Last week Charlestown and Albouystown experienced heavy flooding as a consequence of what Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha described as “faulty work” on the part of a contractor who had installed a steel door in the Princes Street sluice. This replaced a damaged wooden door the bottom half of which had given way at the end of last year, and on which temporary repairs had been effected. And in case anyone is wondering what the Ministry of Agriculture has to do with city drainage, the answer is that the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority which comes under that ministry has assumed responsibility for some key drainage works in the capital.
The failure of the sluice door was laid at the feet of a firm called Square Commodities Construction Company which had been granted $11.6 million to fabricate and install it. Mr Mustapha told the media that this was the first time they were working with the company and that he was very “dissatisfied”, as a consequence of which the NDIA had been advised to terminate the contract and award an emergency one to a company with more experience.
It is not, of course, the first time that inferior work on the part of a contractor has resulted in unnecessary additional expense as well as actual damage to surroundings, and it will add to the growing sense of public unease about the award of contracts to those who lack the experience and resources required. The report in SN on Monday alluded to another recent case where Minister Juan Edghill had terminated the contract of a contractor who had done no work despite the fact he had collected the mobilisation funds in advance.
But the case highlights more than the matter of the award of contracts to unqualified companies; it also illustrates the tensions between the central government and the City Council. And where that is concerned Mayor Ubraj Narine wasted no time in alerting citizens to the fact that the first he knew about the project was when residents alerted him to the flooding; he had received no letter about the operation, he said. It was not reported by the City Engineer, and it was only when the Mayor went down to the koker himself and spoke to the employee who works there that he discovered a new door had been put in. “I am shocked about the government action, unlawful operations in this city,” he was quoted as saying.
In a press release last Saturday, Mr Narine said he had learnt that Minister Mustapha and not the City Engineer had inspected the sluice and had come to the conclusion that the contractor was at fault. He went on to say that although the Minister had said the contract had been awarded following a transparent process, neither the Mayor nor the Council had been involved or even informed. Yet this was a Council facility.
The Council, said the release, was the body possessed of the institutional knowledge about the drainage system and roads in Georgetown, but the government had been “sidelining the council and pouring money into the pockets of its friends who have little to no experience and knowledge in dealing with the vital municipal facilities.” Whatever the credibility or otherwise of part of this allegation – contracts in any case come under the purview of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board – it is true that the government is trying to sideline the M&CC. “If the government really wanted to help,” said the statement, “then its approach would have been vastly different from what … obtained in this and similar situations.”
The Mayor was certainly correct when he was reported as saying that central government had shown zero regard for the importance of local government and local democratic organs when these were the pillars on which any well-intentioned government, “would build its democratic credentials and enhance its practice of good governance.” But then this administration is not interested in devolution, and seeks to control everything from the centre, not just in the case of the city, but where all local government organs across the country are concerned. It is particularly preoccupied with Georgetown because it is held by the opposition, and is a critical centre both in terms of the size of its population and the fact it is a focal point for business and commerce.
The Mayor was then reported as listing all the works which government had taken over in the city without any input from the Council. While the M&CC appreciated the assistance, he commented, the central administration should follow the protocols. He was quoted as saying, “We could not encourage the government to operate as if there is no council, or laws, by-laws and regulations governing the management of the nation’s capital.” And that is the point: there is a distinction between working with and taking over, and the central authorities should not put themselves in the position of overriding the statutes as well as the regulations and by-laws of Georgetown as happens at present.
The case of the Princes Street sluice door is just one incident which illustrates this. While the government, as Mr Narine maintains, tries to show the City Council in a bad light, it is not proving itself very efficient either when it has superimposed its authority. At the same time it tries to stymie the M&CC in any way it can, in particular by denying it the means to discharge its duties or pay its employees reasonably. As a result, there are problems hiring staff, not least koker operators, who have been subject to criticism. While the central administration has also complained about the performance of senior staff, especially the City Engineer, responsibility for those appointments does not lie in the Council’s hands, but in those of the Local Government Commission which it controls.
This is not in any way to suggest that the City Council is competent; far from it. It is just that ignoring the laws and overriding an elected body will not produce a better city. In addition, if the M&CC is to be deprived of its authority, the legislation of one kind or another on the books notwithstanding, then what is the point of local government elections? They become simply a pretence exercise, which is not something envisaged by the Constitution.
While the City Council has a very poor record (who can forget the parking meter fiasco?) and its members hardly inspire confidence, where technical matters are concerned such as drainage and koker doors, it does have some institutional memory, and where the law is concerned, it has a strong case. It also represents the people of Georgetown, and no central government has the right to treat them as if their choices do not exist.
Where the story of the Princes Street sluice door is concerned, the central authorities may choose to argue that it has no confidence in the City Engineer’s Department, but then it might find the Mayor in agreement on that score since he has had his own criticisms to make in the past. In any case whatever the shortcomings of the City Engineer’s Department, it does not mean the M&CC should have been circumvented, and in fact if it hadn’t been the steel door might not have turned out the dud that it did. In any event, reform of that particular Department lies in the first instance, as mentioned above, in the hands of the Local Government Commission.
Since the government and certainly not the City Council have distinguished themselves in the management of Georgetown, it is about time the two sides began exploring avenues of co-operation, and that the former let go its grip of the capital and allowed it the means and space to function. Finances can always be carefully monitored and audited, and failed projects could not then be laid exclusively at the door of central government. Successes will benefit everyone, even the government, which will have a capital more suited to the nation’s new oil status. What the example of the Princes Street sluice door demonstrates – and it is not the only example – is that the NDIA and the Minister of Agriculture cannot fix Georgetown’s drainage problems on their own.
