Discrepancies in accounting records of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) came in for scrutiny from members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Monday.
A Home Ministry team of four, led by Angela Johnson, Permanent Secretary, appeared before the committee to the face questions over the discrepancies, which were highlighted in the Auditor General’s 2010 report.
There was contention among members of the committee over overpayment by the Ministry of Home Affairs for fuel to from GuyOil to be used by the GPF. According to the Auditor General’s report, the ministry overpaid GuyOil amounts totalling $5.601 million, resulting in a misstatement of the appropriation account.
In its response, the GPF stated that for the year in question, fuel and lubricants totalling $264,577,000 were paid for and delivered by GuyOil. However, the discrepancy occurred as a result of an advance payment made to the company for fuel to be used after its supply had been depleted.
According to the Chief Financial Officer, this practice was adopted because the GPF lacked the necessary storage facilities to hold its desired amount of fuel.
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) MP Jaipaul Sharma tore into the panel, condemning the action and claiming that it was against the law to carry out business in this manner. He argued that once something had been paid for using the government’s funds, it should have been delivered and should have been in the possession of the GPF. He argued that the GPF effectively paid for goods which it was not in possession of.
Going on the defensive, the financial officer explained that though the force was not in physical possession of the fuel, technically it was still its property since it had already paid for it and the fuel was being kept in a GuyOil storage facility.
Also defending the actions of the force was MP and government Chief Whip Gail Teixeira, who argued that considering the nature of the work that the police are engaged in, it was understandable that such steps would be taken to ensure fuel and lubricant security, especially in the last quarter of the year.
Not letting up, Sharma maintained that the move was a deviation from what the law permitted, even after the Accountant General, seemingly in agreement with the GPF and Teixeira, stated that in his opinion, the move was an understandable one.
The full amount has since been recovered, and recommendations were made for the GPF to secure sufficient storage facilities to ensure that this practice is not repeated.
Living quarters
Disagreement also ensued over a sum of $30.365 million utilised for the construction of four living quarters, which was charged to the current provisions instead of the capital provision. In the citation, the GPF stated that preliminary examinations conducted on the living quarters suggested rehabilitative works be done, however, during the execution it was recognised that the building were structurally unfit and therefore had to be completely done over.
The GPF stated that it undertook the construction of the living quarters from its current provisions, even though these were entirely new facilities. The situation resulted in the misstatement of expenditure under the current provision, which was branded disregard for budgetary requirements and proper financial reporting.
According to the GPF Chief Engineer, after it was realised that the buildings needed to be done over, he “took it upon myself” to make the necessary arrangements for the building to be redone, even signing the cheques himself. It was further explained that the reconstruction was not a capital expense but a current one, and although the initial works were slated to of a rehabilitative nature, the funds made available were still sufficient to complete the reconstructions.
It was this revelation which caused Sharma to question the coincidence of costs for rehabilitative works matching the costs for construction works. It also prompted PAC Chairman Carl Greenidge to suggest that the officer-in-charge may have intended to carry out the construction from the inception, and attempted to deceive the system.
To this, the engineer explained that the amount budgeted for was sufficient only because repairs that were slated to be carried out on other buildings had been sacrificed.
In spite of this explanation, MP Bibi Shadick stated that the law demands that application be made to carry out these works, which were of a capital nature, with current funds. She stated that this act was indeed in breach of the law, even though the project remained inside the amount budgeted for.
Dissenting from what seemed to be the popular opinion at the meeting, Teixeira argued that though the act may not have been “by the book,” considering that police ranks need a proper place to stay while carrying out their mandate, she supported the move. Teixeira, who previously held the post of minister of home affairs, brought focus on the state of several police living quarters around the country and commented on the shabbiness characteristic of many of them. She stated that she was happy that the GPF was able to acknowledge this and do something to correct it.
The GPF noted that the act was wrong and stated that corrective action will be taken in the future to prevent such occurrences.
