AMONG the first things the APNU+AFC government did on assuming office was to commission a series of forensic audits into state-owned institutions. This was making true on the campaign promise to restore accountability in Government, and suggested the coalition partners were serious about their stance for good governance when they were in the Opposition.If not all, at least some of the audits are in; and they have presented a picture of laxity in compliance with procedures and the management of the state’s resources. They have also revealed discrepancies, fraudulent practices, and political interference. Accompanying these revelations, recommendations have been made to improve systems, including procedural strengthening and criminal actions.

From the audits, insights were gleaned into the amount of money the Government and people lost through irregular practices. For instance, the audit on the Guyana Gold Board said that, due to poor management of the gold in the board’s possession between 2012 and 2014, the country lost over $10 billion. This sum could have gone towards improving existing services and infrastructure, or be invested in some other needed developmental project.

In December 2015, Finance Minister Winston Jordan presented to the National Assembly figures tallying around $133 million, being spent on the audits. This sum is immaterial where actions will be taken pursuant to recommendations prescribed in the audits.
Where, from all evidence thus far available, management of the affairs of state was not in conformity with established best practices and rules governing its organization, corrective measures, including deterrence, have to be put in place. And while it may be easy political talk that to act in accordance with recommendations amounts to recrimination or witch hunting, the question that should be asked is: Can the country afford not to act?

Where the society has called for, and seen, the wisdom in spending significant sums of money to bring about improvement in government practices, such was investment in the undertaking that there will be commitment to act based on findings and recommendations. And in a society where skepticism is high when it comes to politicians and Government acting in the interest of the state and people, what is not needed is the fuelling or nurturing of this skepticism.

Guyanese at home and abroad desire better governance and improvement in the standard of living for themselves and families. In the pursuit of good governance, the standard of conducting the state’s business has to improve. And this also includes holding to account those who have engaged in actions inimical to the state or organisation they manage. Doing this also helps to create the needed level playing field which would communicate to the ordinary man and woman that the politically connected and holders of higher office are not above reproach.

Conversely, it is understandable that in a society where racial identity informs association, acceptance, and rejection of issues; and self-serving politicians capitalise on such, Government may harbour reservations about acting. Where this reservation exists, it is to the Government’s, Opposition’s and everyone’s benefit that actions be executed in a transparent manner, one consistent with recommendations and a possible look at the feasibility of having a special prosecutor handle the cases where criminal prosecutions have been recommended.

While the sums of money diverted to the audits should not be seen as wasted outside of paying the auditors, it would be a waste of money if recommendations are not acted on. Further, where those who have engaged in inappropriate conduct are allowed to walk without being held to account, the floodgate is open for worse to follow. In short, the Government has to be mindful that the audits are not seen as a waste of time for improving the public accounting system, holding persons to account, and making Government responsive to the people’s needs.

At the political level, failure to act provides bragging rights to those who initially said there was no corruption and had challenged the Government to prove there was. At the societal level, persons’ confidence in the political system — regardless of which side of the political fence they sit -– would be eroded, and they would become disengaged in the processes of governance, which is not good for our system of inclusionary democracy and creating a Government that works for all the people.