Last week, we began a discussion of our country’s performance on governance, transparency and accountability in 2014. We were able to cover two items, namely the prorogation of Parliament; and the holding of local government elections. However, before discussing other items, we should pause to reflect on some of the sentiments recently expressed on these two issues.
Statements from the diplomatic
community and other stakeholders
The outgoing British High Commissioner spoke out against the prorogation of Parliament which he felt is not in keeping with the Commonwealth Charter and which puts Guyana at risk of being referred to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. He considered Parliament the central pillar of democracy and stated that without it there is no parliamentary oversight of development assistance. “Clearly the appetite to send money to a country that has no parliamentary oversight is much reduced”, the High Commissioner asserted. For these and other related comments, the Administration rewarded the High Commissioner with a milder version of the “feral blast” that it had invoked on former US Ambassador. The Administration considered the High Commissioner as “terribly dishonourable” and a “pariah”, and accordingly it eagerly looked forward to his early departure from Guyana!
Earlier, the UK Foreign Office Minister issued a statement reiterating the UK’s call for the end to the prorogation. The Minister stated that, with the suspension of Parliament, an essential element of a functioning democracy has been put on hold. He also expressed concern that the failure to hold local government elections is contrary to the democratic principles of the Commonwealth Charter and our own Constitution. Accordingly, he called on all stakeholders to seek solutions to the challenges facing us so that the country can develop in a “fair, democratic and equitable way”.
At its recent meeting, CARICOM’s Community Council of Ministers issued a statement asserting that the prorogation of the Guyana Parliament did not constitute a breach of the Commonwealth Charter and was in keeping with the provisions of the Guyana Constitution. In an obvious response to the British High Commissioner’s statement, the Council “underscored the need for the respect of diplomatic proprieties and for adherence to the principles of non-interference in the domestic affairs of Member States”. But is not the first statement a contradiction of the second one? One only needs to drop the word “not” appearing before “constitute” and insert it before the words “in keeping”, to notice the contradiction!
The Trade Union Congress responded swiftly to CARICOM’s statement by asserting that “… the Council’s response to this situation smacks at contempt for the citizens and their institutions. Their reaction to this grave matter of national, regional and international import confirms the cynicism of the region’s citizens as to the quality of leadership their governments are prepared to deliver”. Dubbing CARICOM’s statement as hypocritical, self-serving and reeking in double standards, the TUC contended that:
In the apparent focus to satisfy an immediate self-serving interest, it eluded CARICOM to examine the consequences of the repressive act of proroguing parliament. It was ignored that CARICOM subscribes to the principles that good governance can only be considered when the citizens’ Rights and Freedoms are respected and safeguarded, and all branches of government and constitutional institutions are in place and are allowed to work. These principles are not only adumbrated in the Commonwealth Charter, they are also ensconced in the CARICOM Charter of Civil Society. CARICOM can best serve the interest of the Region’s people by speaking and acting in conformity with its Charter of Civil Society.
The US Embassy Chargé d’Affaires considered it unfortunate that local government elections have not been held for 17 years. He considered that it would be a wonderful opportunity for citizens to have a direct say in how their local communities are run. In his earlier statement on the prorogation of Parliament, the Chargé d’Affaires was very circumspect when he said that the primary focus should be on moving towards free and fair elections, no doubt smarting from the treatment meted out to the former US Ambassador.
Estimates of Revenue and
Expenditure for 2014
The next most significant setback in 2014 relates to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. There were no consultations with the combined Opposition before the budget was presented in the Assembly. Commonsense would have dictated that such consultations should have taken place to ensure the smooth passage of the budget, given that the Opposition holds the majority in the Assembly. The Chief Justice had earlier ruled that the Assembly could only approve or disapprove of the budget as presented but could not amend it. Given this constraint, the Opposition pleaded with the Administration to separate out the items that it was not supportive of, so that the rest of the budget could enjoy smooth passage. The Administration refused to do so, and the Assembly disapproved of some $36.747 billion.
Included in the figure were provisions for the cost of certain essential services. The Opposition had suggested that these be disaggregated and brought back separately to the Assembly for approval by way of a supplementary estimate, with the assurance of support for this estimate. Regrettably, the Administration declined to do so, and the Minister proceeded to authorize withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to restore parts of the original budget.
In June 2014, the Minister presented to the Assembly a statement of excess expenditure totalling $4.554 billion as a result of the withdrawals made for the cost of the essential services that the Assembly disapproved. So, we have a situation where: (a) the Assembly disapproves of certain proposed items of expenditure; (b) the Minister goes ahead and authorizes expenditure against the wishes of the Assembly; and (c) the Minister then submits a request to the very Assembly to approve the related expenditure! How does the Minister expect the Assembly to react? Does the Minister have the authority to set aside the decision of the Assembly which is reflected in an Act of Parliament, namely the Appropriation Act of 2014? Does the Constitution allow him to do so? These are matters that are currently engaging the attention of the Court, and since they are sub judice, we must refrain from any further comments.
It is, however, not inappropriate for us to refer to the statement of the Head of the Presidential Secretariat indicating that that the European Union (EU) has put on hold its agreement on budgetary support for Guyana, no doubt because of the above pending Court matter. For the longest while, the EU has been providing such support, especially in relation to sea defences and the sugar industry.
Non-establishment of the Public
Procurement Commission
In 2001, the Constitution was amended to provide for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission to provide the necessary oversight 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”. This amendment came about because of persistent criticisms from the Auditor General of widespread breaches in the Tender Board Regulations, especially as regards the evaluation of tenders, contract splitting, over-payment to contractors, defective work performed, and the absence of performance bonds. In addition, many stakeholders believed that the system in place did not provide them with the degree of assurance as to the fairness and transparency in the award of contracts.
Once the Commission is established, the role of the Cabinet in giving its “no objection” to the award of contracts in excess of G$15 million either ceases or is progressively phased out. However, until such time that this happens, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) assumes the responsibilities of the Commission. NPTAB, however, lacks the desired level of independence since the Minister of Finance appoints five out of the seven members in his own deliberate judgment; while the remaining two members are appointed based on consultations with the private sector representatives. In addition, the NPTAB reports to the Minister who is a key member of the Cabinet.
This is the 14th year since the Constitution was amended but there is no Commission in place. This is because the Administration does not want to give up the Cabinet’s involvement in the procurement process. As a result, the abuses and violations continue unabated. The most glaring example relates to the pre-qualification for the supply of drugs and medical supplies to the Ministry of Health and the Georgetown Hospital. It is public knowledge that the evaluation criteria were biased in favour of a particular supplier. Several other contracts that were awarded ran into difficulties, the most notable being for the design and construction of the Specialty Hospital. This contract was terminated because of unsatisfactory performance and allegations that false documents were presented to substantiate the execution of the performance bond. It is uncertain whether the US$4.2 million will be recovered from the contractor. Other contracts that ran into difficulty in 2014 include the East Coast Demerara Road Project, the Leonora Synthetic Racetrack and the East Bank Demerara Road Project.
To be continued –
