Last week’s article completes our discussion on the conservation and management of our forest resources and the procedures in place for the protection of our environment. Both areas are covered by legislation, namely the Forests Act 2009 and the Environmental Protection Act 1996 respectively. The Forestry Commission was established to administer the former while the administration of the latter is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency, both of which have been created by special Acts of Parliament.
Today, we look at three important matters making the news in recent days: the “Trusted Trader” programme; the functioning of the Integrity Commission; and access to information.
“Trusted Trader” programme
The “Trusted Trader” programme announced by the Ministry of Business has generated some degree of controversy as to whether or not it can lead to increased corruption at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) as well as preferential treatment to some businesses. The programme is being introduced following complaints received from established businesses that they were experiencing undue delays in clearing their merchandise because of their refusal to pay bribes. These delays have resulted in the said merchandise expiring because of their perishable nature or their short life spans.
The GRA has a long-standing procedure for the immediate release of goods that meet certain criteria, especially as regards their perishable nature, pending the processing of the related transactions by the Customs Department. It is called the “Permit for Immediate Delivery” or PID system. When goods are released under the system, importers have ten days within which to “perfect” the PID entries. They are also required to lodge surety bonds based on the estimated value of customs duties to be paid. However, since 1992 and perhaps earlier years, the PID system has not been working well and was subject to one form of abuse or another. For example, according to the Auditor General’s report for 1999, a total of 2,564 PIDs were issued in that year. However, 305 PIDs valued at $6.678 billion remained outstanding as at November 2000.
The 2014 report of the Auditor General also indicated that as of August 2015, 74 PIDs issued for the years 2004, 2006 and 2007 still remained outstanding. No value was stated. According to the report, the GRA stated that the Commissioner-General would write off these outstanding PIDs since they are statute barred. The question arises as to whether or not the Authority was in receipt of surety bonds for these PIDs. If so, how difficult would it have been for the GRA to approach the concerned financial institutions to recover the amounts involved? That apart, should the write-off of the amounts owing on the PIDs not be the responsibility of the GRA’s board and/or the Minister of Finance? The Revenue Authority Act is silent on the matter, and therefore GRA needs to be guided by what prevails in respect of Government companies. Section 346 of the Companies Act requires the specific approval of the Minister for any write off of debts. It would also be interesting to learn what debts have been written off over the years by the Commissioner General.
The “Trusted Trader” programme is still in the formulation stage, and in all probability will replace the current PID system. However, it is important for those responsible for developing the programme to carefully reflect on the shortcomings of the PID system as well as its abuse over the years. The objective should be to ensure that a more robust system is in place, with embedded and effective internal controls, and policed on a regular basis by the GRA’s Internal Audit to ensure strict compliance with the procedures developed. One hopes that the requirement for the provision of surety bonds will remain in order to protect State revenues derived from custom duties.
Integrity Commission
The 2015 US State Department Report on Human Rights Practices commented on the state of corruption and lack of transparency in government, among other matters. In relation to Guyana, the report stated that there was general implementation of the law relating to criminal penalties for corruption by officials and that the current administration has responded to isolated reports of government corruption. However, there remained a widespread public perception of corruption involving officials at all levels, including the police and the judiciary. Although the law requires public officials to declare their assets to the Integrity Commission, the Commission has not been constituted despite a statement by the then Prime Minister in 2012 that its members would soon be appointed.
The report outlined the legal requirements in terms of both criminal and administrative sanctions for the failure to file declarations with the Commission. If a person fails to make a declaration, that fact can be published in the daily newspapers and the official Gazette. Failure to comply with the law can lead to a summary conviction, fines, and imprisonment for six to 12 months. If property is not disclosed, the magistrate convicting the defendant must order the defendant to make a full disclosure within a set time. The report lamented the fact that no such publication or convictions occurred in 2015.
