If Dr George Norton and the government were hoping that the drug bond scandal would quietly dissipate in the ether, then on Thursday they were rudely disabused of that notion. After some noisy altercation in Parliament when PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall claimed that the government was paying for the Sussex Street bond where “not a tablet is being stored” and Minister Norton hotly denied it, Speaker Barton Scotland on request from the opposition authorized a delegation from Parliament to go there and find out. It was an enlightened move on his part, since it allowed for the reality of the situation to be established rather than continuing with the empty, over-heated exchanges in the Chamber which would have uncovered nothing.
Once the delegation with the media in tow did gain access – and that took a considerable time – it was found that upstairs there was some equipment stored on the lower shelving, while downstairs there were heavy-duty items, including a number of refrigeration units. None of them, however, contained any medicines, and Dr Norton was eventually forced to concede that no pharmaceutical drugs were in fact stored at the bond.
While the opposition exercises itself on whether the Minister of Public Health through his statements during the ‘debate’ has misled the National Assembly yet again, there are more fundamental issues at stake. It will be remembered that in the first instance the bond was rented from Lawrence ‘Larry’ Singh of Linden Holding Inc whose credentials in this area are quite obscure. The contract with Mr Singh, it might be noted, was in defiance of the procurement law, since it was single sourced, and at the time it was signed the building was still incomplete. What was worse was that Linden Holding was advanced $25 million as a security deposit by the government, which invited the allegation that the money was utilized to either purchase or renovate the building.
At the time the Ministry of Public Health had the Materials Management Unit at Diamond, which had been built under the previous administration and which met international standards for the storage of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. It has never been made clear to the public whether that bond could not still accommodate more stock. The previous government had also utilized a bond owned by New GPC in Ruimveldt, a structure which also met international standards, and for which no rent was charged. However, New GPC also had the contract for the supply of pharmaceuticals, and once the present coalition came into office, the company lost that and indicated it would now charge a rental for the government use of its bond.
Minister Norton’s excuse for recommending that Cabinet endorse the single sourcing route and approve the contract was that it was urgent that another bond be found owing to the expense of paying New GPC. The problem was that New GPC had not at that stage charged any rent. This did not inhibit the Minister from lying to the Committee of Supply, telling them that drugs were already being stored in the new bond, which, he wrongly claimed, met certified international standards, and that it would cost less than the New GPC bond.
When President Granger finally entered the fray he exacerbated the situation by appointing a three-man Cabinet committee to investigate the matter, instead of some independent commission. It was chaired by Minister Joseph Harmon, the other two members being Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Minister Raphael Trotman. How can, everyone wondered, three Cabinet members investigate the Cabinet which signed off on the contract? It was a decision which rendered earlier coalition assurances of transparency and accountability quite meaningless.
It was not altogether surprising, therefore, when the sub-committee did not recommend that the contract be rescinded; it confined itself to suggesting amendment. Neither did it draw attention to the fact that the agreement referred to an office, not a bond which was PAHO/WHO compliant. If that were not bad enough, Chairman Harmon proved unable or unwilling to answer critical questions. He could not tell the public who had raised the need for an immediate bond, or who it was who had proposed Mr Larry Singh and what the latter’s bona fides were. Dr Norton subsequently took responsibility for the fiasco, but he too declined to answer those questions. The opposition and critics, of course, have alleged that the contract was designed to give business to a PNCR supporter
As it was, the Minister got off with an apology, when indirectly he pleaded for his job by asking for “an opportunity to do better”. He also told the nation that “it would not happen again”. So what does he say now? Four months later, the taxpayers as far as is known are forking out $12.5 million a month for a pharmaceutical bond, to a company whose principal has no track record in the field, on a contract which describes it as a professional office and makes no mention of international compliance, and which now, it transpires, doesn’t even house any medication?
This is all so utterly blatant that it gives new meaning to the word scandal. We know no more about this arrangement than we did when the Cabinet sub-committee finished its work. Has the lease been re-negotiated and shortened? Has the Ministry of Public Health been assiduously searching for alternative accommodation for pharmaceutical supplies – assuming it really does need alternative accommodation? Since the medicines are not in Mr Singh’s bond, exactly where are they currently being housed? Are any still in the New GPC bond, and if they are, is the government now paying rent for that space? Most of all, why are we paying for a bond of which the ministry is not making full use? Will Minister Norton please tell us exactly what is going on?
And at this stage, we really do need to be told the true story of the origin of this contract which everyone in the country – except Minister Harmon and the Cabinet, it seems – believe should have been revoked. Just why can’t this contract be cancelled? If the government doesn’t want to come clean on all of this, then the inevitable conclusions will be drawn.
And as for Minister Norton himself, who was always a conscientious and respected member of the medical fraternity, it is about time he recognized that administration is not his forte.
