There are some things which defy belief. There is the former Minister of Public Works David Patterson initially denying that he received presents of jewellery from the Demerara Harbour Bridge and the Asphalt plant during his period in office, although as we reported yesterday a preliminary review of other agencies falling under his ministry reveals numerous purchases both for him and then junior minister Annette Ferguson.
We reported too that according to documents seen by this newspaper there was one occasion when Ms Ferguson’s personal assistant indicated where the purchase should be made and the date on which it should be delivered. If that were not bad enough, gifts were still being purchased during the elections’ impasse. The Transport & Harbours Department, for example, bought jewellery in May last year for Ms Ferguson while Minister Patterson was given birthday gifts purchased by the Maritime Administration Department amounting to $704,292.
When citizens think of corruption in the public works arena they usually have clandestine operations in mind such as kick-backs or felonious arrangements with sleazy contractors. But what we have in this instance is perfectly public, and that is what is so extraordinary about it. The vouchers are there giving the reason for the expenditure, while agencies approve the gifts. The receipts are there and for the most part there is no attempt at a cover-up, as if this is a perfectly normal way of operating.
Four days ago this newspaper had reported that documents from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Company and its Asphalt Plant show that two days before Patterson’s birthday in 2017, a total of $504,000 was approved for the purchase of a gold hand band and tie pin for him. A requisition to purchase the items, dated 2nd of May 2017 describes the items as a hand band (moveable) and a tie pin which had respective price tags of $424,400 and $78,300.
This revelation had been preceded by one relating to Mr Rawlston Adams, the former head of the Demerara Harbour Bridge Company, after he purchased a bracelet worth almost $900,000 for himself with money from the DHB. Now that this has come to light, Mr Adams is reported to have returned the bracelet.
It seems that for some reason officials associated with Mr Patterson’s ministry, not the least of which is the then minister himself, seem to have been unable to distinguish between public funds and private savings, and what their duty as public officials was in relation to the former. The most significant thing we reported Mr Patterson as saying in response to the accusations was that he “assumed” the gifts he had received during his period of ministerial office were fully compliant with the procurement guidelines of the agency which had donated them. The standard policy directives, we reported him as going on to comment, stipulate how such matters should be handled as directed by Cabinet decision, by circular from the Ministry of Finance, or by Board policy.
Well yes they do, but Minister Patterson does not appear to have made himself au fait with any of them. Minister Juan Edghill has called on the Integrity Commission to investigate whether the over $2.6 million in gifts were declared. Citing the relevant act he said that any gift of US$50 or more had to be made in an official’s annual declaration for the year, and if it wasn’t they could be charged. But as this newspaper pointed out, the former minister also does not seem to be in compliance with Article 3 of the APNU+AFC Ministers’ Code of Conduct which says that no one in public life shall accept a gift, benefit or advantage from anyone, “save personal gifts from a relative or friend, or personal gifts given otherwise than as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in the performance of his or her official functions or causing any other person from doing or forbearing to do anything.”
Leaving that aside, what Mr Patterson and company appear unable to sort out in their minds is what their moral obligations are to the public. Taxpayers do not pay in their hard-earned taxes to the Revenue Authority so ministers can give themselves expensive gifts on their birthdays, not to mention International Men’s Day. Ministers like Mr Patterson were not voted into office to build up their jewellery collections, but to bring improvement to citizens’ lives. This is not the ancien regime where the public and the private are not separate; this is supposedly a democracy where rules govern public expenditure.
It does not help the former minister’s case that he has been accused wrongly, he maintains, of furnishing his house with public funds, or that he has been the victim of stereotyping and racial abuse on social media. While that is utterly unacceptable, the gravamen of this current issue is whether his ministry and its agencies were responsible custodians of public funds, and whether he refused these gifts which he says he did not solicit when they were given to him, because they were inappropriate. If he accepted any of them, then there is a problem.
In the light of these disclosures about gifts to Mr Patterson from the agencies falling under his purview, Minister Edghill has said he should resign as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.
The PAC is the watchdog committee to which the Auditor General’s reports are referred. The Chairman of that committee, therefore, should be above reproach, and in the light of the current disclosures questions circulate around Mr Patterson. It would be in his interest, therefore, to recuse himself as chairman for the time being.
