The Ministry of Public Health is being threatened with litigation by a taxpayer if it does not cancel the controversial contract for rental of the Sussex Street bond, at a rate of $12.5M per month, for the storage of pharmaceuticals.
“…I call upon you to rescind or terminate the said written agreement of tenancy within seven (7) days from the date hereof. If you fail to do so, I have firm instructions to institute legal proceedings challenging the legality of the said agreement without further notice,” attorney Anil Nandlall and legal representative for Majeed Hussain said in a letter sent to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Health, Trevor Thomas.
Hussein is described as a citizen and a taxpayer, with a Diamond, East Bank Demerara address.
The basis for the litigation, according to the letter, is the “unreasonable” monthly rental cost, the unsuitability of the premises for the intended purpose and the violations of the Procurement Act that were committed in the sole sourcing of the contract.
Following questioning in the National Assembly, Public Health Minister Dr George Norton has faced heavy criticism over the three-year contract, which was sole-sourced to a new rental company, identified as Linden Holding Inc, for the Sussex Street, Albouystown bond, which was converted for the storage of pharmaceuticals.
Norton had said that with the “exorbitant price called by the New GPC” for storage at its Ruimveldt warehouse and the conflict of interest posed by using a facility run by a potential drug supplier, there was an urgency to find new storage.
It later emerged that the new facility was in fact a converted house and was still being renovated. In light of the ensuing controversy, President Granger appointed a Cabinet Sub-Committee to review, examine and report on the deal.
It completed a report that found that the bond was fit for pharmaceuticals storage but also recommended negotiations for a lower rental fee.
While Norton has said that the contract will not be rescinded, he informed that Cabinet is still to decide upon if the recommendations will be taken up.
Nandlall’s letter explains that while the tenancy contract signed by the Public Health Ministry with Linden Holding Inc. said the premises was for the purpose of “a professional office,’’ Norton informed the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly, that the said premises were rented as a bond for the storage of drugs and pharmaceuticals.
“No clause in the said tenancy agreement refers to the demised premises being used for the purpose identified by the Minister. The Minister further confirmed in the Committee of Supply that the procurement of the demised premises was not done in accordance with the Procurement Act, Chapter 73:05, an Act which makes mandatory provisions for the regulation of the procurement of goods, services and the execution of works, to promote competition among suppliers and contractors and which promotes fairness and transparency in the procurement process, where the procuring entity is any ministry, department, agency or other unit, or any sub-division there of the Government that engages in procurement,” the correspondence points out.
It also highlights the concerns over the rental price and the suitability of the building.
“I am to inform you that the monthly rental agreed upon is unreasonable, irrational, excessive, arbitrary, capricious, constitutes a fraud upon public funds, is unlawful, null void and of no effect,” the letter states.
“I am to further inform you that the demised premises is absolutely unfit and unsuitable for the purpose of storing drugs and pharmaceuticals for the public health system of Guyana and therefore, the decision to rent the said demised premises for that purpose, is unreasonable, irrational, whimsical, arbitrary, capricious, constitutes a fraud upon public funds, is unlawful, null void and of no effect,” it adds.
Pointing to Chapter 73:05 of the country’s Procurement Act, which among other laws caters for promoting the integrity of, and fairness and public confidence in, the procurement process; and achieving transparency in the procedures relating to procurement, the letter says the contract is “ultra vires, unreasonable, irrational, whimsical, arbitrary, capricious, constitutes a fraud upon public funds, is unlawful, null, void and of no effect.”
Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran yesterday also said that he supports the decision taken by Nandlall and the reasons for such action. “I wholeheartedly agree with the demand by Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall for the contract to be rescinded and the reasons advanced for doing so,” he told Stabroek News.
Nandlall has also said that the opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic has not ruled out initiating legal proceedings on the controversial contract.
