By Zena Henry  

AFTER almost two years at the helm of the country’s Public Infrastructure Ministry, Minister David Patterson is still to see documentation surrounding the “controversial” Berbice River Bridge project.
Patterson, who was speaking on the radio show “Hot Seat” days ago, could not provide any real update regarding the crossing since he said the relevant information is not being released by the Berbice Bridge Company Inc (BBCI).
The minister revealed that in a recent meeting with the Government consultant addressing the Berbice River Bridge matter, it was noted that the consultant was “getting difficulties in finding out the financial modelling for the Berbice Bridge …”
Patterson said he has thus asked the consultant to formally write him on the matter, while an initial move has already been made whereby the ministry’s permanent secretary has written to the Bridge Company to ascertain the reason for not releasing the contract.
He said the letter has inquired whether there are confidential pieces of information, or whether it is specifically stated that the contract cannot be made public.
Patterson said he is yet to receive an update on the matter, but his permanent secretary “has indicated unofficially that they may have an issue with us releasing it [contract] publicly.”
The minister described his utterances as a confession, revealing that, “I as minister, in 22 months, have not seen that [Berbice River Bridge] contract.”
The minister said there is no copy of the contract in his ministry, and while he refuses to speculate why that is so, he has recognised that it is a continuing search process to get the relevant information.
Patterson said he has tried seeking information from the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), but has got no response.
The Berbice River Bridge Project became a matter of contention when speculation surrounding the financing of the bridge showed that the infrastructure was more privately owned in what was supposed to be a balanced Public-Private Partnership agreement.
Public funds from agencies such as the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) were injected into the project with alleged unfavourable returns coming back to the entities.
Notably, the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Company (GPC), whose owner is said to be close to the former Government, was able to secure a large share in the bridge, thus causing public criticism.
Apart from that, the high cost of utilising the infrastructure brought more attention to the bridge as citizens were finding it financially burdensome to utilise.
The A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Government had spoken extensively on the matter and vowed to ease the strain on commuters once in office.
The Government said it wanted to increase its control over the bridge, so it could have a better say on behalf of the State. It was reported that Government had even purchased the shares of one of the investors to add a 10 per cent increase to State shares.
The Government was also able to negotiate lower prices for using the Berbice Bridge. Whereas passenger vehicles once paid $2,200 to cross the bridge, they now pay less than $2000. The Government also provides subsidised water transport to ease the cost of getting across the Berbice River.