By Rehana Ahamad

“I can’t recall,” and “I’m unable to say,” were statements repeatedly used by Balraj Balram, former Permanent Secretary of the then Ministry of Public Infrastructure, as he was being questioned on a series of glaring infractions that occurred under his watch, the most damning of them being the sole-sourcing of a $72.2 million contract to purchase three motion scales.
The contract, signed by Balram in 2016, contained no dates, bore no witness signatures, nor displayed the verification number from the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB). Even more glaring, was the fact that the contract was signed even before Cabinet had approved the purchase.
As the matter was called into question at Wednesday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Balram was unable to provide answers on the questionable undertaking, defending that it had been five years since the contract was signed.

Balram’s claims of ignorance was much to the annoyance of Opposition Member of Parliament, Ganesh Mahipaul, whose party – the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) was in power during the time the contract was signed.
“You seem to cannot remember where the company is located, if it is in Guyana or another jurisdiction; you also seem to not have recalled that there is no witness on this contract that you signed; you cannot recall that there is no date on this contract; you cannot recall that there is no NPTAB number on this contract,” Mahipaul lamented.
Meanwhile, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira, sought to question on whose authority Balram acted when he inked the suspicious contract. To this, Balram responded that he does not recall the circumstance under which the flawed contract was signed.

“You do recognise that this entire paragraph points to serious breaches of the Procurement Laws of Guyana?” Teixeira queried to which Balram responded, “I agree.”
These breaches were all revealed in the 2016 Audit Report which highlighted that, as at December 31, 2016, the contract sum was paid in full. However, to date, it is unclear whether the purchases were ever delivered to Guyana. The ministry’s current Permanent Secretary, Vladim Persaud, has committed to providing further clarity on the issue.

NOT ‘CONCOCTED LEGALLY’

In the meantime, Interim Chairman of the PAC, Jermaine Figueira asserted that the document cannot be deemed as a contract, since it was not “concocted legally”.
PAC Member and attorney-at-law, Sanjeev Datadin, questioned whether Cabinet had approved the sole-sourcing of the devices, and under what grounds. Persaud explained that approvals for sole-sourcing would have to be done in accordance with specific NPTAB guidelines. In this instance, Persaud said that a justification would have had to be made, stating that the device could not have been supplied locally.

“I don’t want to speculate until I would have done an investigation to find out exactly what was the process with regard to making representation to NPTAB for sole-sourcing,” Persaud noted.
The 2016 audit report had indicated too that “a performance bond was not presented for audit examination”. It also stated that as of September 2017, the scales, which had a 90-day delivery period attached to it, had still not been delivered.
The purchase of the devices was made under the Ministry’s Equipment/tools line item. “The contract provided for an advance payment of 50 per cent of the contract sum within 30 days of signing of the contract and the balance on delivery,” the report specified.

It highlighted too, the lack of any evidence that an addendum to the contract was ever prepared. In its official response to the Audit General, the ministry said that the observations were all correct and the ministry was working to remedy the situation. The Audit Office had, in 2017, recommended that the ministry pursue the matter to ensure that the scales were delivered.
APNU+AFC MP, Juretha Fernandes, also criticised the vague responses from former PS Balram, calling it unacceptable.
“The whole reason that we have these accounting officers present is to give details as to what went on and why these queries were made in the first place,” Fernandes posited.