The Auditor General’s report up to 2011 did not reflect any irregularities in the now suspended multi-billion dollar fibre-optic cable project, according to Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Carl Greenidge, who says there is no basis to blame the committee for not flagging problems before.
“The AG’s report devoted, in each of the three years, descriptive paragraphs which were largely repetitive and in no case suggested that there was anything untoward as regards the contracts awarded, arrangements for payments or lags in relation to output or deadlines,” Greenidge told Stabroek News.
The project has come in for sharp criticisms from the public both here and in the diaspora, the opposition, analysts and Information Technology experts, with some saying the PAC and the opposition were not being as vigilant in monitoring the state’s accounting of the project as they should have been
“Those responsible for decisions relating to the execution of the project as well as for monitoring it have failed us immensely,” former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran has said.
The project to lay a fibre-optic cable from Brazil to Georgetown to vastly expand internet bandwidth came back into sharp focus in early December last year, when Stabroek News reported that government officials had gone quiet on the project, which had missed many deadlines.
Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon later acknowledged that his government’s flagship ICT project needed “remedial work,” but failed to mention that it had been suspended.
That announcement was made quietly in the December 12 edition of the Guyana Times by the Project Manager Alexei Ramotar, who had not been available to Stabroek News to discuss the state of the project.
Local and international fibre-optic experts have said that salvaging the 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.
City businessman and former Head of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) Clinton Urling said he was disturbed over the secretive manner in which announcements were made about the project. He said the revelation by Ramotar also came as a “huge surprise” to those who had keenly followed the progress of the project
“It is both disturbing and disappointing to read that the fibre-optic cable component of the E-Govern-ment Project has been suspended since November 2013 due to faulty installation that now requires remedial work. Why only now are we made aware of this? And who would be held accountable for the flop?” he questioned.
Goolsarran, after thorough analysis, has recommended that the programme be put on hold pending a forensic audit and a value-for-money assessment carried out and the results made available.
He says this is needed to ascertain whether any financial impropriety has occurred and to determine if the financial resources made available to the programme have been employed in an economical, efficient and effective manner; and whether actual outputs, outcomes and impact are commensurate with those planned.
Intention
Greenidge defended works done by the body, saying that for the years that it scrutinised the AG’s reports on the project there was no mention made of flaws.
“Until the prorogation of the Assembly, the PAC had completed its examination of the expenditure on the fibre-optic cable and the two related projects up to 2011. It did so by reviewing and following up the report of the AG for the years 2009 to 2011. The intention of such examinations is to first ascertain whether the monies have been spent in accordance with the approval by the Assembly under the Appropriation Act,” Greenidge explained.
Further, he said while Goolsarran should be commended for his investigations into the matter, especially for reminding the public that although the project has been halted the repayment of the loan begins next year until 2020, blaming the PAC and parliamentarians for the monumental waste of monies on the project was not justified.
He stressed that blame for the waste of resources should be levelled at the Office of the President, the project execution body, and by extension the government. “I find this particular comment suggesting negligence by the PAC and responsibility for wasting taxpayer’s money very odd. The primary and main responsibility for waste should be laid at the door of the OP and PPP government itself. They spent the money,” he asserted.
He said too that if the project is misconceived, it is neither the fault of the PAC nor its mandate to remedy it.
“After the fact, it is quite easy to accuse an agency of not doing its work. To be taken seriously he needs to say what specifically he believes the PAC had the power to do and failed to do. The PAC is not a management arm of the state; it reviews expenditure after the fact. If there are financial improprieties, the first ’policeman’ is the Office of the Auditor General (AG). The failure by the AG to pick up a problem does not of course mean that the PAC cannot do so but it does suggest that they alone cannot be blamed,” he added.
“I believe that Mr. Goolsarran’s criticism may be premature if not misdirected. It is premature because we have not yet come to the year at issue. If he is concerned about the question of the prudence or wisdom of starting on the project in the first place, that is not an issue that the PAC is really mandated with addressing although it may comment or offer a view. In the event that it would wish to offer a view, it would normally do so on the basis of a value-for-money audit. However, if the department of audit has difficulty dealing with the massive administrative and accounting lapses that characterise our public accounts they are hardly likely to be in a position to undertake many value-for-money audits let alone do so convincingly,” he further said.
Greenidge pointed out that the types of concerns thrown up by the project cannot all be solved by the PAC. “Poorly conceived projects, investments intended to benefit the cronies of the president, etcetera, have by their complexity to be tackled on several fronts. A budget office would be an asset in such circumstances but most of all the Assembly has to be able to rely on the government providing information that is accurate. PM (Sam) Hinds’ answer to a written question put by Mr. (Joseph) Harmon on this project, far from suggesting there was a problem, gave the impression that the project was on track,” he further noted.
