Government yesterday stated that its Minister of Health misled Parliament on a controversial contract for the storage of pharmaceuticals and it called on him to issue a public apology and also said that the deal for the Sussex Street premises would be reviewed.
The announcements by Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman would be seen as a major embarrassment for the APNU+AFC administration and would also call into question the role of the entire Cabinet in the sole-sourcing of businessman Lawrence Singh for the bond despite the fact that the facility was not ready to begin receiving drugs.
Information on the deal was revealed in Parliament on Monday during intense questioning of Health Minister Dr George Norton by the opposition PPP/C and these disclosures were followed up in the media which revealed further unsettling details.
The governing coalition would be at pains to defend this deal as it had often severely criticised the former PPP/C government on similar grounds.
Trotman announced the recommendations at a post-Cabinet press briefing, where he also dismissed the fact that the government’s advance deposit to Singh’s company, Linden Holdings Inc., and the cost for the bond were the same as a mere coincidence. “I see it as nothing more than a coincidence that the price paid and the price of the security deposit and the first month’s rental are the same,” Trotman said.
Observers have said that the coincidence could lead to the impression that the government had financed the purchase of the bond for a businessman who would then profit off of the deal.
In the wake of controversy over the deal for the rental of the Lot 29 Sussex Street, Charlestown bond, with Linden Holdings Inc., President David Granger on Tuesday appointed the Cabinet Sub-Committee to review, examine and report on the storage of medicine and medical supplies.
Trotman, who headed the committee which also comprised Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Minister of State Joseph Harmon, announced yesterday that it has completed its review and will soon deliver its report to the President, who will then decide on a way forward, given the several recommendations made in the report.
“We are recommending that the contract be reviewed. Cabinet may choose the Honourable Attorney General to do a review of the contract for the lease of the bond in Sussex Street,” Trotman said.
Linden Holdings Inc. lists Lawrence N. Singh, of 7041 NW 41st Street, Miami, Florida, and 198 Camp Street, Lincoln Singh, of the same addresses, and Lolita Saul as its principals. There was also a Theresa Foster, who was a former director.
The company has been in existence for over four years and its business address is 176 Middle Street, Georgetown. However, according to records seen by Stabroek News at the Deeds Registry, Dennis Saffie Mohammed only sold the building to Singh on March 4, 2016, while the transport for the building was passed in July, 2016.
Trotman added that another recommendation is that Norton publicly apologise for statements he made during questioning in the Committee of Supply on Monday.
Norton, in response to questions posed by the opposition, informed that the government single-sourced the storage bond as it wanted to save the country millions of dollars a month, since he claimed it was paying New GPC $19.2 million per month for rental of its bond. He said Linden Holdings Inc would be paid $12.5 million per month instead.
Norton had also said that drugs were currently being stored at the facility.
But because the answers he provided proved to be incorrect, the Sub-Committee has recommended that he apologise to the public. “We are recommending that, in view of the statements made by the Honourable Minister of Public Health, and based on his explanations which we have accepted, that he gives perhaps a public apology and to explain that his statements were in the context of the advice he had received,” Trotman said.
However, the opposition People’s Progressive Party says that it stands by its decision to move to have Norton brought before the Privileges Committee when Parliament resumes from recess in October, on a charge that he lied before the Committee of Supply.
“The PPP stands by its commitment that Mr. Norton must go before the Privileges Committee and face the full brunt of the penalties,” the PPP asserted in a statement.
‘Right of defence’
Norton told Stabroek News yesterday that while he has received correspondence from government to the effect that he should apologise, he has not yet been given a chance to defend himself before Cabinet.
“If Cabinet is going to make recommendations, it is only logical and fair that it be allowed for them to listen to me with respect to their recommendation. I have not had that opportunity,” he said.
“They have told me by means of email, online, at least they should give me a hearing. I would expect that. I would want the right to defend myself. At the same time, I am a member of the team and even though I might [apologise] in the interest of the team approach, at least I can go on record as saying that I [had] agreed or disagreed,” he added.
