As contentions persist over conflict interest questions centred on two ministers, including Public Telecommunications Minister Catherine Hughes, the Transparency Institute Guyana Inc (TIGI) yesterday said that indicating ignorance about a contract award is not enough and has called for the release of procurement information related to Hughes’ company being awarded a contract to produce Public Service Announcements (PSAs).
In a statement, the local transparency organisation expressed concern about the issues that have placed scrutiny on the actions of Hughes and Valarie Adams-Yearwood, the former junior Housing Minister who has since been reassigned by President David Granger as junior Agriculture Minister with responsibility for Rural Affairs.
Earlier this month, the PPP accused Hughes and her company, Videomega Productions Inc, of impropriety in relation to a $832,200 contract from the Depart-ment of Energy (DoE) for the production of three 60-second television PSAs. In response to these allegations, Hughes said that she had relinquished day-to-day responsibility for the company and was unaware of the contract award.
Stabroek News also reported yesterday that Videomega had confirmed that it placed advertisements on behalf of Hughes’ ministry and others. Hughes’ company benefiting from the placement of advertisements for her own ministry could be seen as a conflict of interest.
TIGI had previously called for a clear policy on the ownership of private enterprises by Ministers of Government and, in its statement yesterday, said that an overarching issue is that based on the revised code of conduct for public officers, the minister would need to have made or participated in making a decision that she ought to have known furthers her private interest or that of a family member or some other entity.
“Indicating ignorance about a contract award is therefore not enough,” the transparency organisation said. However, if ignorance of the award means that the minister did not participate in any such decisions or any fora at which the matter was discussed or a relevant decision was made and did not otherwise influence the process, she would not have acted on the conflict of interest, it added.
It warned that nonetheless, there could have been other influences.
“Nevertheless, even when a minister who owns a firm has not acted directly on an existing conflict of interest, there is the possibility that favoritism can be shown to his/her firm due to the known association with the government. Examination of the procurement procedures would provide important insights on the potential for such an occurrence,” TIGI said while recalling that the Ministry of the Presidency under which the DoE falls, has indicated that there was no impropriety in the award.
“We urge however, that to substantiate this claim, refute the assertions of those who claimed otherwise and concurrently strengthen public confidence, the Ministry should release information on the procurement process,” TIGI said.
“For us to make progress in relation to transparency and corruption perception, it is important that we address the issues that arise decisively and in ways that close opportunities for recurrence. Establishing a clear policy on specific actions that should be taken by minsters and other public officials who have firms that compete for local business especially with the government would enhance our attempts to address conflict of interest in government. We should also recognise that the code of conduct for public officers is weak. It fails to articulate any specific penalties for breaches and it should be strengthened,” it declared.
The transparency organisation also questioned whether Hughes had sought guidance from the Integrity Commission on what steps to take, while noting that this is separate from declaring interest in a firm.
“We are not clear on whether the actions taken by the minister were based on guidance received from the Integrity Commission or whether they were self-determined,” the transparency body said while recalling its position that the appropriate steps to take to address a conflict of interest should not be up to the discretion of the person in the conflict of interest situation.
‘Huge problem’
Meanwhile, in relation to Adams-Yearwood, several contracts were awarded by the Central Housing and Planning Authority, for which she then had oversight, to her husband Godfrey Yearwood. Adams-Yearwood has said that she had no hand in the award of the contracts to her husband and only became aware of them when he informed her.
TIGI yesterday said that it agreed with the concerns expressed. “In fact, we have indicated that the contract awarded to the husband of (Adams-Yearwood) should be reviewed and it is great that steps have been taken to have this done,” the organisation said.
However, it observed that though the concern about whether or not the minister and her husband became officially married by the time the contract was issued is a legitimate one, marriage is not the ultimate test.
“Marriage is a fairly safe and conservative standard that can be applied in the absence of additional information about the relationship. Additional information could be, for example, whether or not the individuals were already living together or were known to have a relationship or friendship even if they were not married. The relationship is the key issue and focusing on the relationship brings into relevance several kinds including familial, friendship, having attended the same secondary school, having been members of the same organisation and many others,” the statement said.
It declared that conflict of interest is a huge problem in Guyana. “The concept of conflict of interest should span the whole spectrum of situations where an influential official of an organisation goes out of his/her way to find a friend to fill a lucrative or influential position in violation of the minimum requirements for appointment to that position, to the obvious one where the recruit emerges as one in an officially recognised relationship such as husband and wife,” TIGI said.
It added that in Adams-Yearwood’s case, “there is something especially pernicious about this situation which has nothing to do with conflict of interest per se.” It highlighted this as the circumstances which caused the attention to be drawn to it (apart from the question that arises as to whether it would have remained unidentified if someone had not reported experiencing financial harm).
“We are learning that a local company – even one connected to a minister of government – is failing to pay its workers. This comes at a time when Guyanese workers of a foreign company have just won a tentative victory over a foreign company with a reputation for ill-treatment of workers. This is another issue that causes us to wonder whether the persons who end up as our leaders appreciate the vast responsibility placed upon them to ensure the interests of our society as a whole are properly safe-guarded,” TIGI said.
It questioned how are we to ensure that it is not open season on Guyanese workers of foreign companies when local companies connected to high officials treat their workers with contempt. “This conflict of interest situation provides Guyanese with an opportunity for reflection on the companies that will be generated in the petroleum economy and on whether our elected leaders will have the consciousness of history to take steps to safeguard the interest of the Guyanese workforce,” the statement added.
