GECOM’s CEO misleads Guyana on ads withdrawal from K/News

Sep 03, 2017 News, https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...thdrawal-from-knews/

After weeks of concerns and questions over irrefutable evidence that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has withdrawn placing ads in Kaieteur News in retaliation to reports of procurement fraud, the current head has broken his silence.

But what he said in an exclusive interview to an evening newscast, Capitol News, has raised even more questions, with his credibility now being called into question.

GECOM’s Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, in explaining the ads placement of his entity, said on record that Kaieteur News received more than $900,000 in work, giving the impression that it was all ads.

Even the Capitol News reporter believed it was all ads.
However, less than half of it – $433,000 – represented subscriptions for newspapers. That meant a little more than $500,000 was payments for ads up to mid-January. After that, GECOM simply stopped placing ads.

Lowenfield never explained that for the year, as compared to Kaieteur News, GECOM made payments to Stabroek News for $4.8M. Just over $300,000 would represent the yearly subscription for Stabroek News.

In all, in addition to the subscription, GECOM signed 17 contracts with Stabroek News up to August month-end – nothing for Kaieteur News.

While Kaieteur News, the newspaper with the largest distribution, has been reporting on those ads placement (or lack thereof in Kaieteur News), Lowenfield and GECOM have been very quiet, despite some shocking revelations about procurement irregularities that came out in news reports.

Even the administration, although disagreeing with the use of ads placement as a weapon to silence media houses, seemed hesitant about speaking on the issue.

The Ministry of the Presidency, when asked, had pointed out that GECOM is independent, but there is clearly no policy of the Government to use ads as a weapon to punish media houses.

However, Commissioners of GECOM insisted this past week, that the Secretariat does not have permission to withdraw any ads, with the situation being compounded by the fact that there is no chairperson and therefore no meeting on the Commission to be briefed or for the matter to be raised.

According to Lowenfield in his interview, his advertising budget was cut, and this was the reason for affecting the ads in media houses like Kaieteur News. He said for elections years of 2015 and 2016, Kaieteur News received $12M and $25M respectively. However, he claimed, this year, there is no election and it is quiet, something that Kaieteur News should understand.

Lowenfield said it is a fact that over the years Kaieteur News has been getting more ads than the other media houses.

“Sometimes, media houses would receive more than the others…it is the nature of the business…and I am sure Kaieteur understands that clearly.”

However, Lowenfield failed to explain that GECOM and its commissioners had always stood in favour of all ads being placed in all the media houses.

In the past, it has been the policy of consecutive administrations to use media houses with the largest reach when it comes to deciding where to place the ads.

GECOM Commissioners Bibi Shadick and Robeson Benn, who represents the Opposition on the Commission, last week distanced themselves from the seeming decision that the entity has taken.

“I am concerned about the situation. I had raised it before, but I am not seeing they are saying anything,” Benn said.

Shadick, a lawyer and former minister, was even more blunt.

“What is happening is at the Secretariat level. Usually the Commission meets, give instructions to the Secretariat…that has not happened.”
She said that Commission never discussed any issue of withdrawing ads.

“The Commission encourages ads in all the newspapers and media houses to ensure the widest reach. I read of the ads being withheld…I have no knowledge of it. What is happening at GECOM should not be happening.

The Secretariat cannot make decisions without approval from the Commission.”

She urged that President Granger correct the current GECOM situation – where there is no chairperson, by appointing one.

“Keep fingers crossed that the President appoints a Chairman and things go back to way it was.”

The situation of the ads withdrawal has been seen as a clear attack on press freedom by the newspaper.

Late last year, whistleblowers alerted the media to possible wrongdoing at GECOM with regards to the awards of several contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Following investigations by Kaieteur News, utilizing multiple sources including GECOM workers, accountants, sources at the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), and others, it was discovered that hundreds of millions were indeed spent by the entity that manages general and local government elections, the distribution of ID cards, and voter education.

Not only were the tenders not advertised in many cases, but there was clear fraud in the process, including the faking of quotations.

At least one prominent supplier has denied that it ever issued a quotation that GECOM submitted to the NPTAB.

In some cases, GECOM deliberately split contracts, keeping it below the $15M ceiling, to keep it from being scrutinized by Cabinet.

The reports saw state auditors descending on GECOM’s offices, carrying out months of investigations. Several red flags about the procurement procedures used by GECOM were raised by the Audit Office with the issue even appearing in reports.

At least one audit report on the purchase of $100M in communications radios for the general elections of 2015 is nearing completion, with several alarming discrepancies found.

The radios were never used, although the then Cabinet of Donald Ramotar was told that $100M in equipment had to be purchased to use in remote areas for the elections.

Lowenfield has refused to explain, saying he is awaiting the outcome of the state audit.

GECOM’s Chief Accountant, Joseph Eastman, and Admin Manager, Michelle Ward, had also refused to take calls on how exactly taxpayers’ dollars were spent.

GECOM, led by former Chairman Dr. Steve Surujbally, had noted that procurement was handled by the entity’s secretariat, headed by Lowenfield.

With GECOM in the spotlight over the selection of a new chairperson following the departure of Dr. Surujbally earlier this year, the Opposition, especially, has been calling for reforms.

With regard to the radios, weeks before the May 2015 elections, GECOM’s secretariat made a case for the purchase 50 High Frequency radios for use during the elections.

Because of the emergency nature, the purchase was approved by the then Cabinet, under former President Donald Ramotar.

The communication radio sets were outdated and came too late for them to be deployed in time for the May 11, 2015 elections.

The glaring breaches were not for those unserviceable radios alone.

According to official figures of contracts awarded in 2015, there were two payments for Duracell batteries by GECOM. One contract was awarded on April 23, 2015, about three weeks before the elections, for $14,529,000. This contract was awarded to the company that was awarded the radio contract.

There was another contract awarded to the same entity for $9,180,518 on May 21, 2015, making it a total of $23,709,518 paid for Duracell batteries in 2015.

Three weeks prior to the election, the entity doled out $14.8M for the purchase of nippers/pliers from a King Street, Lacytown business. The owner is the brother of the individual whose company was awarded the contract for the batteries and radios.

It appeared that GECOM paid out an average of $6,000 apiece for those pliers when they could have been acquired on the local market for $600. It was not even a familiar brand.

This past week, GECOM made the news again, after it was learnt that the locks were changed on the doors of Deputy Chief Elections Officer, Vishnu Persaud, who returned to work earlier this month after leave. He reportedly worked a week and then returned to his office on August 21, to find the locks changed. He was told that his contract had expired. He had been working there since 2001.

Topics