Dear Editor,
It was brought to my attention on June 10, 2016 that the Audit of the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) was published on the Ministry of Finance’s website. I was looking forward to reading the said report since I knew that the response and supporting documentation that was provided by me and NDIA’s staff to the auditors, when I was given a preliminary draft of the said report, would have addressed all of the misconceptions and allegations being peddled. Sadly this was not the case. The published audit report was very similar to the draft provided to me for my response, but it failed to contain my response to issues raised and moreso, it failed to reflect the documentation provided to the auditors.
In or around February, 2016, I was provided with an extract of the draft forensic report/audit on the NDIA for the period November 1, 2011 to May 31, 2015 by the Ministry of Agriculture. I was requested to provide a response to the issues raised in the said report. Since I was afforded the opportunity to access all the relevant information from the NDIA, I compiled a detailed response with supporting document and submitted same to the now Chairman of the Board of Directors of the NDIA in the same month. I fully addressed all of the issues raised in the response that I provided. I am confident that such documentation and response can withstand any scrutiny by the public. It therefore baffles my mind why it is that my response and supporting documentation were not included in the completed and published audit report. My response should and can be requested from the NDIA’s management.
Nonetheless, I shall now provide a summary of repeated highlighted issues with some clarity on what my responses were in the response report that I provided to the Chairman for the auditors. I should note, however, that some of publication does contain some verbal responses I provided to the auditors during my interview with them. I do not know to date whether the auditor has received my formal response to their draft audit which was given to the Chairman, NDIA. It is my opinion that there was adequate time to review/investigate the facts provided in my formal response rather than publishing a report containing hearsay and selective reporting. The published report substantially remains the same as the draft report. Only those in authority and the auditor can really answer why my formal responses were not published.
I shall now address some of the issues published in the said report/audit and reported in the press.
- NDIA’s fixed assets register
At the time of the audit being conducted, the register was considered as not having all of the data, but the list of equipment reported under section 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and in Appendix 1 to 8 of the published report were actually from the existing assets register. The NDIA sought to address this shortcoming by employing an accounting consultant in 2015. It was only around November, 2013 that the NDIA’s accounting was detached from that of the Ministry of Agriculture. NDIA commenced working on its fixed assets register long before the commencement of the forensic audit and this was made known to the auditors while I was on duty as the CEO. An updated assets register forms part of my response to the draft audit report.
- $1.8 B spent on repairs for equipment
I wish to re-iterate that with regard to the $1.8B spent by the NDIA for the reported period, the said money was for over three and a half years. Further, the cost of $1.8B as compiled by the auditors includes repairs for other assets such as computers and pump buildings rather than equipment only, as is stated in the audit report, while the actual cost is approximately $1.725B. All these facts are known or ought to be known by the auditors if a detailed examination is carried out on the annual expenditure by budgeted line item and the nature of works completed. Nevertheless, every expenditure incurred in this category of expense was executed with accompanying approved contract(s) primarily from the NPTAB along with internal approval certificates and vouchers, while there were separate engineers/staff members responsible for overseeing these works that include, determining their satisfactory completeness and certification. There has always been proper segregation of duties in this regard. The expenditure on equipment is always guided by the advice/recommendation of the mechanical engineers(s) and reports on their justification were prepared and were available for review during the audit period.
- Accountability during my active tenure as CEO of the NDIA
It was during my tenure that a procurement department, inspectorate department with auditors, accounts department and mechanical department were established and staffed. Many of the expenditures had input from other agencies such as GuySuCo and the RDCs during their implementation and were audited over the years. As such I can assert that every expenditure can be accounted for with all supporting documentation and full justification for such expenditure. I am unaware that the auditors were denied any engineer’s report, contract document/justification during my tenure at the NDIA while conducting their audit.
- Sole sourcing
With regard to the public disclosure on sole sourcing being 75% of current budget works, it was not reported fairly and accurately where or why the sole sourcing was done. In the main, sole sourcing went to Water Users Associations, NDCs, farmers’ groups and in excess of 60 Community Development Councils primarily to maintain drainage and irrigation channels (weeding and cleaning). Such sole sourcing is provided for in the NPTAB procurement act of Guyana for community works and such ventures simply support the village economy for thousands of individuals and farmers in the many communities along the coast and Region 10. The residents in many communities are the ones who are employed to execute the contracted maintenance works. All the sole sourced projects would have received the requisite contract approvals from the relevant agency (NPTAB/NDIA) and supporting documents to justify the expenditure are available. I must note that these sole sourcing procedures are still being executed by the NDIA, as financial resources in the budget are allocated for these very purposes annually.
During my active tenure as CEO of the NDIA many persons worked hard and tirelessly in extremely difficult conditions, especially dealing with natural disasters such as floods. The published audit does not reflect my response and supporting documentation and further only sought to undermine and tarnish the professional character of many of the said employees of the NDIA, including myself. It is quite unfortunate that the public is not privy to my detailed response to the draft audit and the supporting documentation. It is my hope that the full response will be made known at some point.
Yours faithfully,
Lionel Wordsworth
