Thus far, $13.7 billion has been spent on government’s floundering Information Communica-tions Technology (ICT) programme including the troubled fibre-optic cable project with little to show for it, former Auditor-General Anand Goolsarran says.
“It is clear that the funds earmarked for the government’s ICT programme have been fully exhausted. However, the main objective of advancing “fully into e-government mode, hooking up our schools and our police stations and everything else so that we can deploy technology in the service of our people,” as stated by the former President (Bharrat Jagdeo), is far from its realization and remains a dream unfulfilled,” Goolsarran wrote in his Stabroek News column which appears today.
“Those responsible for decisions relating to the execution of the project as well as for monitoring it have failed us immensely. They have left us not only without any meaningful tangible assets for the expenditure incurred but also a huge debt burden that future generations will have to repay,” he declared while adding that many of those responsible may not be around to witness the completion of the loan repayment.
The ICT programme has three main components: installation of a fibre optic network from Georgetown to Lethem; installation and commissioning of wireless and terrestrial network system from Moleson Creek to Anna Regina; and the One Laptop per Family Programme.
It came back into sharp focus earlier this month when Stabroek News reported that government officials had gone quiet on the fibre-optic cable project which had missed many deadlines. Subsequently, Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon acknowledged that the project which was supposed to vastly expand internet bandwidth, needed “remedial work” but failed to mention that it had been suspended.
That announcement was quietly made in the December 12 edition of the Guyana Times by the Project Manager Alexei Ramotar who had not been available to Stabroek News for several weeks to discuss the state of the project.
Goolsarran, in his column, blazed the Minister of Finance and Office of the President for their silence on the issue and only speaking when pressured to do so. “In his budget presentation for these two years (2013 and 2014), the Minister of Finance spoke glowingly about the Government’s ICT programme without the slightest hint that there was a problem with the laying of cables along the Georgetown – Lethem route,” he said. “It is also incomprehensible that the Office of the President chose to remain silent on what the government considers its flagship programme until pressured to do so some two years later,” he added.
Experts have said that salvaging the multi-billion dollar fibre-optic cable project will be costly and will require government to be frank about key attributes of the project which may in turn expose poor decision-making.
The main opposition A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) feels the project should be put on hold until a comprehensive assessment is carried out and then a decision should be made on its future. The party believes that the project, the brainchild of the Jagdeo administration, was mired in inefficiencies from its onset and spokesman Joe Harmon believes that government must suspend it pending the recommendations of expert fibre optic analysts.
Goolsarran said that based on public audited accounts up to 2012 and using figures from the 2014 Estimates of Expenditure for 2013 and 2014, it has been determined that $13.707 billion has been spent thus far on the project.
He said that it is clear that funds earmarked for the ICT programme have been fully exhausted. “The entire loan and grant resources provided by the China Export Import Bank have been drawn down and expended. The loan is repayable, inclusive of interest, in 31 equal semi-annual installments. Commencing March 2017 and ending September 2032,” he said.
“The issue of whether value-for-money has been achieved for this massive expenditure in terms of outputs, outcomes and impact, requires serious reflection on the part of our elected representatives. Collectively, through the budget process over the last five years, they have committed public resources to the project which from all appearances, and in the considered view of experts on fibre optic networks, is now in serious jeopardy,” he asserted.
He said that unlike the previous three years, the Estimates for 2013 and 2014 did not include reference to work on the fibre-optic cable project which suggests that the project might have been suspended sometime in 2012. “Did our parliamentarians not notice this in their consideration of the estimates” Goolsarran questioned.
He also highlighted that there were breaches of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. “An amount of $353.549 million was provided by way of a Supplementary Estimate for the installation of fibre optic cables and terminal equipment. The full amount was shown as having been expended. However, no expenditure was incurred during the course of the year, and according to the Auditor General’s report, four cheques were drawn on 31 December 2009 and deposited into an account at a commercial bank to meet expenditure on two contracts,” he said.
“What the report failed to mention, however, was that the withdrawal of funds on the last day of the fiscal year, i.e. 31 December, to meet expenditure to be incurred some three to four months into the new fiscal year, is a breach of Section 26 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMA) Act. This section states that “Except as provided for in this Act, every appropriation of public moneys authorized by Parliament for a fiscal year shall lapse and cease to have any effect as at the end of that fiscal year.” This is reinforced by Section 31 (3) which prohibits the payment of public moneys unless the works undertaken or goods/services supplied are in conformity with the related contract or other agreement,” the former Auditor-General pointed out.
He said that as at December 31, 2009, there was no contract in force relating to installation of the fibre optic cables and terminal equipment, and therefore the amount of $353.5 million should have been returned to the Consolidated Fund as is required by Section 43 of the FMA Act, instead of being paid into a commercial bank and charged as expenditure for 2009.
“Indeed, the practice of withdrawing moneys from a public bank account and placing them in a commercial bank to meet future expenditure, is a serious violation of the FMA Act and a manipulation of the accounting system. Neither the Auditor General nor the Public Accounts Committee saw it fit to raise this as a matter of serious concern,” he asserted while also highlighting a similar breach the following year.
