Minister of State Joseph Harmon yesterday said it was not he who informed Chief Executive Officer of Linden Holding Inc Larry Singh that government would need a bond for rental ahead of his company clinching the controversial deal to rent a Sussex Street bond to the Public Health Ministry.
“If I told Larry Singh? Joseph Harmon? No,” Harmon replied when asked on the sidelines of a post-Cabinet press briefing.
Ministry of the Presidency Communications Director Mark Archer told reporters that questions would only be taken on Harmon’s summary of the September 6, 2016 Cabinet meeting, which focused mostly on capital contracts, but the minister entertained the question as he was exiting the briefing.
He said too that government was aware of the matter and would be making “some pronouncements” shortly.
The question of who in the David Granger administration was the point of contact between Singh and the Public Health Ministry for the controversial pharmaceutical bond contract still remains unanswered.
Harmon said he could not say why the Cabinet Sub-Committee did not seek to find out how Singh knew that government would need such a facility. “I can’t say why they didn’t,” he said.
And on if government was convinced that Singh was not privy to insider information, he said, “I cannot pronounce on that. That is a different type of investigation which I have not done. ”
Following questioning in the National Assembly, Public Health Minister Dr George Norton has faced heavy criticism over the three-year contract, which was sole-sourced to Singh’s company for the Sussex Street, Albouystown bond, at a rate of $12.5M per month.
At the time that Norton addressed the House during questioning about the expenditure, the bond was being converted for the storage of pharmaceuticals. Singh’s company has no track record in the area of storing pharmaceuticals.
The Ministry of Public Health has been threatened with litigation by a taxpayer if it does not cancel the controversial contract on the basis of the “unreasonable” monthly rental cost, the unsuitability of the premises for the intended purpose and the violations of the Procurement Act that were committed in the sole sourcing of the contract.
