About a week ago, the ruling party placed an advertisement in the Kaieteur News highlighting an article in the Guyana Chronicle dating back to November 1992. In that article, the newspaper had reported on the comments I had made on certain accountability issues of concern at the time. While under normal circumstances I would have no difficulty with the publication of what I said some 22 years ago, this is an electioneering period. As such, we should be guarded against involving independent-minded professional persons in the race to gain political office.
I note also that the article in question is an identical copy of a press clipping from a file I had maintained in the Audit Office at the time. It therefore means that someone from the Audit Office with access to that file forwarded a copy of the clipping to the ruling party. This is unprofessional and can compromise the independence of that Office.
Marriott Hotel
The Marriott Hotel, financed from taxpayers’ funds through the illegal and unconstitutional diversion of state revenues into the coffers of NICIL, officially opened its doors for business last Thursday. There was much fanfare, with members of the ruling party, invited guests, the diplomatic corps and officials of Marriott International in attendance to celebrate the occasion. On the other hand, the political Opposition and concerned citizens stayed away and/or mounted a protest outside of the hotel. There was also an unprecedented level of police presence for an event of this nature, and the surrounding area was cordoned off to keep away uninvited guests.
From the very inception, the construction of the hotel was mired in controversy. To begin with, there was no Parliamentary approval of a project of this size, considering that public resources were used. This is a serious constitutional violation that undermines the role of the Legislature to approve of all public expenditure. Then, there is the justifiable argument that the Government had other priorities to attend to, such the restoration of Georgetown to its former glory of the “Garden City of the Caribbean”, upgrading the neglected and run-down University of Guyana, creating employment opportunities for youths, providing for greater citizens’ security, and improving our healthcare system, among others. The construction of a Marriott-type hotel should therefore have been left for the private sector to consider and to undertake if it so desires. As it now stands, public funds of approximately US$60 million are at risk, should the operations of the hotel turn out not to be viable.
There is evidence that the decision to construct the hotel was taken before a proper feasibility study was carried out. While the Administration was quick to point out that such a study was undertaken, the public is yet to be convinced that the study pre-dates the decision and whether the results of the study indicate a profitable venture with long-term viability and sustainability. One recalls the Government’s involvement in the construction of the then Buddy’s International Hotel mainly through the grant of a loan of $169 million. The hotel was a huge failure and was eventually sold off. However, it is unclear whether the owners had repaid the loan to the Government.
Other issues relate to what knowledgeable persons consider to be the high cost of construction; the failure to provide elected representatives and hence the public with important information about the project; the lack of transparency and competitiveness in the award of contracts throughout the construction period; and the failure to adhere to the Government’s procurement rules. When one reflects on the cumulative effect of the various violations and controversies, one is hard-pressed to conclude that the grand opening of the Marriott Hotel was an occasion for rejoicing. Should the ruling party be defeated at the 11 May 2015 polls, the future of the hotel is uncertain. It could be that the hotel will have to be sold off to recover as much public funds as possible to be used for areas of government that are in dire need of funding.
The involvement of the Marriott International should also be questioned in that it ought to have been aware of the constitutional and legislative violations, including the Administration’s refusal to involve the Legislature as well as the latter’s request for a forensic audit of NICIL, the agency that funded the construction costs of the hotel. To compound matters, Marriott’s officials participated fully in an event that was timed to take place within days of the national elections. As it now stands, the international hotel brand is a complicit party, and as the owner of Pegasus suggested, it could be investigated in the United States.
Marriott International should have done what Sithe Global did in relation to the aborted Amaila Falls Hydropower Project. It should have disassociated itself from the project once it became aware of various violations and illegalities in the use of public resources and the lack of political consensus in relation to the construction of the hotel. Or was the lure to earn handsome profits from the use of its brand name greater than what is considered the morally and ethically right thing to do?
Diaspora outreach
A delegation from the ruling party reportedly visited the United States and Canada in what the party described as a diaspora outreach, financed by the State and with the approval of the Cabinet. However, for all intents and purposes, the visit was part of that party’s electioneering campaign. As such, the financing of the visits constitutes an abuse of state resources and creates an unlevelled playing field vis-ẚ-vis other political parties contesting the elections. Included in the delegation were that party’s Prime Ministerial candidate and the former President, both of whom currently have no locus standi in relation to the operations of government, notwithstanding that the latter was named to head the yet-to-be established National Economic Council.
When questioned on the use of state funds, the Head of Presidential Secretariat (HPS) flippantly responded that the Cabinet has decided on the matter and that any concerns should be referred to the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. Every so often, this official has been giving the impression that the Cabinet is above the law and the Constitution and that its decisions ought not to be questioned. Suffice it to state that the Cabinet is only the decision-making arm of the Executive responsible for implementing the wishes of Legislature, the highest decision-making body of the State. The HPS is also aware that the Auditor General has never questioned a decision of the Cabinet and therefore the matter is unlikely to be reflected in his report. As regards any enquiry by the PAC, it should be noted that this Committee relies on the Auditor General’s reports as the basis for its examination of the public accounts. To the extent that there are no comments from the Auditor General, the PAC is unlikely to look into the matter. Besides, the PAC’s work is significantly in arrears, its last report being in respect of 2009.
Purchase of drugs and medical supplies
The HPS recently announced that the Cabinet has approved of the award of a contract valued at US$6 million for the supply of drugs and medical supplies for the Ministry of Health and the Georgetown Hospital. He, however, declined to name the company which was awarded the contract and what procedures were followed leading up to the award.
In November 2013, the Government had advertised for the pre-qualification of contractors for the supply of drugs and medical supplies for the period 2014-2016. The criteria to be used in the pre-qualification exercise were found to be biased in favour of a local pharmaceutical company with close ties with the Administration. This company has been supplying some 75 per cent of the Government’s requirements over the last ten years.
When the results of the pre-qualification was announced, it did not come as a surprise that the local pharmaceutical company was deemed to be the only supplier to have met the pre-qualification criteria. This prompted one of the unsuccessful bidders to protest the Government’s decision and to seek judicial intervention. At the time of writing, the matter was still pending in the Courts. Since essential drugs and medical supplies have to be acquired, in all probability the local pharmaceutical company would have continued supplying the Government with these items.
This episode highlights the need for the urgent establishment of the Public Procurement Commission to provide the much-needed oversight of the public procurement process. Regrettably, for 14 years, the Administration stubbornly resisted all attempts to have the Commission activated because it does not want to relinquish the role of the Cabinet in the procurement process. Had the Commission been in place, it would have been unlikely that the stalemate with regard to the procurement of drugs and medical supplies would have existed. In all of this, it is the taxpayer who has to foot the bill for any additional costs associated with the failure to ensure that a transparent and effective competitive bidding system is in place and an independent assessment of the bids is carried out against objective criteria.
