The government has found itself in a few scandals since coming into office, but none has been more corrosive to its image than the drug bond contract. And considering APNU+AFC grounded their appeal to the nation prior to the May 2015 election on transparency, accountability and a departure from the PPP/C predilection for shady deals, one might have thought they would be more sensitive to the yawning chasm between their pronouncements and the reality.
One might have thought too they would be embarrassed to be lectured by none other than Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo in Parliament on Thursday on the matter of their spurious arithmetic in relation to the bond, but if they were, they showed no hint of it. They are behaving as if they have become inured to revelations of their own hypocrisy and misconduct. After all, the public still has had no satisfaction on the matter of Minister Joseph Harmon’s visit to China and contacts with Baishanlin, etc, and one can only conclude they were hoping that public interest in the drug bond would eventually fizzle out.
As is now well known, Cabinet endorsed the sole sourcing of pharmaceuticals and a storage bond from a businessman whose name and company – Lawrence Singh of Linden Holding Inc ‒ are quite unknown in this regard, and whose so-called bond had not even been completed when the contract was signed. Needless to say, at the very minimum this was done in blatant defiance of the Procurement Act. Furthermore, the company was advanced $25 million as a security deposit by the government giving rise to the suspicion that this money was utilized by Linden Holding to actually purchase or renovate the building.
The real problem for the Minister of Health, Dr George Norton, however, came after he lied to the Committee of Supply telling them that the bond met certified international standards, that it was cheaper than the New GPC bond where some drugs were currently being stored – which it most certainly is not, quite the reverse in fact ‒ and that the new bond was already in use. President David Granger himself was embarrassed by attempting to defend the Cabinet decision on the basis of erroneous information provided to him, and by extension, flawed arguments. He compounded this embarrassment by setting up a three-man Cabinet sub-committee to investigate the circumstances of the contract, chaired by none other than Minister Harmon, who, as mentioned above, has questions still buzzing around him over his own actions.
That, of course, was not the main objection to the committee, which as numerous knowledgeable commentators pointed out was a case of the Cabinet, which had approved the contract, investigating itself. It hardly needs remarking that this is the opposite of transparency and accountability. It was no particular surprise then, when the sub-committee did not recommend rescission of the contract, but that the government should try and negotiate a reduction in the monthly rental, or otherwise give a year’s notice of termination. In respect of Dr Norton the proposal was that he should issue a public apology. While the sub-committee conceded that the Health Minister had misled Parliament – and, it might be added, where comparative costs were involved, Cabinet too – he had in turn been misled by his own officials.
Exactly who these officials were, has never been revealed, and neither, it might be added, has it been explained to the populace whether they were motivated by self interest or the interest of some external authority, or whether it is that they just can’t count. If the first two, then moves should be made to report them to the Public Service Commission with a view to having them fired, and if the last they should at a minimum be transferred to a post which puts no strain on their deficient computational skills. Of course, how it is that no one in Cabinet seemed qualified either to undertake a little addition, subtraction, multiplication and division on their own account, or just couldn’t be bothered to do it, seems nothing short of astonishing.
Well, the next stanza in the saga came last week, with the Minister of Health releasing copies of the contract to members of parliament, followed by an apology the next day. The thing about the contract was that it was missing the last page containing the details of the signatories and witnesses, although Dr Norton committed to rectifying this omission.
As for the main body of the contract, the Leader of the Opposition, among other things, adverted in the National Assembly to the fact that the agreement was for a professional office and not a bond, and that it contained nothing to indicate it was PAHO/WHO compliant.
A very contrite Dr Norton appeared before the media on Friday to apologise, and asked for “an opportunity to do better.” He went on to say, “I take full responsibility for this unfortunate episode…[and] it would not happen again.” Asked a series of questions by the media about the contract, the responses ranged from “I cannot say” when asked how the government identified Linden Holding, to “I cannot confirm that,” when an enquiry was made about whether its principal was a member of his political party. The one thing which was disclosed was that Permanent Secretary Trevor Thomas as the accounting officer signed the contract for the Ministry of Health and Mr Singh for Linden Holding.
So at the end of all that self reproach and penitence, we are still not much further advanced with the questions which were asked in an editorial of this newspaper two weeks ago (August 15), viz, “Who in Cabinet raised the need for an urgent shift in drugs storage and who suggested that Mr Lawrence Singh of Linden Holding was an appropriate candidate for the supply of this service?” Furthermore, the leader enquired as to whether any kind of due diligence was done, and any level of research into the bona fides of Mr Singh. Those queries too remain unanswered.
Given the deceit and incompetence – if not worse ‒ which are swirling around a contract involving public money, it is disgraceful that citizens are not being told what the full sequence of events was, and who played what part. At one point, Minister Norton’s reticence at the press conference prompted the question as to whether he was the “fall guy” for someone else, which produced the response; “I don’t know anything about that.” Well, if he isn’t, and he really does take responsibility for what happened, he should demonstrate it by being rather more forthcoming than he has managed to be so far.
Furthermore, given that the contract itself refers to office space and not a bond; that it does not contain a reference to international health compliance; that it was the product of single sourcing; and that it concerns an incomplete bond which is unconscionably expensive, why did the Cabinet sub-committee recommend that it be renegotiated rather than rescinded and sent to tender? To the citizen in the street this seems passing strange. The ordinary man and woman can see that the contract should be revoked, so why is the Cabinet pussyfooting?
And then there is Dr Norton, who has undoubtedly been a committed and much appreciated health care professional for many years, but the level of whose ministerial work (and it is not the same thing) has been exposed in the instance of the pharmaceutical bond. In other jurisdictions lying to Parliament has only one outcome, and in the UK, at least, even the offending party regards it as a matter of honour to do the right thing quickly and not wait to be fired. But here we have a Cabinet sub-committee saying an apology will suffice, and the Health Minister appealing for a chance “to do better.”
The public will waste no time coming to its own conclusions about the human dimensions of this fiasco; after all, there are not many options. Either there is something going on here that citizens have not been told about and Dr Norton is not the main player in this drama, or conversely, he is. Whatever the case, the populace has noted that this is playing out against a background where the government does not give two hoots about Parliament and even less about transparency and accountability. As for the Minister of Health himself, given his mendacity in Parliament he has to decide without further ado whether he is a man of honour or whether he is not.