The Integrity Commission Act was passed in 1997 and contains a schedule of persons who are required to file annual returns of assets and liabilities with the Commission. This include Ministers of the Government, other Members of Parliament, senior public servants, and persons involved in public procurement. However, it was not until 1999 that the Commission was activated with the appointment of the first three Commissioners. These persons were exclusively from the religious community, and arguably, they would have lacked the relevant skills needed to evaluate the annual returns submitted to the Commission. Although the Act provides for the engagement of experts to assist the Commission, to date this has not been done. In April 2006, the Chairman of the Commission resigned. Since then, there has been no replacement, and no meetings of the Commission were held for want of a quorum.
It is regrettable that a year would have elapsed since the new Administration has been in office, and no attempt has been made to have a fully functional Integrity Commission, a key anti-corruption mechanism. Guyana is a signatory to the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, both of which emphasise the importance of having effective mechanisms in place for annual financial declarations by politicians and senior government officials to an independent body. Guyana, however, continues to score poorly in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). In 2015, its score was 29 out of 100, the second lowest in the Caribbean, the lowest being Haiti.
Unless concrete measures are put in place, such as a fully functioning and effective Integrity Commission and the Public Procurement Commission, Guyana will continue to languish at the lower end of the table of countries on the CPI. Since 2001, the Constitution was amended to provide for the establishment of a Procurement Commission. After 15 years, no Commission is in place because of political wrangling over whether or not the Cabinet’s involvement should remain. At the time of writing, deliberations on the selection of the five Commissioners are still at the level of the Public Accounts Committee. In 2014, Jamaica established the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency to focus on corruption in the public sector and to bring “high-value criminal targets” to justice. Perhaps we should reflect on the Jamaican model in the drafting of legislation to provide the State Assets Recovery Unit with agency status.
Jamaica also has a Contractor-General who monitors and investigates the award of all government contracts, and reports to the legislature. Approximately 70% of our national budget relates to public procurement, and various estimates, ranging from 15% to 20%, have been proffered by knowledgeable and experienced persons as to the extent of leakages in our procurement system as a result of: poor choice of suppliers and contractors; collusion of those in authority with contractors and suppliers; contract splitting; inflated prices; unjustified contract variations; unsatisfactory performance; defective work performed; inferior quality of goods and services provided; incomplete works; undelivered goods; and overpayment to contractors and suppliers, among others. In the circumstances, the Contractor-General model, clothed with prosecuting powers, is worthy of serious consideration for Guyana.
Access to information
The US State Department Report referred to the requirement of the law for persons to secure access to information under the control of public authorities and for the appointment of a Commissioner of Information. It stated that in 2013 the Government appointed a Commissioner, but no implementing regulations were issued, and requests to the Commissioner for information were infrequent.
It will be recalled that the Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI) had written to the Commissioner requesting information on the operations of the Integrated Financial Management Information System at the Ministry of Finance. TIGI received an arrogant and rude reply to the effect that the National Assembly had reduced the budget of the Office of the President and therefore no funds were available to execute the work of the Commission. One recalls the Commissioner quoting from the Mighty Sparrow’s calypso “No money, no love” to justify his denial of TIGI’s request. The truth of the matter is that the former Minister of Finance had reinstated the budget of the Office of the President by withdrawing moneys from the Consolidated Fund. It was therefore incorrect, indeed misleading, for the Commissioner to state that there were no funds to honour TIGI’s request.
It is not publicly known whether other organisations or individuals have requested information under the Act. The problem appears to be the choice of the Commissioner who is not known to be approachable and friendly, and willing to assist in providing information, especially to organisations or individuals who were perceived to be critics of the previous Administration. The incumbent was twice Attorney-General under the previous Administration which had appointed him to a politically neutral position.
It was evident that there was no serious intention to provide access to information and that the appointment was made because of pressures elsewhere to have legislation in place. Meanwhile, citizens will continue to look elsewhere for access to information on government programmes and activities, notwithstanding that an institution has been set up and maintained at considerable cost to the State to render such service.
