Dear Editor,
Mr. Ralph Ramkarran’s article of September 22, 2024 generated much interests. That article spawned another piece in the said newspaper two days later. The topic which is pretty controversial today dealt with corruption in procurement. The article created the impression that the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) came about due to corruption in the system and created the impression that successive PPP/C governments did not establish the Commission because it was protecting corruption. Those impressions are incorrect. It appears that the author of the article was more influenced by later events which he transferred back to the period when the issue was dealt with in the early part of the century.
I must point out that the time this matter surfaced corruption was not a big problem. In fact, during the 1997 elections campaign, it was not an issue. At this period the PPP/C was doing its best to take on board as many suggestions from the opposition so that we could have gotten on with the issue of developing the country. In passing, it was in this period that we even agreed that the Chancellor and Chief Justice would be appointed with the agreement of the opposition. That concession of the PPP/C was not made because it thought that the officers were biased but the feeling was it would have created a much better atmosphere for the PPP/C and the PNC-R to improve their relations. It was a mechanism which was designed to be inclusive. The result of that decision is that for years those two positions cannot be substantively filled to the whole nation’s embarrassment.
It was the same reasoning that influenced the PPP’s attitude to the establishment of the PPC. I cannot recall who first made the suggestion to set up the body. What I do recall is the discussions in the PPP’s Executive committee when it was raised there. It was welcomed by the Party’s Exco for the reason stated above and the fact that the Party was opposed to corrupt practices and was eager to stamp it out. It was in that period as well that the PPP/C took a bill to the National Assembly to allow the media to be present at meetings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and into all other committees of the National Assembly, Standing Committees as well as select committees. All measures to promote transparency.
The problem with the PPC began when the Executive sent the Bill to the National Assembly. In the original bill that the Executive sent to the Assembly it had retained that cabinet would have a “No objection” to the awards. It was on the floor of the assembly that the then Attorney General, Mr. Doodnauth Singh, on the suggestion of the opposition removed that clause. The Executive was annoyed since it had given up its right to award contracts. The Executive was not consulted in that move and sought to have it restored.
Despite the Executive’s dissatisfaction attempts were made to establish the PPC. It was taken up by the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Lance Carberry and Donald Ramotar met to agree on the Commission. That process collapsed after Mr. Carberry sought to get the majority on the Committee’s membership, Ramotar disagreed, and things remained unresolved. Later in the 2006-2011 period Mr. Winston Murray replaced Carberry and pushed for the PNCR to have the Chairmanship of the Commission. Ramotar’s position was that the Executive had already given up quite a lot and it was only reasonable for the PPP/C to appoint the Chairperson. Again, it was not resolved. Mr. Murray passed away and no one replaced him from the PNCR.
After the elections in 2011 which saw the PNC/APNU/AFC controlling the National Assembly it was not possible for the PPP/C to establish this body. Recall that the opposition was doing everything to destabilize this country. They opposed the Budgets, cutting out many important capital programs. The PPP/C administration had to take the matter to the court to restore its budgets. Moreover, the opposition refused to vote for the Anti-Money Laundering Bill. It should be pointed out that previously they voted in favour of the same bills when they did not have the majority in parliament. However, because they wanted to damage our financial sector, they withheld their support. They were in the mood to disrupt and obstruct any program that would have benefitted the masses.
This was happening from the very outset. Recall that they were the ones who disregarded an old practice of the Parliament where the governing party candidate for Speaker is normally supported for that position and the candidate from opposition as the part of the Deputy Speaker. The PNC/AFC/APNU took both positions. In those circumstances, for the government to set-up that body where the opposition would have taken the majority, the chair would have only served to give the opposition another lever to sabotage the work of the administration. Mr. Ramkarran wrote that “…The resistance to the Procurement Commission was so deeply entrenched that the 2011 PPP/C Government sacrificed itself instead of appointing it. The AFC undertook to withdraw the motion of no confidence in 2014 if the Procurement Commission was appointed…” Someone has obviously misled Mr. Ramkarran for that never occurred.
Discussions were held with the Leader of the Opposition and the President. At that meeting Ramotar asked the Leader of the Opposition if there was anything he wanted that the Government can do to avoid the motion. Mr. Granger said he wanted Local Government Elections. Ramotar said that he too wanted it and the only reason he did not call it was the uncertainty that existed due to the one seat majority which the opposition had. He went on to tell Mr. Granger that the APNU should speak to the AFC to have them withdraw the motion or the PNC should abstain from voting on it when the bill was put to the vote.
The approach was made to the PNC/APNU because it was not that Party that had moved nor seconded the Motion. It was a totally AFC affair. Mr. Granger then replied that he had given his word to the AFC that he would support their motion. He was not willing to go back on it. Therefore, it was impossible to call a Local Government election if the motion could not be stopped. As a result, when the date for the Prorogation of the National Assembly expired, the President called the elections! Those are the facts. Mr. Ramkarran’s suggestions that the PPC was not established due to a tolerance for corruption is way off mark.
Sincerely,
Donald Ramotar