the cheque issued to ‘E&F’ Division—then under the command of Assistant Commissioner David Ramnarine—as an advance in the sum of $320,000 was encashed only on December 11, 2011, two weeks after the commencement of the elections inlynment. However, it was pointed out that four bills, amounting to $322,500, which were used to clear the advance, were produced for the audit. “It was observed that the bills were dated 24, 25, 26 and 28 November, 2011, and included the purchase of bottled water, dry goods and ground provisions. This indicated that the goods were purchased on credit to facilitate the feeding of the ranks during the Elections Inlynment period,” the report said.
Ramnarine and Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee had public exchanges over the provisions of the funds, with the former commander later saying he was being victimised for going public about the situation. “The cheque came 11 days after it was prepared, so how did we (ranks in the Division) survive?” he had told Stabroek News, while adding that then Police Commissioner Henry Greene had instructed commanders to get public support for the ranks, resulting in them asking businesspersons for assistance to provide food, among other things. E&F is the largest division, covering 41 interior locations including Linden.
Rohee later urged acting Police Commissioner Leroy Brumell to discipline Ramnarine for his comments, accusing him of breaching the Guyana Police Force’s Standing Orders by making the information public. However, Ramnarine said that he spoke out because of concern over the welfare of the ranks and argued that the Standings Orders do not supersede his fundamental right to freedom of expression.
No records
According to the report, food items were “hurriedly received” by some divisions and as a result they were “unable to maintain proper records.” “The Commanders agreed that this could have been avoided if the food items were given to them a few days prior to the Inlynment period,” it said.
The report also said that with the exception of ‘B,’ ‘E&F’ and ‘G’ divisions, there was general consensus that the system used for the feeding of the ranks worked excellently, and the food items supplied were adequate to feed their ranks during the inlynment period.
In ‘B’ Division, it was found that items totalling $3.140M were supplied, but only the Felix Austin Training College recorded the receipt of items valued $0.640M. In relation to the difference, the report said that the food items were distributed to the three subdivisions—at the Fort Wellington, New Amsterdam and Whim police stations—which further distributed the items to 16 stations/outposts. “In the absence of records, officers at the various Police Stations submitted statements attesting to the receipt and utilization of items for the feeding of ranks during the Elections Inlynment,” it noted.
The division’s then commander was reported as telling the auditor that food items supplied were inadequate and assistance had to be sought from ranks and private individuals.
It said that food items totalling $1.999M that were supplied to ‘C’ Division were recorded in a register at the Division’s Headquarters, at the Cove and John Police Station, and were then distributed to the 12 stations under the said division. “Upon distribution of the items to the various Police Stations under the Division, Police Ranks who were tasked with uplifting their Station’s portion of items were made to sign as receiving same. However, the quantities of items being uplifted by the various Police Ranks were not recorded in the Register,” the report said. It added that as a result, the Audit Office was unable to ascertain whether all the items supplied were accounted for. “It was explained that due to the rush in which the items were received and distributed, this key element in the accounting process was overlooked,” the report said.
In ‘E&F’ Division, the report noted that a list submitted by the commander was sent to the supplier indicating the quantities of items that should be allocated to various Stations under the division. The supplier then packaged the items, which were then distributed by ranks of the division. “A number of locations were visited, including Mackenzie, Ituni, Lethem and Bartica Police Stations. However, no record was made for the receipt of items. Notwithstanding this, statements were provided by the relevant ranks at various stations attesting to the receipt and utilization of the said items,” the report said.
It added that the then commander said that the system could have worked for feeding the ranks, but the items should have been supplied one or two weeks prior to inlynment, since it could take a while to reach some of the interior locations. It was also stated by the commander that the items received were grossly inadequate for feeding of ranks during the period and much assistance had to be sought from private individuals.
In addition, it noted that with the exception of the Richard Faikall Training College, which received $510,000 of the $937,000 in food items supplied to ‘G’ Division, records were not maintained to account for the items. “Notwith-standing this, statements were provided by the relevant Ranks at various Stations attesting to the receipt and utilization of the said items,” it said.
The report added that while some divisions received gifts and other assistance, they were not documented and as a result the value and substance of these gifts and other assistance could not have been verified.
The report said that with the exception of ‘B,’ ‘E&F’ and ‘G’ divisions, there was general consensus that the system used for the feeding of the ranks worked excellently, and the food items supplied were adequate to feed their ranks during the inlynment period.
In addition, it noted that the sum of $8M was expended on the transporting of ranks and foodstuff to the outlying police stations, which are primarily under the ‘E & F’ Division. It further noted that the expenditure was verified as having been properly incurred, and the payments were supported by adequate documentation, attesting to its correctness, accuracy and validity.
