Mrs Singh should be seconded to another office with the same status and pay

Dear Editor,

In the midst of the ongoing debate or discussion over the appointment of the Finance Minister’s wife, Mrs Gitanjali Singh, as Audit Director in the Auditor General’s office, we have HPS, Dr Roger Luncheon, saying there is “no conflict of interest in [the] appointment of Audit Director” (SN, July 8), even though the fact stares him in the face the same way pervasive corruption does, yet he is in denial about it.

Before I venture further, President Donald Ramotar reportedly was piqued by the opposition’s newfound concern about Mrs Singh’s appointment given that she has been there for many years, and DemeraraWaves has reported it was APNU MP, Ms Volda Lawrence, who recommended that Mrs Singh be confirmed in the position because she is the only person qualified in the office for the job.

Even if the opposition said nothing during the past years when Mrs Singh worked in the Auditor-General’s office, it does not make it right that she should remain in an office that audits not only her husband’s work, but the work of the entire government, whose expenditures must be approved by her husband, the Finance Minister. And if Ms Lawrence did recommend that Mrs Singh be confirmed in her position, then she erred. It is as simple as that.

Editor, based on the pervasiveness of corruption and the government’s intransigence in the face of calls for accountability and transparency, this new political dispensation demands the return of good governance. Steps have to be taken to correct this untenable situation at the AG’s office, by seconding Mrs Singh to another office with the same status and pay while the Audit Office looks for a suitable replacement, even if one has to be contracted from abroad.

Back to Dr Luncheon, who has joined the choir of defenders of the indefensible appointment of the Finance Minister’s wife to the post of Audit Director at the Audit Office. His absolutely ludicrous excuse is that the entity does not fall under, neither does it report to the Ministry of Finance. Is this guy for real?

My understanding is that Dr Luncheon graduated with a Medical Degree from Howard University in Washington, DC in 1975. He did his internship in 1976 and his residency in 1978 at Howard University Hospital. Would Howard University have allowed an employee who was a relative of Dr Luncheon’s to grade his scores at that school, or would Howard University Hospital have allowed a relative of his to supervise him during his internship or residency without the hospital risking being accused of encouraging a conflict of interest? How would this appear in the eyes of other students?

An American entity, McCormick Corporation, laid out the following under its Corporate Business Ethics Policy: Family Members and Close Personal Relationships:  “The Company’s standards of conduct are not intended to intrude on our personal lives. Situations may arise, however, where our relationships with family members and friends create conflicts of interest. Generally, employees are prohibited from being in the position of supervising, reviewing or having any influence on the job evaluation or salary of their close relatives…”

If it is a conflict for one to ‘review’ a relative’s performance or salary, why should the wife of the Finance Minister be allowed to review financial reports submitted by her husband’s ministry or any government arm to determine authenticity?

Editor, it may be true that the only thing the PPP responds to is pressure, because on July 7, DemeraraWaves carried a news story, “Fin Minister’s wife to ink ‘anti-conflict of interest’ agreement; Teixeira flays opposition.” The item noted, “Auditor General (ag) Deodat Sharma has also put in place an ‘anti-conflict of interest’ arrangement by arranging for Mrs Singh to sign an agreement which outlines that she will have no involvement in any of the audits where there is a direct involvement of her husband.”

On the surface, it looks good, but in reality, this is virtually impossible, because as the Finance Minister, he has direct cabinet oversight for all government expenditures, which the Audit Office must review. Did someone say this looks like a blatant attempt to cover-up the pervasive corruption?

Tell me, how can Mrs Singh, as Audit Director or second in command at the Audit Office be shielded from scrutinizing her husband’s work or any financial report from any government ministry or department whose finances are also monitored by the Finance Ministry? Who will report her if she does not abide by the agreement?

Just a reminder that NICIL, a state-owned company handling billions of dollars in state transactions is chaired by the Finance Minister, but has not filed annual accounts in accordance with the Companies Act for years 2004 through 2011, and the Finance Minister recently appeared nonplussed about NICIL’s updated facts and figures.

NICIL CEO, Mr Winston Brassington, for his part, was reported in the Guyana Times on May 18, 2012, as saying NICIL’s audited accounts have been completed up to 2010 and the Auditor-General is now working on the 2011 set of accounts. He expects NICIL audits to be finished by June, allowing the accounts to be laid in Parliament by the end of July.

After an eight-year lapse, does anyone see why there is grave concern about the role of Mrs Singh at the Audit Office?

Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin