Ralph Ramkarran exposes the PPP's "disingenuous" stance on Public Procurement Commission: they either intend to "sabotage the establishment of the PPC" or are "determined to do nothing to stop corruption"

Topics

Former Member

CALLING THE GOVERNMENT’S BLUFF

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Ralph Ramkarran

www.conversationtree.gy

It is no surprise that yet another objection by the Government has now suddenly emerged to the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). After the AFC’s campaign and the Private Sector Commission’s public and forceful call, the Government has been on a propaganda blitz. It has paraded its record of legislation, publicized the work of the National Procurement and Tender Board (NPTB) and held a seminar for stakeholders. All this is to justify its resolve not to further advance the process of transparency in the face of continuing and credible allegations of corruption in procurement.

In 2000 the Constitution Reform Commission saw the need for a PPC, recommended it and in 2002 the National Assembly unanimously approved the amendment to the Constitution to provide for it. The Constitutional Commission, which is subject to law, would have the same review function which the Government well knows.

The Procurement Act was passed in 2003, ten years ago. Section 54 gives the right to Cabinet to review and object to an award by the NPTB. This right comes to an end when the PPC is established. The Opposition had objected to a permanent Cabinet no objection in the Bill. The Government agreed to an amendment to terminate Cabinet no objection when the PPC was established. Now that public pressure is mounting for the establishment of the PPC, it is reneging on its own position, finding excuse after disingenuous excuse.

The Attorney General, the Hon. Anil Nandlall, has argued that since the Government is answerable to the electorate for the expenditure of public funds it must have a role in the procurement process. Surely his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Doodnauth Singh, revered by Mr. Nandlall, at the time when he led the negotiating team in the National Assembly and agreed to terminate the role of Cabinet upon the establishment of the PPC, would have recognized of this principle to this situation. Mr. Nandlall knows and fails to acknowledge that Mr. Doodnauth Singh would have known, that by the time the contract is awarded by the NPTB, the Cabinet would have already approved the expenditure by presenting it in the Budget Estimates. Not only would the Cabinet have approved it, but the National Assembly would have done so as well. The Cabinet has thereby discharged the first limb of its responsibility.

Now it must ensure that the contract is awarded transparently and in accordance with law. The Procurement Act and the Constitution, both supported by the Government, have established the NPTB and the PPC, charging them with exactly that responsibility. This has been done because the Government is not equipped to perform this task. Over the past weeks the Government has been publicly setting forth the provisions of the Procurement Act to show that its work is above board and that contractors have a right to appeal. If there is a PPC to review this process, the Cabinet has discharged the second limb of its responsibility by ensuring transparency.

Finally it must ensure that public funds are properly spent and accounted for. The monitoring of the execution of the contract and the expenditures are done by engineers, accountants and project execution officials employed by the Government in various Ministries for this very purpose. These are further monitored by the constitutionally appointed Auditor General who is responsible to the National Assembly. The Cabinet has therefore discharged the final limb of its responsibility.

Therefore, the desire for second guessing by the Cabinet of the work of the NPTB can have no possible justification at all much less after the supervisory powers of the PPC are brought into play. There has to be other motives for the Government’s demand for Cabinet no objection. The obvious one that immediately comes to mind, having regard to all that is said above, is that the Government intends to sabotage the establishment of the PPC. The other is the now accepted perception that the Government is determined to do nothing to stop corruption.

In the larger interest of establishing the PPC, the Opposition ought not to reject the Government’s demand, but should call its bluff. Section 54(3) of the Procurement Act provides that “if the Cabinet objects to the award, the matter shall be referred to the procuring entity for further review.” It should agree to Cabinet no objection but propose that the section should be further amended to provide that the objection should be for defined reasons with the necessary particulars substantiating the reasons. The NPTB should then convene a hearing to which both parties are invited and evidence taken on the basis of which a conclusion should be arrived at. Either party should then have the right to appeal the decision to the PPC.

A contractor who has gone through a lengthy and expensive exercise to tender for a project and who succeeds after the rigorous examination provided for by the Procurement Act is entitled to due process, a right which the Attorney General cannot deny. The absence of a requirement for the Government to provide reasons would be highly unfair to give licence to the Cabinet to whimsically or maliciously object to an award and then to have a “review” of that award by the NPTB who are employees of the Government. It does not matter how high the integrity of these officials, it would be seen to be unfair, and justice will not be seen to be done, if the Cabinet is allowed to subvert the procurement process after it has gone through all the procedures. This compromise position, if supported by the Opposition, would test the bona fides of the Government.

