In a rebuttal on April 26, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance took umbrage at the April 23rd editorial in this newspaper entitled ‘Regional anti-corruption conference’.
The Ministry argued that efforts are being made to strengthen Guyana’s anti-corruption framework, something which perceptions-based reports like that of Transparency International (TI) did not acknowledge. It noted that last year it published a 26-page document, titled ‘Cooperative Republic of Guyana: Anti-Corruption Framework – Fact Sheet and Detailed Framework 2022’, which it said “might prove instructive for some who are intent on conveying the impression that nothing is being done to address the corruption challenge”.
At an international level, it said that Guyana’s reporting is done under two major conventions, the Inter-American Convention against Corrup-tion (IACAC) under the Organisation of American States and the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Guyana, the ministry said, has reported to both bodies in keeping with their treaty obligations and is now in its 6th cycle review of the IACAC and the 2nd assessment at the UNCAC.
At the national level, a National Coordinating Committee (NCC) on Anti-Corruption with regard to Guyana’s treaty obligations which encompasses a cross-section of government agencies has been established. This committee works on not only ensuring that Guyana is compliant with its reporting obligations, but also on capacity building and maximizing the synergies among agencies. The NCC meets on a bi-monthly basis and 16 agencies are currently represented on the Committee.
Also cited by the Ministry was the creation in 2008 of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) website with the minutes of the opening of the bids, awards of the tenders and advertisements for contracts and standard bidding documents.
Further, the ministry said that the constitutionally appointed Public Procurement Commission (PPC) is in place and functioning.
The initiatives outlined by the ministry are undoubtedly valuable and could assist in improving Guyana’s standing generally and on data bases such as those of TI. However, they won’t in of themselves negate the lived experience here of those who encounter corrupt behaviour or are aware of it and have no recourse to remedial action. Having an anti-corruption framework in place means little if it is constructed and controlled by those who have an interest in computing an image of probity even if it wasn’t in accord with what was happening on the ground.
The anti-corruption framework has to function in all of its parts and be responsive to public inputs if it is to have any chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, under this administration there is evidence of chasms in many areas which calls into question whether the intent is really there.
The vaunted anti-corruption framework did not respond to the allegations in August 2022 by a member of the Guyana Police Force, Dion Bascom about high corruption in relation to a murder investigation. Without drawing any conclusions about the veracity of the allegations it was the responsibility of the authorities to treat with Mr Bascom as a whistleblower and afford whatever protection was necessary and enable a full investigation. It did not do so. Con-veniently, the architecture for the Protected Disclo-sures Act was not in place then and is still not in place, clearly a sign of disinterest in encouraging whistleblowing, an important weapon in the fight against corruption. A belated investigation entrusted by the government to the Regional Security System of Mr Bascom’s allegations did not provide satisfactory answers.
The Ministry referenced the NPTAB website and it undoubtedly provides useful information. However, it ignores the fact that in composing the NPTAB and its evaluation committees, the government is fully in charge. It handpicks people it is comfortable with and can control. There have been a number of egregious cases where the NPTAB’s conduct has been called into question. Most notoriously it occurred in relation to the construction of two schools one by Kares Inc and the other by a company by the name of St8ment Investment Inc. Had the bidding documents been properly drawn up by the procuring entities and had the evaluation committees done their work neither of the two awards would have been made. Kares had been found culpable in the terribly poor construction of a school at Kato yet was given a new award with nary a warning. St8ment Investment Inc is composed of entertainers and footballers who had never built a structure like a school. Yet, they were awarded a contract for a school at Bamia, construction of which is already in strife. These indecencies escaped the procuring entities, the evaluation committees, the NPTAB and the government in its no-objection mode. Would the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance wish to hazard a guess as to why the system failed? It is because it has been set up to fail so that certain contractors, cronies and sycophants could be favoured. It is unknown whether any such matters were raised in the rarefied gatherings of the anti-corruption conference though it was quite noteworthy that one of the main guests at the conference hailed the importance of investigative reporting by the media.
Perhaps the conference was not apprised of the difficulties that the media and the average citizen experience in trying to undertake such investigations. Another aspect of the supposed anti-corruption framework simply doesn’t function. Here we refer to the Office of the Commissioner of Information where the PPP/C government unthinkingly appointed one of its former attorneys general to preside over the applications made under the Access to Information Act. No known useful information has flowed from this office to any applicant and if the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance wanted to be completely honest about its framework it would have admitted the comprehensive failure of this office at said conference.
If the anti-corruption conference had been open to the attendance of the media it might have heard how President Ali has only held a couple of press conferences in the two and a half years he has been in office. How is the media to properly examine the President on the host of pressing matters that face the country on any given day of the week? That is also a vital part of the access to information equation and no one can substitute for the President.
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance also referred to the PPC which it said has been appointed and is functioning. It is true that it has been appointed and is functioning but it is currently not engaged in any useful work despite having a number of complaints before it and other matters which it can take up on its own initiative. The same is the condition of the Integrity Commission which is meant to receive the returns of public officials. At the midpoint of the life of this administration neither the PPC nor the Integrity Commission could be described as actively discharging their functions.
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance may also wish to address at some stage the failure of accountability within government on matters of urgent public importance. How is it that the phone of a permanent secretary was seized by the US customs and border authorities on April 8 and her visa revoked two days later and not a word was uttered until days after this newspaper broke the story on April 21st? Where in the anti-corruption framework should there be answerability for what the seizure of the cell phone might mean to the image and standing of the ministry in question and indeed the government? Why was it that the government’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not been notified immediately? There appears to have been some sort of impediment in the circulation of information and there is still a lot to learn about this incident and the public awaits. Will the Integrity Commission interrogate the returns of the Permanent Secretary?
Guyana’s TI ranking is where it is precisely because of the lack of accountability in various directions. Hopefully the anti-corruption framework and this country’s subscription to various anti-corruption conventions can cure this.
