Last week, we discussed the financial accountability of Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs), which is in a complete state of disarray. In total, 52 NDCs, representing 80 per cent of NDCs, did not have audited accounts for the last five years of which 18 entities have also never produced audited accounts since they were established in 1994. This sorrowful state of affairs is attributable mainly to the failure of:
* The NDCs to honour their obligations to ensure timely financial reporting of how the funds received from the Treasury as well as from residents in the form of rates and taxes, have been utilised;
* The Ministry of Local Government, headed by two Cabinet Ministers and assisted by two former Ministers of Local Government, whose responsibility it is to oversee the operations of the NDCs;
* The Audit Office for the apparent laissez-faire attitude in not ensuring the timely audit of NDCs and the issuance of the related reports; and
* Our parliamentarians to demand proper and timely accountability for funds previously approved as subsidies to the NDCs before any new allocations are granted.
We also examined the preparations for the 2014 National Budget and we stated that in view of the present configuration of the National Assembly and in order to ensure the smooth passage of the estimates, commonsense would dictate that there should be meaningful consultations with the combined Opposition during the preparation of the estimates. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened, and from all appearances, we are heading for a third consecutive year of serious disagreements over allocations for government programmes and projects, and possible budget cuts. In addition, we reviewed the Court ruling on the 2012 budget cuts and we noted that there was an apparent misreading on the ruling, resulting in unauthorized expenditure totalling $1.797 billion being incurred for the years 2012 and 2013. This is a significant blemish in the history of public accountability in Guyana, perhaps second to the gap in public accountability at the national level during the period 1982 to 1991.
Public Procurement Commission
The appointment of the long-awaited members of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) seems to be moving somewhat, notwithstanding the stand-off between the combined Opposition and the Government over Cabinet’s involvement in the procurement process. In the absence of nominations from the Government’s side, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decided to advertise publicly for organizations and individuals to nominate persons who they consider to suitable for appointment to the Commission. Article 212 X (1) of the Constitution stipulates the qualifications required for a member of the PPC. He/she must have expertise and experience in procurement, legal, financial and administrative matters. This is a tall order to identify persons from such varied backgrounds.
I had suggested to the Chairman of the PAC that we should refrain from requesting parties political parties to submit nominees, as this will politicize the Commission in addition to not having the best persons for the job. His reaction was this was necessary in view of the requirement to obtain the approval of two-thirds of the voting members of the National Assembly. I am glad that the PAC has decided to open the process to the public, though I would have preferred the advertisement to be extended to suitably qualified Guyanese living overseas who may be interested in returning home to serve on the Commission. I am nevertheless confident that once there is a fair and impartial system for assessing the applications, short-listing, interviewing and selection, the National Assembly will have no basis for not approving the candidates recommended.
I should emphasise that the PPC will not be responsible for awarding contracts. Rather, it oversees the whole procurement process to ensure that “the procurement of goods, services and the execution of works are conducted in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective manner according to law and such policy guidelines as may be determined by the National Assembly”. It is only when a dispute arises that the PPC intervenes, and its decisions are subject to appeals to the yet-to-be established Public Procurement Commission Tribunal with further appeals to the Court of Appeal. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform also has a role to play to “continually review the operations of and the need for existing commissions …” There are therefore adequate safeguards to ensure that the PPC functions in a manner consistent with its constitutional mandate.
I also note that the advertisement for nominations to the PPC indicated that the positions will be part-time. With more than 70 per cent of our national budget (approximately $140 billion) going towards public procurement, one might legitimately ask whether this is the right model. Should it not be a full-time body or one which has a combination of full-time and part-time members? For example, the seven-person National Procurement and Tender Administration Board has a full-time chairman and a vice-chairman. There will definitely be additional cost for a mixed arrangement but I believe that the benefits will outweigh the additional cost. The PAC may therefore wish to revisit the issue.
Integrity Commission
One of the requirements of an effective system of public accountability is for mechanisms to be in place to guard against illicit gains through the abuse or misuse of power by those in position of authority. One such measure is for there to be a system of annual declaration of assets and liabilities of senior public officials, including Ministers and other Members of Parliament. Guyana has provision for such a system in place through the passing of the Integrity Commission Act of 1997 to monitor and review such declarations, and to promulgate a code of ethics. However, the reality of the situation is that for some time now the Commission has not been functioning, especially since the resignation of Bishop George in 2005.
While progress is being made: (a) to tighten our anti-money laundering and combating of terrorist financing legislation to avoid illicit gains being channelled into these two areas; and (b) to enhance our public procurement system to minimize the extent to which corruption is perceived to take place in the award of public contracts, we are yet to see movement as regards a fully functioning and effective Integrity Commission. Regrettably, our politicians have placed the operations of this important constitutional body on the backburner. Is it a question of not wanting to have their annual declarations properly scrutinized?
A few months ago, we (Transparency Institute Guyana Inc.) had a meeting with a Finnish official, and we asked the question: Why is it that the Scandinavian countries always score high marks on the Corruption Perceptions Index? She made it clear that these countries have a rigorous system of declaration of assets and liabilities and that in the case of Finland such declarations are made public. I might add that upon assuming office, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a public declaration in this regard. Here in Guyana, we are required to make declarations to a non-existent Commission! Are we really serious about transparency and fighting corruption?
One hopes that the authorities will get their act together and have the three-person Commission in place as early as possible. Once the Commissioners are appointed, adequate resources should be provided to enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. In this regard, investigative capacity is of paramount importance, given the unexplained wealth that is being flaunted in front of the eyes of the public by many public and private sector actors. It would be interesting to learn what these persons and business entities declare to the Guyana Revenue Authority as income/expenditure and assets/liabilities, and to what extent investigations are carried out and/or arbitrary assessments done. In South Africa, it is called lifestyle audits.
Public Service Appellate Tribunal
Recourse to appealing decisions made by institutions in relation to the appointment, discipline and removal of employees is a long-standing practice among governments and international institutions. Article 215A of the Constitution establishes the Public Service Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals “…in respect of any matter so specified, being a matter in respect of which the Public Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission, and the Police Service Commission or the Commissioner of Police is empowered to make a decision”.
With over 22,000 authorised positions falling under the jurisdiction of the three Service Commissions, it is conceivable that some officers will have grievances regarding the decisions of these bodies. The Tribunal, however, has not been in place since August 1995. As a result, aggrieved public officers seeking redress had no alternative than to petition the Courts in the form of a civil action. This is not only expensive in terms of legal costs but the matter could also take years to be brought to a satisfactory closure, given the backlog of cases to be handled by the Courts. Now that an Ombudsman is in place, one hopes that his services will be utilized if employees feel aggrieved by the decisions of any of these Commissions.
Approximately 20 per cent of the workforce of the Public Service comprises contracted employees enjoying superior salaries and other benefits and allowances compared with those in the traditional Service. The Public Service Commission is, however, not involved in their recruitment, and there is no word of protest from this important constitutional body. There is also no evidence that competitive recruitment procedures are being followed in the selection of these persons. In such a situation, employees in the traditional Public Service are likely to have grievances in relation to contracted employees. Then, there is the issue of retaining hand-picked officials beyond their retirement thereby stifling upward mobility within a government agency. Examples of this practice abound.
One hopes that there will be some degree of urgency to activate the Public Service Appellate Tribunal to avoid the continuation of a 17-year breach of the Constitution. An activated Tribunal is likely to take off a significant portion of the workload from the Ombudsman.