At yesterday’s press briefing, Trotman stood in defence of Norton, whom he said was not micromanaging his ministry and would have delegated duties to respective personnel, based on the urgency with which Cabinet had charged him to find a new storage facility.
Trotman said the Sub-Committee met with Permanent Secretary of the Ministry and the Minister and were satisfied with answers given to questions put and understood better the context in which Norton made his comments during questioning by the Committee of Supply.
However, Trotman said some statements made by Norton, such as that there were drugs already stored at the building, proved “not so.”
He explained that the reason for this was because there was a setback to accommodate central air conditioning for the building, although it had several single units. “The building was prepared and was about to receive a shipment of drugs when the proposal was made for central air conditioning… that we had a backup. The request was made for central air conditioning in addition to individual units. So, a decision was taken not to make the delivery to the bond and to hold back and to allow the central… to be made,” he said.
Trotman said that it was not unusual for Norton to not be aware of who the landlord of the building was. “After Cabinet informed the minister to find a building, it will be the task of his officials within the ministry, not for him to go about questioning landlords and potential owners. That is not …the remit of the ministers,” he stated.
And when questioned about how Singh, who had never stored pharmaceuticals before, would know that a building was being sought to replace the New GPC, Trotman said, “You would have to ask Mr. Singh that. Obviously, someone would have approached him. I am not sure of the process. At the end of the day the facility is quite capable of being a storage area, from what I was able to see.”
Singh declined to comment on Tuesday when visited by a Stabroek News reporter. He accused the reporter of trespassing.
‘Not comparable’
Meanwhile, Trotman argued that government’s move to sole-source the contract for the rental of the building cannot be compared with that of sole-sourcing pharmaceuticals and stressed that the move was made to save government funds that would have been paid in fees being demanded by the New GPC.
“I don’t think you can confuse the sourcing of drugs and essential products for several hundred thousand people with the procurement of one building. The two are not comparable, quite frankly. Given the circumstances the Minister of Health was told to enter into a contract, as quickly as possible, because we had been told we now have to pay rental for a facility that was hitherto before free …we believe that sole sourcing was the best way forward,” he said.
Trotman explained that Cabinet’s urgency for a replacement storage for the New GPC came not only because of invoices received at the start of July for US$137,000 for rental but that government wanted to ensure that a drug supplier was not also providing storage.
“Cabinet felt that in the circumstances of the New GPC, being a supplier and now a competitor in an open bidding process …because we are doing away with the sole sourcing to the New GPC, that it would not be fair for other competitors to compete in a process where New GPC was also conveniently providing warehouse space to the government,” he said.
“One, we felt that the immediate demand for payment of US$137,000 seemed a bit beyond coincidental once we announced there would be a change in the bidding process. Secondly, it would not be fair to other persons in the business to know that government continued in a business with one of the competitors. So, with that in mind, Ministry of Health was told to make this a priority and I don’t believe he (Norton) left cabinet with a feeling that this was a casual matter that could wend its way over several months… time was of the essence and it should be taken care of immediately,” he added.
There was no known public invitation by the Ministry of Health for expressions of interest in providing drug storage services.
Trotman also pointed out that in cabinet, the discussion went along the way of government having its own facility and that was also one of the recommendations that the subcommittee has made.
“That government needs to have an additional facility, indeed, to Diamond. We need to diversify so that each region has its own facility and that we need a second facility in Demerara,” Trotman noted.
“I have no doubt that the contract at its end will see government by that time having its own newly-constructed facility. The original contract that was presented to Cabinet was for, I believe, 10 years and Cabinet said no.
Cabinet brought it down to three years with the belief that we must move towards our own facility but given the exigencies of the situation we needed to find a building very quickly,” he added.
The Chairman promised that all documents pertaining to the review will be made available to the press, which will also be allowed to tour the facility.
