THE GENESIS OF THE INTEGRITY

COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC

PROCUREMENT COMMISSION

A number of misleading statements and generalization are being peddled about the origins of both the Integrity Commission and the Public Procurement Commission. Amongst the gamut of misleading statements is the claim that it was the corruption under the PPPC administration that led to the decision to have an Integrity Commission and a Public Procurement Commission.
This column seeks to correct some of the misleading statements being made about the genesis of these two bodies.
With respect to the Integrity legislation, an Integrity Commission Act was first passed under the Desmond Hoyte regime on 1991 following concerns about pervasive corruption under the PNC regime. In those days, things moved within sections of the bureaucracy in relation to the amount of grease applied. For almost all public services there were underhand dealings believed to be taking place.
In the face of concerns that reining in excesses by public officials with access to the public purse was fast becoming impossible, the Hoyte regime passed an Integrity Commission Act. This Bill was however seen as tepid and unable to curb the excesses taking place. It never did. No one was ever indicted, sanctioned, investigated or prosecuted under that Act.
When the PPPC came into power in 1992, it attempted to place emphasis of lean, clean and mean government. As part of this process, it revamped the Integrity Commission and appointed the then Anglican Bishop as the Chairman.
This appointment was met with consternation by the Hoyte administration and the party never recognized the Chairman of the Integrity Commission. In 1997, the original Integrity Commission Act passed under the Hoyte administration as repealed and replaced by another not too dissimilar Act.
Unlike what is being represented in the public domain, the Integrity Commission is not a creature of the Constitution. It is a product of ordinary legislation. It goes far enough for any government to claim that it has integrity legislation in place but it remains like a pit-bull whose teeth has been extracted.
The Public Procurement Commission on the other hand is a creature of the Constitution. And while many see this corruption under the PPP as leading to the need for such a Commission, in fact corruption has very little to do with the creation of the Public Procurement Commission.
To understand the genesis of the Public Procurement Commission one must go back to the Tokyo Round of trade talks in which it was recognized that government procurement represented a significant chunk of national procurement in developing and developed economies.
As a result, restrictive procurement policies by governments were seen as impacting negatively on international trade since foreign firms were precluded by restrictive regulations from competing for the supply of goods and services within both developed and developing countries.
As such in 1981, an Agreement on Government Procurement was developed with the aim of opening up government business to competition. Under the WTO, this agreement was upgraded and the upgrade became effective in January 1996.
In order to be compliant with this agreement it was necessary for member countries of the World Trade Organization to liberalize the procurement of government goods and services and to institute a regime that would allow for competition, fairness and transparency in public procurement.
This is why Guyana, in 2003, passed the Public Procurement Act. This was necessary to be in compliance with the WTO rules, failing which it could have faced sanctions.
Under the section of CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement dealing with procurement does not require the members of CARICOM to ensure that firms in the European Union are allowed to tender for government goods and services, it calls for fair and acceptable processes in public procurement.
The Public Procurement Act over which there is now so much controversy over Cabinet’s no objection must be seen in this international context. It is not about fighting corruption. Indeed it is all about allowing competition and there will come a time when Guyana’s international partners will demand access to Guyana’s procurement market.
Instead of Guyana quibbling over who should have a no-objection and who should not, we should be preparing for the eventual onslaught by the big players in the international markets who will make our largest firms look like a single sardine in a big pond.
What happens then? Will those demanding the removal of a government no-objection call then for certain contracts to be reserved for local firms?