On Friday, via his Facebook page, Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson confirmed that US$9,000 had been transferred in 2017 to his personal account in respect of a trip to China’s Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Macao for a June 2016 construction forum. That transferral was meant to be a reimbursement for the Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) which had advanced the money for the cost of travel and associated expenses. The Minister said that on receipt of the money into his account it was promptly remitted to MARAD. He added that this was not an unusual practice in respect of reimbursements for international travel.
The Minister’s response came following a post on a Facebook page which is described as being operated by the opposition PPP. The Minister’s post also stated that he was deeply worried that the PPP had “illegally” sought and obtained access to his personal financial details and he said that he had instructed his lawyers to take the necessary legal actions against any offending party.
There has clearly been a lot of travelling by ministers hither and thither since this government came to office in 2015. Quite a lot of this has been at the expense of taxpayers and how much of it has been of real value to the country is debatable. In its re-election application, the government should present the public with a spreadsheet of the taxpayer-funded travels of its ministers and senior officials and the impact and justification for such trips.
As it relates to the arrangements for Minister Patterson’s trip to Macao, there are disturbing features. First, the government and its senior officials should exercise due care and diligence in relation to invitations to attend distant, amorphous conferences which are unlikely to produce significant results. In colloquial terms you don’t go to “every tin-nin cup that knock”. This conference was themed `Innovating Construction-Finance Cooperation and Energising Infrastructure Development’ with a focus on implementing China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative which Guyana had not yet signed on to. It was hardly likely to yield anything of use. Undoubtedly, the added attraction of this event was that there was a promise of reimbursement of the cost of the trip but such arrangements tend to embolden the hosts and the big players in their expectations of the guest. This would be particularly so when a minister is in contact with companies or officials he/she may eventually have to transact government business with. If the conference is important enough the government should pay its way.
Second, the press release that had been issued on May 31st, 2016 by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MPI) on this trip had said that Mr Patterson was to be accompanied by his Financial and Management Advisor, Kenneth Jordan and Senior Design Engineer, Jeffrey Walcott. Were their trips also paid for by the SAR of Macao? If so that would be even more problematic. If not there should have been some real justification for their visit. In the MPI press release, Minister Patterson had been quoted as saying that he would provide profiles to the conference on projects including the Deep Water Harbour Facility, the Parika/Goshen Road, Free and Easy to Sandhill Road and Hinterland Electricity Supply, particularly a 5MW solar plant which was being considered for Berbice to avoid shutdowns. Have any of these projects benefited as a result of this particular trip?
Third, trips for government officials should not be accepted on the promise of reimbursement. Such arrangements are rife with pitfalls. In this particular case, reimbursement came many months after. The conference ran from June 2-3 2016 but by the minister’s own account reimbursement did not occur until sometime in 2017. That is at least six months after or even longer. This was very atypical despite the minister’s assertion that this was not an “unusual” practice.
Fourth, by what method was MARAD made to upfront this money and from which head was it derived? Despite coming under MPI there should be no dislocating or commanding of its finances for a trip by a minister. Moreover, it was not reimbursed for at least six months. How did it then account for this $1.8m gap in its 2016 accounts? Such transactions usually evoke the interest of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament and the Office of the Auditor General. Was there no travel budget within MPI that this amount could have been allocated from?
Fifth, the direct transfer by the conference/hosts into Minister Patterson’s personal account was perturbing and an occurrence worthy of close inspection. Any irregular credit of the magnitude of US$9,000 and from an overseas source into the account of a Politically Exposed Person requires very careful scrutiny. Did this deposit trigger a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) by the bank to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)? It should have and if it didn’t then the FIU which has struggled to convince the public that it is undertaking real work should inquire as to why an STR was not filed. If an STR was filed there will at some point be a reflection of the FIU’s consideration of it. Since the money was sourced from MARAD why didn’t the Minister insist that the reimbursement go directly to MARAD with the relevant note about its purpose? This transaction was most ill-advised at a time when Guyana has been put through the mill in relation to the anti-money laundering standards imposed by the FATF and CFATF.
It doesn’t seem as if either the government or Minister Patterson learnt the lessons from another China trip – that by the former Minister of State Harmon and the subsequent questions that swirled about it.
While there will be concerns about the manner in which information about the minister’s account was obtained, a whistleblower’s defence could definitely be applicable in this case as the transaction was suspicious. The Code of Conduct that the APNU+AFC government engineered and implemented says at the very start that “A person in public life shall be accountable to the public for his or her decisions and actions and shall submit himself or herself to scrutiny and criticism”. The questions that have been raised thus far are perfectly legitimate in the circumstances and the minister should continue to provide the relevant answers.