AMIDST heated debates in the National Assembly on Monday, Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson informed the House that the Durban Park Development Project was initially managed and executed by Homestretch Development Inc., a private company; but that “L. London, B. Ram, J. Miller and B. Wilson” were also involved in the project.

He said the Ministry of the Presidency made a decision to assign the multi-million-dollar project to the Public Infrastructure Ministry in April 2016.

Making this disclosure in response to a motion brought before the House by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Member of Parliament Bishop Juan Edghill, the Public Infrastructure Minister, who initially was not slated to debate the motion, told the House that he did not have all the requisite documents with him, and was responding based on the information available to him at the time. He said that, in the name of transparency and accountability, he was attempting to answer some of the questions posed in the resolve clause of the motion.

He told the House that because the project was being executed and management by a private company during its initial stage, none of the contributions received was placed into the Consolidated Fund.

“No contribution was paid over to the Consolidated Fund,” he posited.

Some of the contractors involved in the project were Barnes Construction, Car Care, C&L Construction, TBL Home Design, Party Development, and RW Electrical; while the crusher-run was provided by companies such as Toolsie Persaud Limited and BK International, and asphalt was provided by the Demerara Harbour Bridge at a cost of $59.3M.

“Sir, there is nothing to hide in the books of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure,” Minister Patterson told the House.

From all indications, Bishop Edghill, who had tabled the motion in the House, was dissatisfied with Minister Patterson’s response, which he described as inadequate.

The PPP Parliamentarian said the motion sought to have a number of questions answered in the name of transparency and accountability, but many of the APNU+AFC Members of Parliament, including the Public Infrastructure Minister, had failed to respond to key aspects of the motion, seeking rather to address the relevance of Durban Park and the important role it had played in hosting Guyana’s 50th Independence anniversary celebration.

“Throughout this debate, sir, we have listened and experienced a level of stubbornness that came from the Government benches as it relates to the issue of transparency, accountability and good governance,” Bishop Edghill told the House during the late-night debate.

Shortly after taking over the project from the private company in April 2016, the Public Infrastructure Minister had said that consultations were held in the lead-up to the project. He maintained this position on Monday.

It was noted, too, that the project has several phases. Minister Patterson had said that some $150M had, in the first instance, been allocated for completion of Phase 1 of the project; and that $400m were subsequently allocated to fully complete the project.

“It must be noted that the Ministry’s responsibility over Durban Park will not reduce or detract its funds for other scheduled projects. In a sub-head under “Agency 322 Public Works: Chart of Account 1214900 Infrastructural Development”, the sum of G$150M has been provided from the Contingencies Fund to assist in this project. The G$72.889M voted under this sub-head by Parliament will not affect the approved scheduled projects,” Minister Patterson had noted.

After much back-and-forward in the debate of the motion, it was taken to a vote, and the Government used its majority in the House to vote it down.