‘We may not agree with its findings but we have confidence in the Public Procurement Commission’ – Opposition Leader

While the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had made some general remarks regarding the work of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), Opposition Leader Dr Bharrat Jagdeo has clarified that the Party still has confidence in the body although it did not agree with all of the reports.

During a recent press conference, Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira had expressed that she had ‘no confidence’ in the PPC, since she believed that a thorough probe would not be conducted into the award of a contract to Dutch company LievenseCSO for a feasibility study on the proposed new Demerara River bridge.
However, Jagdeo dismissed the “unfortunate characterisation” of comments made by the PPP/C Member of Parliament (MP). He said, “Reservations were expressed about the work of the PPC. We may have reservations about the pace in which the PPC does its work…we may not agree with all of its findings…”
However, the former Head of State noted that the PPP/C would continue to work with this body. “…we will continue to supply information to the PPC to expose the serious acts of corruption taking place in Guyana by this Government … we participated in the formation of the PPC, so even with those reservations, we have not lost confidence in the PPC.”
Teixeira’s ‘no-confidence’ remarks were made based on the fact that PPC Chairperson Carol Corbin promised to look into the matters raised with the relevant entities and also wrote that this would be done “within the confines of (the Commission’s) work programme and available resources”.
The Opposition MP had expressed concern about the Commission’s response, noting that the law mandated it has to investigate complaints. Teixeira, who wrote requesting the probe of the feasibility contract, even described the Commission’s response as scary – when its responsibilities are considered.
“The issue to flag is that phrase, within the confines of our work programme and available resources. Now the Constitution makes it absolutely clear that once there is a complaint, the PPC has to investigate it. It cannot say, well we have a work programme and we have these 10 items, we have to do these first. Or we don’t have enough resources. This is unacceptable, this is a Constitutional body,” she asserted.
Meanwhile, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall had stressed that the PPC’s functions and mandates are outlined in the Constitution. “So it’s not a capricious or whimsical schedule that they can construct. They have to have a work programme that is within their constitutional mandate. And the matters requested in the letter are matters that ought to find priority within their constitutional mandate.”
According to the Opposition MPs, the Commission has also responded in similar fashion to requests for probes into the D’Urban Park Project and the Sussex Street bond. Opposition MP Juan Edghill had confirmed that the Commission also responded in similar fashion to his request for two probes.
In a letter to PPC Chairperson Corbin, Edghill identified aspects of the D’Urban Park Project the Party is most concerned about. Edghill, a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), noted that despite promises to the contrary, no account of donations received between September 2015 and January 2016 was made public. The PPP/C, therefore, queried the procurement process used for works on the project; as well as the scope a private company has to engage contractors and receive funding for a public project. The Party queried the budgeted and actual costs throughout the project, as well as the final cost. In addition, the Party demanded information on what payments were made to individuals and contractors up to June.
In the case of the Sussex Street bond, Edghill also approached the PPC to call for an investigation into the contract inked between the Public Health Ministry and a known financier of the coalition Administration.
Edghill had also indicated that the political Opposition was demanding “a definitive pronouncement specifically addressing if this award was done in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective manner according to our procurement laws.”