At Thursday’s sitting of Parliament, questions by PPP/C MP Dr Frank Anthony on spending for the inauguration of President David Granger were answered in writing by Minister in the Ministry of Education, Nicolette Henry. Answered would be a charitable way to refer to the responses as Minister Henry made no effort at all to provide information. Her response was pure obfuscation, studied indifference and feigned ignorance.
If this is the manner in which the APNU+AFC administration intends to treat serious questions in the hallowed legislature then there is a yawning chasm between what it has promised and what it is now delivering in terms of transparency. It is advisable that its Chief Whip immediately hold a crisis meeting for the governing MPs along with a crash course on its manifesto promises.
There is rich irony in Dr Anthony’s questions considering that he and his former PPP/C government were unable to answer similar enquiries from the constituents of the current administration about Carifesta, the Cricket World Cup and other such spending. The irony is even richer as this government has now failed to answer the very kinds of questions it plied the former PPP/C government with.
Dr Anthony’s questions were as follows:
- Can the Minister provide a detailed list of all costs incurred in relation to, and in preparation for, the Presidential inauguration events held at Parliament Buildings, at the Independence Arch at Brickdam, at the National Stadium at Providence, at the Pegasus Hotel, and elsewhere, including the clean-up campaign that preceded these events?
- In relation to the costs referred to in 1 above, can the Minister indicate the source of funding?
- Can the Minister provide a detailed list giving the nature and total value of contributions made?
- Can the Minister indicate when an audited statement of the expenditure incurred will be available and tabled in this National Assembly?
Those questions pretty much covered all of the bases. It is clear to any layman that the opposition in Parliament was seeking to distil how much money was spent on these inauguration ceremonies, whose it was and when the accounting would be provided to Parliament. Minister Henry in response said that the Ministry of Education, Department of Culture, Youth and Sport was not required to provide any financial, technical or in-kind support in preparation for the Presidential Inauguration events held at Parliament Buildings, Independence Arch in Brickdam, the Pegasus Hotel, and elsewhere, including the clean-up up campaign that preceded those events.
“The Ministry of Education, Department of Culture, Youth and Sport is not in possession of any statement of expenditure, as no expenses were incurred for the stated activities. Additionally, the Ministry of Education, Department of Culture, Youth and Sport is not in any position to audit and or table same in the National Assembly given its nonexistence,” was the response by Minister Henry on when an audited statement would be presented to the National Assembly.
So where did the money for the presidential inauguration come from? If it wasn’t from the Ministry’s Department of Culture it behoved Minister Henry to seek the information from one of her colleagues or to at the very minimum advise Dr Anthony to redirect his questions. Shockingly, neither was done.
It wasn’t as if Minister Henry was ambushed by impromptu questions. She and all of her Cabinet and non-Cabinet colleagues had time to prepare. Adequate notice was served to her by Parliament Office of the questions and there had been an earlier attempt by the PPP/C to have the same questions answered by Minister Henry during the consideration of the budget estimates earlier this year to no avail. It is inconceivable that Minister Henry would have taken it upon herself to stall these enquiries which raises the question as to who is trying to avoid perfect disclosure of what would have had to have been substantial spending.
The more the government avoids answering the questions about the inauguration spending, the more urgent it becomes for the public to know the answers. Given the seismic shift in governments after the May 11 elections there would have been many well-intentioned citizens and civic groups who assisted with inauguration activities and that is quite understandable. It is also likely that there was a coterie of hangers-on, carpet baggers and opportunists only too willing to ingratiate themselves with the new administration for favours and other things. Some portion of the spending also had to be from the public purse and citizens therefore have an inherent right to learn about the sum spent. There must have been some agency/ministry/ department keeping track of expenditure and if there wasn’t this would be a truly disturbing development.
Scrupulous accounting for public monies and boundless openness are two hallmarks expected of this administration based on its own lofty commitments. How then has it failed so comprehensively to answer reasonabe questions in Parliament of all places? Can it be that the AFC has quickly abandoned its enthusiastic support for openness as embodied in its unremitting efforts to have the former PPP/C government pass and activate access to information legislation?
Whatever the answer, the Minister’s handling of Dr Anthony’s questions falls far below the governance standard that APNU+AFC committed to in its manifesto. Under the section of the manifesto entitled ‘Good Governance Action Plan’, point 2 says that an APNU+AFC administration will “Ensure transparency and accountability in government by granting access to citizens to all aspects of the government’s transactions and activities”. Minister Henry’s reply was way off course.
