Former Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran yesterday said that Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira was wrong when she identified him as one of three persons who came up with an amendment to the 2003 Procurement Bill phasing out the role of Cabinet in the award of contracts.
“This is such an audacious distortion of the truth that it reminds me of the instance in May 2010 when Ms. Teixeira told the UN’s Universal Periodic Review in Geneva that 15 year old Twyon Thomas, who had been tortured by the police, had been compensated. Upon her return to Guyana she denied saying so until she was confronted with a verbatim transcript of the webcast which she tried unsuccessfully to explain away,” Ramkarran said in a letter to Stabroek News. (See page 6.)
The former Speaker was responding to an article in the Sunday Stabroek which reported Teixeira, who is also the PPP/C parliamentary chief whip, as saying that an amendment in 2003 to the 2003 Procurement Bill phasing out the role of Cabinet had not been approved by the then government and this was why a change to the Act was now being sought. Teixeira made the surprise revelation to the Sunday Stabroek when asked to defend the contradiction between the government’s position in 2003 and its recent announcement – 10 years after the Act had been signed into law – that it wanted to preserve a role for Cabinet in public procurement.
Government wants Cabinet to retain a no-objection role in public procurement under the yet-to-be constituted Public Procurement Commission (PPC), a departure from their position a decade ago during the debate of the Procurement Bill 2003, when they said Cabinet’s role would “fade away” once the Commission fructifies
“In the midst of the debate there was a sidebar with the Speaker [Ralph Ramkarran], Winston Murray [of the PNCR] and Attorney General Doodnauth Singh. They then came with an amendment [for the Bill]. Government ministers did not recognise nor did they know of the meeting,” Teixeira told the Sunday Stabroek. “Government had no choice but to proceed with the Bill,” she said. “That amendment was not approved either by Cabinet or by the President,” she said. “The original contents of the Bill are what was negotiated. The changes that came after were not approved,” she said.
Teixeira said that a clause in the Bill prior to the amendment being tabled gave government the power to give a no-objection to contracts above $16 million. The amendment was moved by then Finance Minister Saisnarine Kowlessar and sought to insert a new subsection to clause 54. That clause read: “Cabinet’s involvement under this section shall cease upon the constitution of the Public Procurement Commis-sion.”
Yesterday, noting Teixeira’s comments, Ramkarran said that he never had any role in the business of the Government while Speaker. “I could not attempt such a role as it was beyond my jurisdiction. But, even if I were minded to do so, I dared not. I had the greatest difficulty managing the Parliament’s business without persistent Government interference, much of it inspired by Ms. Teixeira, much less being permitted to meddle in Govern-ment’s business in a Jagdeo administration, which would be considered as nothing short of heresy,” he said.
The former Speaker recalled that during the debate on the Procurement Bill in 2003, the PNCR bitterly opposed a no-objection role for the Cabinet which was in the Bill. “While the debate was in progress Messrs. Murray and Singh came up to the Speaker’s Chair to ask if I would agree to a suspension of the proceedings in order to discuss a way forward. I agreed. A formal request was then made and I suspended the sitting. Messrs Murray, Singh, the then Minister of Finance and Mr. Cecil Durjhon, the Chief Parlia-mentary Draughtsman, and a few others who I do not now remember, had discussions for about an hour while the Parliament was suspended. I was not present at that meeting or any similar meeting,” Ramkarran wrote.
He recounted that Parliament was then meeting at the Ocean View Hotel where the private facilities were limited. “The discussions took place in a room in public view of all MPs, staff and any members of the public who might have been present. It is most extraordinary that Ms. Teixeira recalls what she refers to as the ‘sidebar’ meeting of not more than a minute but does not recall the hour long discussions. Even more astonishing is the implied suggestion that the ‘sidebar’ meeting while Parliament was in session produced a complicated amendment, which the Government did not know about, but which at least three Ministers supported in debate and the entire PPP side voted for,” Ramkarran wrote.
He recalled that when Parliament resumed the amendment was presented at the appropriate time but not before at least then Ministers Shaik Baksh, Saisnarine Kowlessar and Manzoor Nadir commended the proposed amendment to phase out Cabinet’s no objection when the Public Procurement was established. “It has to be assumed that they were speaking for the Government/ Cabinet. And the entire Government side, including Ms. Teixeira, voted for the Bill which included the amendment,” the former Speaker noted.
He questioned that if the “Government ministers did not recognise nor did they know of the meeting” in which he allegedly participated, as claimed by Teixeira, why did they not seek an adjournment of the debate? “If they subsequently realised that it was a mistake, why did they not introduce legislation to amend the Procurement Act during these past ten years? And why is it for ten years the PPP remained silent and only now speaks, when public pressure for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission is intensifying,” Ramkarran questioned.
“Ms. Teixeira’s accusation against me of plotting against the Government, because that is what it is, is a most disgraceful falsehood, but as with the case of the compensation for the torture victim, Twyon Thomas, is well within character,” he said.
