With the new revelations about the D’Urban Park project for the independence jubilee celebrations two things stand out starkly. First, there is an urgent need for an investigation into all aspects of this project from start to finish and from top to bottom. The problem is who will commission this inquiry and staff it when one considers that several high officials of this government were involved in some way or the other? This would preclude any involvement of the executive in convening an inquiry. The best two options would be for the Office of the Auditor General to invoke provisions permitting a special audit in cases where state funds are involved or for the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, which comes under the legislative branch, to seek the best way of investigating this project.
Second, the manner in which this project was developed leads one to conclude that the government wanted a project shrouded in secrecy with shadowy figures lurking in the background. There is no other conclusion that can be arrived at considering the number of years the PNC in its varied forms, the AFC and later APNU excoriated the former PPP/C government for numerous shady and opaque deals and transactions. What was the state of consciousness of the APNU+AFC decision-makers when they decided to enter this thicket of bad decisions and unaccountability?
None of the official explanations for the various segments of this project can withstand scrutiny and this includes statements made by President Granger. In particular, he stated that a private company, Homestretch Development Inc (HDI) was established as a transitional arrangement since budget funds were not available. Yet, the budget of August 2015 was presented before preparatory works on the site had taken place and another budget was presented in January 2016. HDI was incorporated in January 22, 2016, just a week before the presentation of the 2016 budget. There was adequate time for a budgetary provision. Even in the absence of a budget there would have surely been financing options available had the project been completely under government control rather than being shunted into the hands of persons who are not accountable to government and Parliament. Surely this would have been a project worthy of access to contingency funds given the importance of the celebration.
President Granger also incorrectly stated that HDI was a special purpose company which it is not. Further, he suggested that HDI was a transitional arrangement. This is not how it happened. HDI was relieved of responsibility for D’Urban Park after it permitted disastrous and shoddy work on the site and was clearly unable to deliver the project for May 26, 2016. The other excuse was that it had run out of money and credit arrangements had dried up, another good reason why it should not have been entrusted with this project in the first place. The President also asserted that there was no attempt to hide the existence of this company but the evidence to date is that there was indeed an attempt to keep this from the public as HDI was never formally presented as being in charge of this project and neither its mandate nor its terms of reference was revealed.
Inevitably questions arise. Does HDI have a current or future relationship with D’Urban Park or has its ‘special purpose’ drawn to a close? It is clear that this government’s intention is to involve as many former and current army officers in non-military matters to the exclusion of others. However, on what grounds can the government justify entrusting a project for the celebration of the country’s 50th anniversary of independence to Mr Larry London? That decision proved an ignominious failure and in itself must be explained by the government. As in the case of the entrusting of the infamous bond deal to Mr Larry Singh, someone in the APNU+AFC administration was instrumental in identifying Mr London for this role. Who is this person and that person must now justify the decision.
It is in the arrangement for HDI/Mr London that major damage has now been done to the transparency credentials of the government. Having used this same model for the inauguration of the President and the cleaning of the Independence Arch, the government attempted the same with a much larger project without recognizing the grave dangers. It cannot be possible that the APNU+AFC administration believed that it was acceptable for a private company to solicit donations from the private sector and others for a major state undertaking like D’Urban Park completely outside of the Consolidated Fund and the various legislative and parliamentary checks. That mechanism is a rank opportunity for corruption, cronyism, patronage, theft and any other number of maladies that characterise opaque government. Its repercussions were immediately apparent. Workmanship on the D’Urban Park stands was poor and posed dangers to those who might have sat in the stands. There was clearly no supervision of these works. Further, some of the donors to the project or those who were solicited by HDI supplied substandard materials. Again, this completely bypassed any type of supervision on this project. A grave travesty and dangerous to the public.
If it was the case that at some point the project would have been taken over by the government then accountability problems would have deepened as there would have been commingling of private funds gathered under unknown circumstances and public funds voted by Parliament. A major portion of the project proceeded without any verified and verifiable statements being delivered to the state auditors or to the ministry with responsibility for the project so that the public could be aware of who contributed and to what extent. A recent statement in Parliament by the Minister of Education Dr Roopnaraine that such donors may not want to be known to the public for fear of criticism is unmitigated nonsense. The greater interest is for the public to indeed be aware of who these donors and contributors are so that their future involvement in public life can be examined for any signs of being favoured as a result of their contributions. Dr Roopnaraine further compounded this poor excuse by suggesting that those involved in the project were engaged in “patriotic” duty. Aside from the fact that patriotism can be easily abused as an explanation for anything, it is no substitute for transparency and openness and that is the overarching need at the moment in governance.
It must also be pointed out that up to May this year, when his ministry took responsibility for the project, Minister Patterson could have disclosed the name of the company but failed to do so. The Minister also neglected to mention in Parliament on November 21 that Minister Roopnaraine was one of the directors of the company.
What should at least be clear to the government now is that the way it prosecuted this project has damaged its standing as it relates to making accountable and transparent decisions. This is similar to the PPP/C’s Cricket World Cup – which ironically the present government is currently investigating. The government must use this experience as an example of how not to undertake projects and begin trying to rectify the situation. Mr London and the others who were actively soliciting and labouring on behalf of HDI must be called upon to deliver as much detail as possible on how they went about soliciting money, how much was collected in cash and kind, to what use was it put and who audited transactions to ensure that they were above board. The public should also be given full details on how contractors were chosen, which contractors did what aspects of the work and who supervised these works if at all. All available documents must be handed over for scrutiny. D’Urban Park is an asset of the people and they have a right to know what transactions were conducted in their name.
