THERE has been, within recent days, much media attention on the functioning of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), one of the most significant watchdog oversight committees, in terms of accountability of public funds. This important parliamentary oversight committee was set up during the period of colonial rule in 1957 by Standing Order 82 (1) of the National Assembly. It plays an important role in ensuring transparency and accountability in government finances.

One of the main tasks of the PAC is to scrutinise audited accounts as presented by the Auditor General’s Report.

It is an established fact that the Office of the Auditor General was marginalised, both under the Forbes Burnham and the Desmond Hoyte administrations. For a number of consecutive years, there were no Auditor General Reports and as such, there could not have been any scrutiny of public funds over a prolonged period.

All of that changed after the PPP/C assumed office in October 1992. Not only was the Auditor General’s Office strengthen, but Annual Reports to the National Assembly were done on an annual basis which allowed for full scrutiny of all public accounts.

It is hypocritical, therefore, for the political opposition to now pretend that it is one of the strongest advocates of public accountability when it was the one that was responsible for undermining the system of accountability of public funds during its 28 years in office. In this regard, it is useful to recall the period when Peter D’Aguiar, then Minister of Finance in the PNC-UF coalition government resigned in 1967 in utter disgust over corruption under the Forbes Burnham regime.

The political opposition is now seeking to project a view that the current PPP/C administration is standing in the way of the scrutiny of public funds at the level of the PAC. Nothing could be further from the truth. As noted by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs with Responsibility for Governance, Ms Gail Teixeira, there are more meetings of the PAC now than under the previous APNU+AFC administration. For example, the PAC of the 12th Parliament has already held 61 meetings, 17 more than under the Granger-led administration. According to Minister Teixeira, from 2021 to present, 61 meetings were held compared to 44 during the 2015-2019 period.

As far as reports detailing the work of the PAC covering the aforementioned period are concerned, one report was submitted to the National Assembly during the 10th Parliament; three reports covering six Annual Reports during the 11th Parliament and two reports covering three Annual Audit Reports during the 12th Parliament.

The above does not in any way lend credence to opposition claims of a less than vibrant PAC, which unfortunately, seem to be uncritically parroted by some sections of the independent media. As pointed out by Minister Teixeira, it was during the tenure of the APNU+AFC coalition that the levels of scandals and violations of the Procurement Act became widespread and pervasive.

As such, Government members of the PAC have no intention to hurriedly run through those years as the Opposition members would like to have done for obvious political reasons. The objective of the opposition, she said, is to rush through these reports to detract public focus on what transpired during those years.

The PAC is too important a body for the political opposition to seek to use it in a partisan way with the view of attempting to score cheap political points. The PPP/C administration must be commended for strengthening public accountability and full transparency in the management of public funds in Guyana, both at the executive and at the highest legislative levels.