Sparks fly over ‘Durban Park’ Motion
Public Telecommunications Minister, Cathy Hughes
Public Telecommunications Minister, Cathy Hughes

–Gov’t finds its tabling ‘was unnecessary’

THE motion looking into the validity of the Durban Park Development Project saw a heated debate erupt in the House on Monday night, with members of the government side deeming

PPP MP Bishop Juan Edghill
PPP MP Bishop Juan Edghill

it “unnecessary”.

The motion, which was tabled by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Member of Parliament Bishop Juan Edghill, sought to have the government make full disclosure on the project, ostensibly in the interest of public accountability, transparency and good governance.
But the APNU+AFC members argued that the Coalition Government has always been open about the project, which was necessary and of tremendous benefit to the people of Guyana.

“This government has nothing to hide; our hands are clean!” Minister of Public Telecommunication, Ms. Cathy Hughes, declared as she took to the floor to defend the project in light of a string of questions raised by the PPP through the motion.

A NECESSITY
Hughes told the House that the project was necessary. She explained that the Guyana National Stadium at Providence, which was built specifically to host the Super Eight matches during Cricket World Cup 2007, has the capacity to accommodate only approximately 16,000 people.

She said it became patently evident during President Granger’s inauguration ceremony in May 2015 that the stadium was inadequate to accommodate the more-than 30,000 persons that were expected to attend the historic Jubilee Celebrations here this year.

“During this year, we saw the largest display of pride and nationalism this country has ever seen,” Minister Hughes told the House. “It was where all of us can gather and see that gigantic Golden Arrowhead blowing in the midnight wind… No one could convincingly argue that the construction of Durban Park was not necessary, or that it was not badly needed, especially in the time that it was completed,” she argued.

Region 10 APNU+AFC Parliamentary Representative Jermaine Figueira felt it was pointless moving the motion, since the project has already found favour with the Guyanese people.
“Why are we having a debate on this needed and worthwhile investment for the people of Guyana?” he asked.

He said that while the Opposition does have a right to scrutinise projects and programmes established by the government, it is misleading to insinuate that the government did not provide the requisite information on the construction of the park.
“This government, Mr. Speaker, the Granger Administration,” Figueira said, “has taken yet another bold and visionary step in tackling the legacy of neglect of this jungle, this swampy, mosquito-and-reptile-infested land, and transformed it into a needed facility.”

For that matter, he said, the project forms part of a larger programme, which seeks to restore the capital city to its former glory.

BEG TO DIFFER
But mover of the motion, Bishop Edghill, countered that it would not have been necessary, had the government lived up to its promise to be transparent and accountable to the people of Guyana.

Said he: “Sir, transparency, as I understand it, is operating in such a manner, or such a way, that the actions that are taken or performed are known by the parties and the stakeholders concerned.”

In an attempt to imply that the Durban Park Project is a “state secret”, Edghill said: “Why we don’t know the name of the holding company or the private company that these donations were made to? We are asking that the rights of citizens to know and to have information are upheld, and the government must come clean on this particular issue.”

He maintained that, in any democracy, transparency helps citizens to monitor the actions of their government, and is seen as a mechanism to reduce corruption. He further called on the government to make public the names of the donors, the respective amounts of money donated, and whether the sums of money collected were handed over to the Consolidated Fund.
Former Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister Mr. Anil Nandlall had put similar questions to the government, warning that those sitting on that side of the House should not deviate from disclosing the facts surrounding the project.

“We heard about the glories of the 50th Anniversary; we heard about the thousands who came to celebrate; we heard about the 32 on this side who were not offered seating, except for the simple request that the motion asks,” Nandlall told the National Assembly.

FALSE IMPRESSION
Electing to take him up on the matter, Minister of Public Infrastructure, Mr David Patterson, who was not initially slated to speak, told the House that contrary to the impression the PPP is attempting to create, the APNU+AFC has always been transparent about the project.

In response to the questions posed in the motion, Minister Patterson told the House that the Durban Park Project was managed and executed by Homestretch Development Inc. before the Ministry of the Presidency took a decision to assign the multi-million-dollar project to the Public Infrastructure Ministry in April, 2016.

He told the House that though he did not have all of the requisite documents with him and was responding based on the information available to him at the time, in the name of transparency and accountability, he was attempting to answer some of questions posed in the resolve clause of the motion.

He said that because the project was being executed and managed by a private company during the initial stage, none of the contributions received were placed into the Consolidated Fund. “No contribution was paid over to the Consolidated Fund,” he posited.
Some of the contractors involved in the project included Barnes Construction, Car Care, C&L Construction, TBL Home Design, Party Development and RW Electrical among others, while the crusher-run was provided by companies such as Toolsie Persaud Limited and BK International.
It was noted, too, that 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.
When the Public Infrastructure Ministry had initially taken over the project, some $150M was budgeted for its completion; however, the government had utilised additional funding.
Supplementary Financial Paper No. 1 of 2016 had provided for an additional 407.6M from the Contingency Fund.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.