Committee to probe GDF
- massive improprieties documented in AG’s 2002 report
Kaieteur News
June 15, 2004
A committee has been set up by the government to conduct an investigation into the operations of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) based upon the findings contained in the Auditor General’s Report of 2002.
Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, told Kaieteur News that the work of the committee, established to conduct the probe, has been ongoing for some three months and is continuing.
He stated that the committee is comprised of representatives from the Office of the Auditor General, ex-soldiers, and the Office of the President among others.
In the Auditor General’s report, it was stated that $59.2 million were expended on materials, equipment and supplies.
In relation to the purchases falling within the limits of $180,000 and $600,000, there were 53 purchases totaling $17 million. However, the Departmental Tender Board awarded only 42 purchases.
Eleven purchases totaling $3.6 million were made without the approval of the Departmental Tender Board.
There was no evidence of competitive bidding.
A similar breach was observed in the 1999, 2000 and 2001 Auditor General reports.
In relation to the purchases falling within the limits of $600,000 and $6 million, there were four purchases totaling $9.3 million being made without the approval of the Central Tender Board.
In respect of the purchases exceeding $6 million, there was one payment amounting to $8.7 million for 180,000 rounds of 7.62-39 blank ammunition for which there was no approval by Cabinet.
The report said the Accounting Officer explained that it was never the practice of the army to request approval for the purchase of ammunition.
As of December 31, 2002, the GDF owned and controlled 47 vehicles of which five were unserviceable.
Of the 40 logbooks that were supposed to be kept for the vehicles, only 27 were presented for audit.
In the absence of logbooks, it could not be determined if journeys undertaken were properly authorised and whether there was effective control over the use of the vehicles.
Twenty contracts totalling $7.4M, falling within the limits of $180,000 and $600,000 were included in the $37.3 million that was expended on maintenance and infrastructure. The Departmental Tender Board did not award ten contracts totalling $3.7 million.
Because of the nature of some of the works, physical verification could not be carried out and reliance had to be placed on certificates attesting to the satisfactory completion of the works.
In relation to the construction of the revetment at the Coast Guard headquarters and the resurfacing of the roadway at the Air Corps hangar, two contracts were awarded by the Central Tender Board in the sums of $11.4 million and $3.8 million, respectively.
It was noted that the construction of the revetment at the Coast Guard headquarters is of a capital nature and should have been provided for under the capital estimates.
In addition, there were two payments totaling $1.7 million for the purchase of galvanised pipes and steel rods that were not approved by the Central Tender Board. Physical inspection of the works carried out revealed overpayments of $563,000 and $286,944 respectively.
In respect of the overpayment of $563,000, it was explained that other works to this value were done, but no documentary evidence was seen for the variation.
In relation to the amount of $266.3 million expended on dietary supplies, Cabinet had approved of a list of suppliers.
However, purchases were made from other suppliers.
Two purchases totalling $1.7 million falling within the limits of $600,000 and $6 million were made without the approval of the Central Tender Board.
The Accounting Officer explained that these purchases were made from other suppliers because the regular suppliers were unable to meet their commitment.
A similar observation was made in relation to the purchase of clothing and equipment, accommodation, agriculture farm supplies, accommodation items, sports and entertainment.
Revenue derived from the commercial operations of the GDF was used to defray expenses in connection with the aircraft operations.
Such revenue should have been paid over to the Consolidated Fund, as required by Section 17 of the FAA Act.
Therefore, such retention of revenue is a breach of the law.
In addition, to accommodate expenditure out of the revenue derived is a circumvention of the parliamentary approval required to incur such expenditure.
This practice was drawn to their attention in previous reports and despite this, no attempts were made to comply with the legal requirements.
For the period under review, $72.7 million was received as revenue while payments totalled $74.5 million.
In 1995, US$196,770, equivalent to $27.5 million, representing proceeds from charter services was not paid into the GDF’s foreign currency account.
The charterer was instructed to pay over these sums to five overseas suppliers of aircraft spares.
Confirmation was not received from one supplier in relation to payments to him totalling US$92,338, equivalent to $12.9 million.
The matter is engaging the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Defence Board.