Dear Editor,
I had no intentions of revisiting this issue, but I am now compelled to so do, in response to Dr. Anand Goolsarran’s (the columnist) column dated July 22, 2024, in the Stabroek News (SN), under his “Accountability Watch” Column. The columnist made certain assertions that were riddled with inaccuracies and his opinion therein suggested that he conveniently ignored several key disclosures and explanations by the undersigned.
I must say that Dr. Goolsarran’s standard of ethical and professional conduct versus my standard of ethical and professional conduct are two vastly different standards altogether.
First, let me address Dr. Goolsarran’s standard of ethical and professional conduct.
In that regard, I wish to draw to the public’s attention that Dr. Anand Goolsarran was contracted by the APNU+AFC Government in 2015 to conduct a number of forensic audits for select public sector agencies. The circumstances and procedures surrounding that audit were questionable.
According to the former Finance Minister, Mr. Winston Jordan’s report to the National Assembly, in response to questions posed by the Opposition at the time, he reported that the “forensic audits” cost the national treasury over $133 million and counting at the time that report was made. In terms of the procurement procedure, the former minister reported that the procurement procedure followed in the award of the contracts was in keeping with section 28 (b) of the Procurement Act, and that the audit was carried out in accordance with the Audit Act of 2004. Notably, section 28 (b) of the Procurement Act 2003 states that: “the procuring entity may engage in single-source procurement when –
b) The services, because of their highly complex or specialized nature, are available from only one source.
When the award of the contract was made to Dr. Goolsarran, he was heavily criticized by other accountants as reported in the local media. These criticisms were in relation to his expertise and experience as well as conflicts of interest given that he was a staunch critic of the former government at that time, coupled with the flouting of the Procurement Act, whereby there was no public tendering process.
The Audit Act of 2004 does not explicitly provide for “forensic audits”. Notwithstanding, Part IV of the Audit Act, Section 18 provides that “the Auditor General may engage the services of technical experts and Chartered Accountants in public practice to serve on a contract basis for limited audit engagements including those required as part of agreements with international organizations”. Sections 19-22 set out the guidelines for such contracting, limit of tenure, limit on scope of work, and the authority. Therefore, it is only the Auditor General that has the authority to engage external experts to carry out such an audit, provided that it was triggered by a legitimate event.
Evidently herein, in so far as the forensic audit conducted by Dr. Goolsarran under the APNU+AFC Government was concerned, there were a number of issues surrounding ethical considerations that he ought to have been honest and transparent to the general public about, to the extent that (i) he ought not to have involved himself in the audit if he was conflicted in any way, if he was/is affiliated with the political parties at that time, (ii) he ought not to have involved himself if he did not possess the requisite specialized training and experience, and (iii), he ought not to have involved himself if the Procurement and Audit Acts were violated in that process. Notably, both Acts were breached, and it was the same Audit Act that he operated under when he served as the former Auditor General for the country.
I, on the other hand, had recused myself on two occasions, as I have previously disclosed, when matters for complainants came to the attention of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), where I currently sit as a Commissioner, and those complainants were either past or current clients of my private firm. The PPC’s record would confirm this fact. The PPC’s record would also confirm that I disclosed and recused myself from the recruitment process for two candidates who were personally known to me. Furthermore, the PPC was duly informed of my private consulting practice and is therefore well aware of same.
With respect to conflict of interest concerning ExxonMobil Guyana (EMGL) and the PPC,
I emphasized that EMGL has nothing to do with the Public Procurement Commission, per se. Rather, EMGL’s operation is governed by the Petroleum Agreement (2016), the Local Content Act, the Petroleum Activities Act, and the Environmental Protection Act. Thus, there is absolutely no conflict of interest, considering that the PPC’s mandate concerns oversight responsibility, monitoring and compliance, among others, in relation to public procurement, pursuant to the Procurement Act (2003).
Question: Would Dr. Goolsarran consider a Commissioner of the PPC holding an executive office within a political party a conflict of interest and/or a breach of Article 212W of the Constitution of Guyana? If so, why was there no inquiry on his part and/or SN’s, with the same degree of alacrity on which he has relied in his article about me?
I wish to also re-emphasize that I am not a government employee or official. The PPC is a constitutional body, which means that the commissioners of that body are constitutional officers of the State, not the Government. Accordingly, I do not have an employment contract with the government; what I have is an instrument of appointment by the President, having been duly nominated and approved by way of a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
Contrary to the columnist’s assertion, there is no provision within the constitution or my instrument of appointment which defines my appointment as full time and/or restricts other employment. This is so for other constitutional bodies as well.
Finally, contrary to the views of Dr. Goolsarran et.al, I have never defended the Production Sharing Agreement (2016). I defend Government policies, and I have produced a series of analytical work in respect of the oil and gas sector, where the terms of the PSA were applied to perform the analyses, and as in some cases, the interpretation of certain clauses were warranted. To reinforce this point, it would be an exercise in futility if anyone were to embark on an intense online search within the public domain to locate a single written piece by this author or any of my verbal presentations at any other public forum, where I have said that the 2016 PSA was a good deal. In fact, I am the first to have registered criticisms on public record, viz-à-viz, a critical review of the 2016 PSA back in 2016/2017 when it was released to the public.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
