DESPITE charges of bribes, kickbacks and the misuse of office to further gains, the Alliance for Change (AFC) failed to present any credible example of a procurement transaction by the Government of Guyana that was subject to corruption.
The fifth in the series of corruption debates on the National Communications Network (NCN) last evening focused on procurement with a four-member panel and chaired by Professor Al Creighton, Vice Chancellor of the University of Guyana. The panellists were Finance and Agriculture Ministers, Drs. Ashni Singh and Leslie Ramsammy respectively; Chairman of the National Procurement and Tender Board (NPTB), Donald De Clue, and General Secretary of the AFC, David Patterson, who presented the charges.
Patterson, however, failed to stick to the subject under debate, and focused on the non establishment of the Public Procurement Commission and the execution of contracts after procurement was done.
During his presentations, Patterson sought to create an imaginary nexus between the absence of a Public Procurement Commission (PPC), the execution of contracts and corruption in the procurement of contracts.
De Clue, in his description of the functions of the NPTB, pointed out that the body is currently exercising the duties of the PPC, which it has the mandate to overlook. Minister Singh, adding to this, pointed out that while the Constitution of Guyana in the Procurement Act has provision for a PPC, there are also laws and regulations included which show that the system does not need one.
Minister Ramsammy, in his contribution to the debate, admitted that there are times when the system would lapse, but emphasized that government has put a number of laws and regulations in place in a move to reduce and eliminate these lapses.
The Agriculture Minister challenged the AFC General Secretary to produce evidence where there were no lapses in any country around the world, and to point to specific cases of corruption in procurement in Guyana.
Patterson protested that the system was not working due to the absence of a PPC, and pointed out that it was government’s fault that one was not established. This charge was rebutted and the AFC member was pointed to the Opposition dominated and led Parliamentary Accounts Committee which has the mandate to approve the names of the members for the establishment of a PPC.
On the charge of Fedders-Lloyd being refused the contract for the construction of the Specialty Hospital, because of evaluators of the tenders being hand-picked, Minister Singh stated that the evaluators were professionals and not politicians, and slammed Patterson for the attempt to besmirch the reputation of Guyana’s professionals across the sectors.
The Finance Minister also challenged the AFC for trying to push government to award the contract to Fedders-Lloyd, stating that the leader of that party, Khemraj Ramjattan, had a vested interest in that happening, since he was the local representative of that company as well as its legal advisor.
Patterson was unable to refute this charge and admitted that Ramjattan did indeed represent Fedders-Lloyd.
He then turned to the Supenaam stelling and was advised that his points put forward dealt with the execution of the contract rather than the procurement of it.
On the issue of the charges of breaches of procurement through a Cabinet waiver for the acquisition of drugs for the Ministry of Health from the New GPC, Minister Ramsammy pointed out that government was carrying out to the letter, recommendations made by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for developed and developing countries for their sourcing of drugs for their national health systems.
Minister Ramsammy reiterated that even though the New GPC was granted the pre-qualified status for the supply of drugs, government nevertheless still put forward an advertisement for bidders to become pre-qualified. New GPC again won the bid.
As the debate wrapped up, Minister Singh posited that the AFC had yet again attempted to discredit the government and ordinary Guyanese people, and to bring shame to Guyana with its unsubstantiated claims.