Corruption and the government's response
Editorial
Stabroek News
July 5, 2004
In a response to the Stabroek News editorial on July 1 headed "Corruption" and which dealt with growing concerns about graft and financial irregularities in high levels of government, the Govern-ment Information Agency (GINA) through its Editor Steve Narine outlined via a letter in yesterday's Sunday Stabroek the measures that the government had taken to root out graft and it gave the assurance that whenever the administration unearths corruption these instances are made public and a "full and transparent investigation/probe is done". GINA added "there is no covering up and guilty parties face the full force of the law". The public will no doubt welcome these commitments even though doubts remain about the outcome of inquiries that surround government officials and others.
GINA listed measures instituted and some examples of actions taken against corruption suspects. Some of these measures warrant a closer look. GINA pointed out that annual reports by the Office of the Auditor General are now tabled in the National Assembly. It is true that prior to 1992 the PNC's record on accountability was truly horrendous and there was a 10-year period when there appeared to be no effort whatsoever to audit the state's accounts and no doubt much jiggery-pokery occurred in government accounting and fertile conditions were created for graft. Yet since 1992 the Auditor General's reports have become an end in itself for the government and year after year the same complaints are made about irregularities and misfeasance which the government and its accounting officers do very little about. Clearly there have been improvements but the government does not treat these reports with the seriousness they deserve. One would have hoped that the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament would have had a greater impact in ensuring that accounting officers immediately remedy faults and ensure no recurrence. GINA noted that an audit bill has been passed to further enhance transparency. It is left to be seen how soon and in what detail the provisions of this act are implemented. Too many pieces of this type of legislation are passed and left to mould on shelves without being enforced. Moreover, it is also left to be seen if the Auditor General's office will be provisioned with the type of resources required to completely fulfill its mandate such as deciding on special enquiries and the exercise of full control over the auditing of all public accounts and large foreign-funded projects which taxpayers will eventually have to foot the bill for.
Mention was made by GINA of the Integrity Commission being in force. It can be said without fear of contradiction that in spite of its well-meaning creation and the efforts of its commissioners the public probably knows more about US Senate hearings than it does about this local body even taking account of the need for confidentiality in its proceedings. In the many years since its creation the public has not been advised by the Integrity Commission of any discovery of irregularity. Guyana is not that clean. This Commission needs to now assess its usefulness and make the relevant recommendations to the government about its future. It is a problem that affects similar bodies in other parts of the Caribbean.
GINA further contended that there was no tendering for government contracts when the PPP/C came into office but today there is an "internationally approved procurement system". This is not so. The tender system has been the subject of routine and continuing concerns about fairness and transparency. This led to the government's inevitably tortoise-like consultations to revamp the entire system. A new procurement law was passed and then hastily repealed and another one brought to Parliament and approved. Sadly this Act is still to be put into use and its activation has become a hostage of the present political stalemate.
Mr Narine then enumerated examples of government's timely response to "corrupt" activities. He said the Permanent Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Legal Affairs was sent on leave and subsequently surcharged $500,000 after he was found responsible for financial and accounting irregularities in the execution of a US$222,500 ($44.5M) contract to upgrade the Laws of Guyana. As things go, this was a light tap on the wrist of this Permanent Secretary who moved on to another ministry seemingly no worse for the wear as a result of his transgressions. As argued in the July 1 editorial, the government appears deeply averse to laying charges where there could be embarrassing disclosures as there could have been with this particular contract. If the matter was as serious as GINA described it how come not a single charge was preferred against the PS or any other persons concerned?
In another case, GINA said that the Regional Executive Officer of Region Six was removed after he was found to have deliberately sub-divided contracts to escape adjudication by the tender board. This is a befuddling statement as it would suggest that the various enforcement authorities have been lax in their prosecution of those engaged in this practice. The annual Auditor General's reports are littered with instances of contract subdivision to escape adjudication. From the Guyana Defence Force - notorious for this practice - to central government ministries, yet there is no evidence of charges being laid against accounting officers for this particular infraction.
GINA also cited the case of the 23 postal workers who were dismissed following the discovery of a scam in the old age pension scheme. There again we have the dismissal/no-charge syndrome. Not a single one of these persons has been charged with any crime despite the heinous defrauding of the old age pension system. Moreover, some of these persons were even taken back into the postal system! That cannot be a proud record for the government or the police. Quite coincidentally, last week in Trinidad a postmistress was sentenced to 89 years in jail after being charged with defrauding the old age pension system there. That is something to note. Postmasters were suspected of involvement in the fraud here but they escaped punishment.
In yet another instance there was a dismissal but no charge; the Chief Enforcement Officer in the Ministry of Housing was fired after seeking sexual favours from a female applicant. This person should have been fully prosecuted as there appeared to be bountiful evidence against him judging by the President's swift and unequivocal dismissal of him.
Clearly there have been cases where the government has taken action against those who have participated in corrupt acts. But there is a growing view among people like expelled PPP/C member and MP Khemraj Ramjattan and others that corruption is present in high places and in these instances the guilty parties are protected or eased out quietly to avoid any damaging revelations or protracted and embarrassing court cases.
As we said in the July 1 editorial, one case in particular will test the state's resolve this year and this is the remigration scam where neither the Guyana Revenue Authority nor the police service has shown any enthusiasm - at least publicly - to prosecute the guilty parties even though a clear paper trail should exist and there should be innumerable witnesses who could be coaxed into giving evidence. The remigration scam is the litmus test as it gorged itself upon a tautly wound racket operating between two pivotal ministries. The public will not be satisfied with amnesties, declarations of a lack of evidence or attenuation. It wants swift action as there should be. We believe that since the original report was sent to him and he made the earlier announcements in relation to actions to be taken that the President himself should say whether he is satisfied with progress in this matter and if not what he intends to do about it.
In addition to the remigration case, the recent irregularities in the Wildlife Unit, which is administratively under the Office of the President, and the questionable exports of animals, raise many piercing questions which require an external investigation and not one of the type being currently mounted.
These are the cases that will help further shape the public's view of the government's response to corruption reports.