In a similar situation, the Auditor General’s report highlighted an instance where the GPF failed to provide details to support amounts totalling $4.142 million paid as provisional sums under eight contracts. An examination of the contract documents also revealed that these amounts were expended in full without the required approval being sought.
The GPF engineer explained that exceptional circumstances at the Moleson Creek Outpost influenced him to take the actions highlighted. He stated that although a considerate portion of the structure at Moleson Creek was erected, some portions of the roof were missing, which prompted him to again “take it upon myself” to use the funding available to make the living quarters suitable for occupancy.
Members of the PAC suggested that this should have been documented by the engineer much earlier so as to avoid the misunderstanding that occurred.
However, despite condemnation of this action by the Auditor General’s report, Shadick commended the engineer on “taking the initiative” and providing a solution to the problem that existed. The Auditor General recommended that adequate supervisory controls be implemented to negate possibilities of similar recurrences.
Lack of an adequate system
Other instances provided ample cause for the committee to adopt similar positions. The Auditor General’s report cited an instance where a total of 110 logbooks for vehicles were not presented for audit examination. It also stated that a similar observation was made in 2009, when 70 books were also not presented.
Circularised instructions require that logbooks and historical records be kept for each vehicle owned and/or operated by the GPF to record the cost of maintenance and other pertinent information. However, of the 430 vehicles requiring such records, work books were not present for 110. These included 41 motorcycles, 2 all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and 67 other vehicles, including cars, pickups, and trucks. In relation to historical records, these were unavailable for nine vehicles, including three motorcycles, one ATV and five miscellaneous vehicles. In the circumstances, whether the vehicles were operating efficiently, economically, and whether journeys undertaken were properly authorised could not be determined. In 2009, 7 historical records and 70 logbooks were not presented for examination.
Shadick said this demonstrates that the GPF lacks an adequate system to keep track of its massive fleet, and this is a cause for concern. Teixeira, commenting on the gravity of the situation, added that the fleet of vehicles in the possession of the GPF would have cost approximately $500,000,000,000, and therefore it is imperative that there be proper records kept. She commented on the scant regard that seems to be shown in this area and noted the number of police vehicles that can be seen in body shops for months at a time.
Former minister of labour Manzoor Nadir stated that a proper system would ensure there are records of which vehicle is in what area, who it is being piloted by as well as which ones are operational as opposed to dysfunctional. He argued that of the 430 vehicles in the possession of the GPF, it is quite possible that a large percentage of them are non-operational, but this will be impossible to ascertain because the records cannot be located.
Even after the financial officer agreed that there is no excuse for not having the files and missing records, Shadick pointed out that the report under scrutiny was written in 2010, and two full years later, nothing has been done to remedy the situation.
Noting that Johnson was responding to comments with silence and nods, Greenidge said he hoped this was not an indication that she was not taking these issues seriously. Johnson responded that her silence was fuelled by frustration since she had attempted on many occasions to bring an end to this problem, to no avail. She however, stated that she intends to institute tougher regulations and penalties for digression on protocol and asked the committee for three weeks to create a system to manage the force’s fleet. She is expected to report on their progress next January when the GPF next appears before the PAC.
Alarms were also raised over shortage of bail money, totalling $243,140, which was noted at four out of eight randomly selected police stations, spanning three operational divisions. Similarly, during the previous accounting period, a discrepancy of $58,500 was noted at the Kitty Police Station, while another amounting to $51,000 was noted at the Sparendaam Police Station.
Several committee members were shocked that of the stations subjected to scrutiny the discrepancy was discovered in 50% of them. There has been no recovery of any of the missing money.
When asked if there was not a system for the management of bail money, the financial officer stated that each station has a ceiling on how much bail money is to be kept before it is sent to the Financial Department. He further stated that the station sergeant at each police station would be responsible for ensuring this rule is observed.
As it relates to a sum of $180,000 discovered missing from the Turkeyen Police Station, the GPF stated that the “Sergeant Thomas was recognised as the responsible but that he died subsequent to the discovery.” As a result, the force indicated that it is in the process of assessing the man’s benefits to determine if the amount can be subtracted.