Former Member

THE PROMISE OF 1950

Posted on May 24, 2014 by Ralph Ramkarran

This is an appropriate time, on the occasion of the celebration of Guyana’s 48^th Independence Anniversary, only two years before age 50, to begin the assessment of our condition as an independent nation and try to assess the future. Such a discourse is even more urgent at this time when it must be clear to all that Guyana’s post independence political dispensation is poised for a transformation. While politicians contend with the pressures of managing, or even acknowledging, new political developments, leaving frustration in their wake, there is no doubt that change is upon us – change so dramatic that it will transform our political landscape.

The discourse could begin by asking the question: What did a shovelman (Fred Bowman), a Hindu Priest (Pandit Misir), a lawyer of Chinese heritage (Rudy Luck,), a dentist (Cheddi Jagan), a lawyer and a Guyana Scholar (Forbes Burnham), a transport supervisor and trade unionist of mixed but dominant European extraction (Frank Van Sertima), a school teacher (Sydney King), a mixed heritage transport worker (Ivan Cendrecourt), a woman optician (Sheila La Taste), an American-born woman (Janet Jagan) and a trade unionist (Hubert Critchlow), mostly young people, have in common? These are 11 of the 22 General Council members of the PPP of 1950, chosen at random.

The General Council laid the foundation for our modern political development by mass mobilization, demanding universal adult suffrage, independence and socialism. As the true founding fathers and mothers of our nation, by merely coming together from such disparate backgrounds, they sent a message that a successful political movement in Guyana and genuine economic and political liberation and progress and prosperity for our nation, could only be achieved by ethnic unity and broad class solidarity. It is the fiery denunciations of oppression, the soaring rhetoric of liberation, uttered with purposeful intent by young professionals and workers of all heritages, men and women clad in red and white, that inspired the poor still living in urban ghettoes and rural logies. It is such inspirational language, never heard before, from people of all colours and classes on a single platform, that resonated so deeply within our psyche, which created the first stirrings of independent nationhood, and which have led us to celebrate tomorrow.

This narrative needs to note the cataclysmic events after 1950. These did not shatter the promise of 1950 but merely postponed its realization. At times it has been hard to hold on to, such as through the violence of the early 1960s and the era of rigged elections and economic decline, led by some who articulated the dream of 1950 with stirring oratory. The promise was not shattered because the tenacity of our people, who survived slavery and indenture, did not then and will not now, allow it to slip from our grasp. The centuries of pain have taught us the lessons of sustaining our dreams of freedom, and of forgiveness, without which we could not have survived. A demonstration of this lesson was the silent embrace between Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham on May 26, 1966.

In the heat of the early 1960s the PPP proposed a coalition government and elicited the help of Eric Williams and Kwame Nkrumah to help to persuade the PNC. In the depressing period of the late 1970s with election postponement and constitutional imposition in the air, the PPP proposed a National Patriotic Front and a government based thereon. During the period of authoritarian rule these initiatives kept alive the promise of 1950. The PNCR in 2002 under its Leader, Desmond Hoyte, accepted the promise as the way forward for Guyana, restoring this severed promise.

As if fate conspires to postpone the realization of the promise of 1950, the elections of 1992 brought home to the PPP a 52 percent absolute majority and the then rejectionist posture of the PNC, both pre and post election, together with the mood of post election triumphalism within the PPP, ruled out any initiative toward political unity.

Now, once again, Guyana is on the cusp of profound political developments of such an historic nature that they will transform our nation and its role in the region and the world. It now has to be within the contemplation of the top leadership of the PPP, what the broad leadership already knows, that a minority government cannot be sustained. This, of course will never be admitted, unless the next attempt which is likely to be made sooner rather than later to obtain an absolute majority at new elections, is unsuccessful. If so, there is no doubt that our current leadership possesses the experience, will and statesmanship to guide the difficult process of reconciling enormous differences. Dogged insistence on minority rule a second time around will only temporarily postpone the inevitable.

It is a distinct possibility, if statesmanship prevails, that the beginning of the second half of the first century of Guyana as an independent nation, two years from now, will be marked by the continuation of the effort by Guyana’s political leadership, in conditions of national unity, to realize the promise of the founders of modern politics and of our nation of social justice and economic development. The people of Guyana paid tribute to this idea of 1950 on the passing of Cheddi Jagan in 1997 by their tens of thousands – man, woman and child, rich and poor, of every age, colour and class. A national unity government by Guyana’s 50^th Anniversary will truly celebrate Cheddi Jagan’s lifelong commitment to the ideals of 1950.

5/25/149:54 AM

Skip to main content

Topics

Add Reply

Membership Required

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

Premium Membership Required

GNI VIP Member

Please wait...