President David Granger has proved resistant to reshuffling his cabinet, which is sometimes used as a euphemism for dropping a minister or two. Aside from the fact that he has too many ministers crowding the corridors of government, he conveys the impression that he has not succeeded in ensuring that they adhere to whatever policy guidelines have been laid down. Many of them seem to have taken off in their own direction, and when questions are asked, the President makes excuses for them, or puts in place totally inadequate arrangements for investigating the issues which they have generated. In short, he is not presenting to the public the image of a head of state who has his hand firmly on the tiller.
On Thursday, for example, the Department of Public Information informed citizens that the pharmaceutical bond deal was “undoubtedly undesirable” in the view of Cabinet, which had considered reducing the lease period for the building, while accelerating the search for another facility. The government, it said, had agreed to secure its own pharmaceutical storage facility and was reviewing suitable sites. That the administration is trying to get its own bond is one of the few sensible things to have come out of this, but why, everyone wants to know, did all these ministers not recommend that the deal should be dumped? The ordinary man and woman in the street can see what needs to be done without much effort, so why can’t the highest officials of the land, applying their formidable combined brain power to the issue, come to the obvious conclusion?
The information department went on to say, “Further, the Government recommits itself to managing the affairs of the state in a transparent and accountable manner and to respect public opinion at all times.” Well, the public will be surprised to learn that. Even after the torrent of criticism about the leasing of the infamous bond and Cabinet’s “undesirable” verdict, the electorate still has not been told all the relevant details, and critical members of the administration do not even seem to regard it as important that they should be told.
On Thursday, Minister of State Joseph Harmon did not answer the question from reporters as to whether Mr Larry Singh had not been the beneficiary of insider information on the government’s need for a drug bond. “I cannot pronounce on that,” he said, “that is a different type of investigation which I have not done.” Well why not, the public wants to know; was he not a member of the Cabinet sub-committee which investigated the deal? It transpires he could not answer that question either: “I can’t say why they didn’t”, he was quoted as saying. He was quite definite in his denial, however, that he was not the one who had alerted Mr Singh.
As if that were not enough for the public to be getting on with, along comes Leader of the AFC, Mr Khemraj Ramjattan on the following day to tell the citizenry that identifying the point of contact between Mr Singh and the government was not a priority. Stabroek News then asked Mr Ramjattan if failing to identify a culpable party were not inconsistent with standards of accountability, to which he replied: “The remedies of having the renegotiation and the remedies of asking the minister, who is ultimately responsible, to apologise, are sufficient.” While adding that he understood the call that the government should go further, he went on to say, “I don’t know what the further investigation might prove because I don’t know if anybody is going to say, “I was the one that did that.”
This is an extraordinary thing to say. If one were to follow the logic of that argument to its conclusion then no investigation into anything would ever be done. The problem is, as was pointed out to Mr Ramjattan at the press conference, the AFC in opposition had been very strong on its commitment to transparency and accountability, and here we have its leader – and by extension, the party as a whole – accepting standards which fall well below those promised during the election campaign. The electorate can only ask in a situation where the contract should have been aborted, why has the AFC abandoned its traditional stance? If it is not the party of good governance, then exactly what does it stand for, if anything?
And then we have the matter of the Minister of Public Health Dr George Norton, who in addition to this failing, is also overseeing a ministry where it has been reported that insulin for diabetics has been in short supply, if not other drugs as well. It is not just the matter of the bond contract which is at issue, although that is bad enough, but also the question of his lies to the Committee of Supply in Parliament on the subject. It might be mentioned that he has taken full responsibility for the bond fiasco, but has still not said how the ministry and Mr Singh linked up. If he is taking full responsibility then he should explain to the public the exact sequence of events and how the government ended up in an “undesirable” deal.
That also applies to Permanent Secretary Trevor Thomas, whose signature is on the contract, but who has refused to speak on the circumstances relating to it.
The government and now the AFC have made it clear that they think that Dr Norton’s apology is sufficient to save his job. Even if one were to accept that the mistake of striking the bond deal could be expunged by an apology, there are no circumstances where it could be said that the same should apply to what has been politely called “misleading” Parliament.
The hiring and firing of ministers, of course, comes fully within the ambit of the President’s powers, but as said above, he has shown a singular reluctance to employ them to their fullest extent. Is he really going to accept a Cabinet recommendation that Dr Norton should just escape with an expression of regret? Does he really have so little regard for Parliament? Is he honestly prepared to tolerate such incompetence and possibly worse in relation to a major contract without ensuring first, that all the details are made public, and secondly, that the subject minister takes responsibility by resigning? There are some circumstances where firm action is required, but firm action in relation to his ministers is what the President seems to shrink from. It may do him credit as a human being, but it does nothing for him as a head of government.
