In wake of the Public Health Ministry’s controversial leasing of a Sussex Street bond to store drugs, AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan yesterday said that identifying the point of contact between bond owner Larry Singh and the government is not a priority, only fixing the situation in the public’s interest.
In a statement on Thursday, government said that the controversial arrangement with Singh, of Linden Holding, was “undoubtedly undesirable” and several options are being looked at, including shortening the lease while the state will now work to secure its own facility.
The about-face on the deal came after weeks of searing criticism of the arrangement, which was revealed in Parliament following intense grilling of Public Health Minister Dr. George Norton by the opposition PPP/C.
While the likely reversal of the deal is an embarrassment to the APNU+AFC government, critics say the climb down still does not answer the question of who in the administration engaged Singh for the contract when he had no experience in storing pharmaceuticals and neither did he have an appropriate building.
At an AFC news conference yesterday, Stabroek News asked Ramjattan if the government’s present position on issue and the investigation which stopped short of identifying a culpable party weren’t inconsistent with the standards of accountability the party had promoted while in opposition.
In response, he said that while he could understand the public criticism that the government is still to get to the bottom of the issue, the steps taken are sufficient.
“At this stage we feel that we have gone the gamut in relation to identifying the wrong that was done and what our sub-committee at Cabinet did was to ensure that it sought some remedies.
The remedies of having the renegotiation and the remedies of asking the minister, who is ultimately responsible, to apologise are sufficient,” he said, while adding that although he understands “the criticism that we ought to go further, I don’t know what the further investigation might prove because I don’t know if anybody is going to say, ‘I was the one that did that.’ It’s hardly likely, knowing that we are dealing with humans and not angels. Should we then bang our heads against the wall?”
Meanwhile, the People’s Progressive Party maintains that the government will not be able to “sugarcoat” this scandal.
Accusing the cabinet of endorsing a “cover up,” PPP/C Chief Whip Gail Teixeira yesterday said at a press conference yesterday that “the cabinet is well aware of how the rental agreement was brokered and who were the cabinet members with others who were involved.”
At the time that Norton addressed the House during questioning about the expenditure, the bond was being converted for the storage of pharmaceuticals. Singh’s company has no track record in the area of storing pharmaceuticals raising questions about how he came to be considered by the government.
Norton has since apologized for failing to do the necessary “due diligence” and “misleading” the National Assembly.
The Ministry of Public Health has been threatened with litigation by a taxpayer if it does not cancel the controversial contract on the basis of 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.
