Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran says government needs to urgently address the issue of who recommended Larry Singh of Linden Holding Inc for rental of the controversial pharmaceutical bond in Sussex Street in the interest of transparency and accountability.
In an interview with Stabroek News, he said that both the Ministers of Health and Finance are also liable to provide answers.
He also stressed that Permanent Secretary (PS) of the Ministry of Health, Trevor Thomas’ refusal to comment on the issue cannot suffice as his signature is on the contract and he should be upholding the laws, especially pertaining to his role. Thomas on Wednesday told Stabroek News it would be unethical for him to say anything as President David Granger and Cabinet have already pronounced on the matter.
“Public resources are expended and no one is willing and able to provide information as to how Mr Singh came into the picture. The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMA Act) places the onus on the PS and the Minister to provide the information as to the basis of selection of Mr Singh, bearing in mind that at the time the agreement was entered into with Mr Singh, he had no drug bond in Sussex Street,” Goolsarran told Stabroek News yesterday.
“In addition, should the Minister of Finance also not be held liable for authorizing withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund, when the criteria have not been met for the grant of such advances?” he questioned. He listed the withdrawal criteria as being either urgent or unforeseen and for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made and that the expenditure cannot be postponed without jeopardizing the public interest.
He pointed to the roles of a government Permanent Secretary, which he has also written an article on and queried if Thomas understood his or had one. “Did Mr. Thomas not receive a copy?” he questioned.
‘Duties of the PS’
Goolsarran said that “A Permanent Secretary or an REO is the chief administrative officer of the Ministry, Department or Region. He or she manages the day-to-day operations and provides important advice to the Minister or Regional Chairman. With quiet competence, he or she carries out the instructions of the Minister or Regional Chairman to the extent that they do not violate the applicable laws, rules, regulations or circular instructions”.
The former Auditor General also recalled an incident in the late 1980s where the late President Desmond Hoyte held a retreat with Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Department and ensured they knew their roles before leaving.
“One of the issues raised related to instances where Ministers were issuing instructions that violated applicable laws, rules, regulations and circular instructions. Mr. Hoyte was visibly upset upon hearing this. He immediately provided guidance on how to deal with such a situation and instructed the then Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. H.O.S Thompson, to leave the meeting to draft a circular, and to return with the draft for finalization and issuing… It read ‘If a Minister gives an inappropriate instruction, it is the duty of the Permanent Secretary or the REO to formally discuss the matter with the Minister; If the Minister insists that the instruction be carried out, the Permanent Secretary or REO must set out his or her concern in writing, copied to the Secretary to the Treasury and the Auditor General; and If there is a further insistence on the part of the Minister, the Permanent Secretary or REO must inform the President in writing, copied to the subject Minister,” he recalled.
“Permanent Secretaries and REOs are the heads of budget agencies. They have enormous responsibilities in relation to budget preparation, budget execution, and accounting and financial reporting, as outlined in in the Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMA) Act. They must follow strictly the requirements of the Public Procurement Act, especially as they relate to tendering for the procurement of goods and services and the execution of works to ensure the highest degree of transparency and accountability. They are also required to present themselves to the Public Accounts Commission (PAC), when requested to do so, to explain any shortcomings or discrepancies in the financial management of the Ministry, Department or Region for which they have specific responsibility, as identified by the Auditor General,” he added.
‘No sole-sourcing grounds’
The Procurement Act was also referred to as Goolsarran argued why Singh does not meet the requirement for government to justify sole-sourcing of the bond and why the contract should be scrapped.
“Section 28 of the Procurement Act has the following to say about sole-source procurement: The procuring entity may engage in single-source procurement when -(a) the goods or construction are available only from a particular supplier or contractor, or a particular supplier or contractor has exclusive rights with respect to the goods or construction, and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists. (B) the services, by reason of their highly complex or specialized nature, are available from only one source;(c) owing to a catastrophic event, there is an urgent need for the goods, services or construction, making it impractical to use other methods of procurement because of the time involved in using those methods,” he noted.
“The procuring entity, having procured goods, services, equipment or technology from a supplier or contractor, determines that additional supplies must be procured from that supplier or contractor for reasons of standardization or because of the need for compatibility with existing goods, services, equipment or technology, taking into account the effectiveness of the original procurement in meeting the needs of the procuring entity, the limited size of the proposed procurement in relation to the original procurement, the reasonableness of the price and the unsuitability of alternatives to the goods in question; or the procuring entity applies section 3 (2), to procurement involving national defence or national security and determines, as a result of national security concerns, that single-source procurement is the most appropriate method of procurement. Clearly, Mr. Singh does not remotely meet the requirements for being considered a sole-source supplier. Are we not going to take disciplinary action against those responsible for violating the Procurement Act, as provided for by the FMA Act?,” he questioned.
‘Effective leadership’
And on the way forward, he urged swift termination of the bond contract. He said that if this matter is referred to for judicial review, the Government will find itself hard-pressed to defend its action and is even mulling if he should seek such a review.
“I am really sad, I am really disappointed, I am really angry at the turn of events. Some of us fought so hard against bad governance, lack of transparency in the operations of government, and lack of proper accountability, only to be treated as enemies of the State.
It is indeed in the height of hurtfulness that our efforts are being negated each passing day by a government that appears not to care anymore and that, by its actions, now sends the clear message that ‘it’s our turn now’,” he lamented.
“The answer in all of this is strong and effective leadership to put an end to this wholesale abuse of public office and of state resources, as well as the extent of waste and extravagance that we are witnessing.
Can you imagine what the late President Desmond Hoyte would have done, if the tiniest speck of what we are witnessing today had happened in his time?
When the going gets tough, it is time for the tough to get going. Running government is neither being the work of a captain of a cricket match nor a Sunday school teacher. It is serious business, and tough decisions have to be made in the public interest,” he added.
Guyana, he says needs to “take a leaf” from former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar when she had cause to dismiss 12 of her Ministers during her first four years of tenure in office.
“In one of her statements, she referred to one of the seven social evils that Gandhi had identified: politics without principles. I have always argued that what holders of political office conscientiously believe in as individuals, they must take those beliefs forward into the political arena, without compromise. Then, life is worth living,” Goolsarran stressed.
