-‘Saying you did not know is unacceptable’- Thomas
It was only last year that Trinidad company Western Scientific Company Limited was blacklisted by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for what the bank referred to as fraudulent practices.
That blacklist was to last from March 2016 to October 2020, but somehow, on August 18, the coalition Government announced its no objection to a $30 million contract for this very company to supply Sysmex reagents for the Ministry of Public Health.
In an interview with this media group, President of Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc. (TIGI), Dr Troy Thomas, pointed out that the company being blacklisted by the IDB was reported on by local media. Thomas stated that the public expects better when the high level at which cabinet operates is considered.
He stressed that the violations the company had been sanctioned for are the exact thing the Government should be opposing. According to Thomas, officials in the health sector ought to know the contractors in the field, if they indeed intend to look out for Guyana’s interest.
“They’re looking after the country, and if they don’t take that seriously then they are not fit for the job. So I don’t accept the excuse that they did not know. It should be known especially by people in the field,” he declared.
“It could be that they knew and decided to ignore (the blacklist). And it might be that they felt that they were blacklisted by the IDB but not by Guyana, and maybe they see that as different.”
Regardless of these possibilities, however, the anti-corruption advocate stressed that the situation raises questions of how seriously the Government is taking the business of running such a critical sector as public health.
Cabinet has been granting its ‘no objections’ to contracts awarded by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) on the presumption that it would act as a high level check and balance.
It is a practise that the constitution says should have stopped when life was breathed into the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). The PPC was established last year October. Its functions, as set out by the Procurement Act, include to “monitor and review the functioning of all procurement systems, to ensure that they are in accordance with law and such policy guidelines as may be determined by the National Assembly,” Thomas said.
It is also tasked with promoting “awareness of the rules, procedures and special requirements of the procurement process among suppliers, contractors and public bodies; and safeguard the national interest in public procurement matters, having due regard to any international obligations,” Thomas explained.
The Act also stipulates that “it will as well monitor the performance of procurement bodies with respect to adherence to regulations and efficiency in procuring goods and services; and execution of works, approve of procedures for public procurement, disseminate rules and procedures for public procurement, and recommend modifications thereto to the public procurement entities.”
Specifically, section 54(6) of the Procurement Act, Chapter 73:05 states, “Cabinet’s involvement under this section shall cease upon the constitution of the Public Procurement Commission [PPC], except in relation to those matters referred to in subsection(1) which are pending.”
The members of the commission currently are Emily Dodson, Carol Corbin, Ivor English, Nandkishore Gopaul and Sukrishnalall Pasha. When the commission was installed last year, President David Granger had said that it would take the brunt of work off the shoulders of Government Ministers.
But even though the Commission had settled itself in, Government continued to grant its no objection to contracts. Asked about the situation earlier this year, Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, had said the group has indicated that it is not in the position to begin its work.
“The Public Procurement Commission indicated that sometime in January they will be ready to execute their mandate. Right now they are not ready because there are still some critical appointments to be made in the Commission, and therefore the role of granting no objections of contracts remains with Cabinet,” he had told the media.
In an about-turn soon after, however, the PPC had indicated that a literal interpretation of the constitution does not allow it to take over the cabinet’s function in giving no objection to contractors. It had zeroed in on section 54 of the Act.
“A literal interpretation of this section directs the immediate cessation of Cabinet’s role once the PPC is constituted. (It does not), however, provide for the PPC to take over that function from Cabinet. The role of the PPC is limited to approving the format of the streamlined report to be sent to Cabinet, and if all of section 54 (1) is to prevail, reviewing the threshold of the value of contracts to be reviewed by the Cabinet,” it had said in a statement.
“Based on the foregoing, the Commission is not empowered by the Constitution or the Act to grant no-objection or to award contracts. The awarding of contracts is the responsibility of the Procuring Entities and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board. These agencies are responsible for the public advertisements of contracts, evaluation of bids and ultimate approval and award of contracts” the PPC had said.
It would not be the first time the Ministry of Public Health has been in the limelight for its questionable procurement practices. A sole-sourced drug contract worth over $600 million for another Trinidad firm has had to be investigated.
