With the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) placing focus on the misappropriation of money and corrupt transactions under the former government, its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Major (rtd) Aubrey Heath-Retemyer has said that it is willing to also look at spending on controversial projects under the current administration but only if it sees the need to do so.
It has been pointed out by observers as well as members of the parliamentary opposition that given the outstanding questions and the need for accountability, SARA should look at the Health Ministry’s recent emergency drug purchases, its rental of a Sussex Street Bond to store drugs as well as the billion dollar D’Urban Park development project.
Speaking to Stabroek News recently, Heath-Retemyer expressed a willingness to examine these cases even though most of the cases dealt with by SARA arose out of the forensic audits of various government agencies that was ordered after the APNU+AFC coalition entered government.
The recently enacted State Assets Recovery Act, which established SARA, is intended to combat unlawful conduct and corrupt practices in relation to property and other assets owned by the state, or in which the state has an interest. SARA specifically is mandated to recover state property or benefits obtained through unlawful conduct by public officials or other persons.
Asked specifically about the drug procurement and whether it is something that SARA can look at, the CEO explained that if out of an internal investigation “we see or we realise that there is merit for us going after… because whoever is conducting this audit would provide the report to the minister, the minister then has the first option of pursuing what he sees as the next step and if we then realise that look, that is something that we should get involved in, yes we would.”
Earlier in the year, Minister of Public Health Volda Lawrence came under scrutiny for the award of contracts for emergency drug purchases for the Georgetown Public Hospital (GPH) that were procured without the knowledge of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board and without compliance with procurement rules.
The contracts comprised the purchase of $605 million in drugs from Trinidadian conglomerate ANSA McAl and three smaller acquisitions from the New GPC, Health 2000 and Chirosyn Discovery.
Lawrence’s acknowledgement that she “fast-tracked” the purchase due to a chronic drug shortage prompted public consternation and calls for an inquiry into the matter.
In her defence, she has said that while she “fast-tracked” the purchases because of the emergency needs of the GPH, she didn’t have anything to do with the actual procurement.
She maintained that the public procurement process was not breached, although the national tender board was not aware of the contract awards until its approval was sought after the transactions.
Lawrence herself asked for the board of the GPH to investigate the circumstances behind the purchase, while the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) has launched its own investigation.
To date, no findings have been issued.
This newspaper has not been able to get an update from Chairperson of GPH board Kesaundra Alves. There is also concern about the board conducting an investigation sanctioned by Lawrence, when her role in the purchases also has to be reviewed.
This investigation is expected to provide details on the four contracts and is to outline how ANSA McAl was awarded the bulk of the over $605 million purchases without the knowledge of the tender board.
Chair of the PPC Carol Corbin has said that she would be reviewing the fast-tracking of the purchases in the wake of concerns that procurement procedures were breached.
Since the subject of the investigation is of national interest and has resulted in significant public concern, the PPC said it will submit its findings to the National Assembly.
Lawrence has publicly said that she had no problem with the PPC carrying out its own investigation and that she welcomed the move since it was demonstrative of the transparency that her government not only champions but exhibits by its actions.
Sussex St bond
Asked about the Sussex Street bond, which was rented by the ministry under the tenure of former health minister Dr George Norton, Heath-Retemyer again said that once an investigation is completed and a report handed over, the agency would decide whether it wants to look at the matter or take action.
“I am afraid that it is not a matter of simply shying away from doing anything active, it’s a question where these things have their ongoing investigations and we will have to wait until those investigations are done before we can actually take action,” he stressed.
At a sitting of the National Assembly last August, there were more questions than answers about the government’s decision to single-source the contract to store pharmaceuticals at the Sussex Street bond, which Norton claimed was due to the urgent need to find a new storage facility in light of the $19.2 million per month that government was paying to use the New GPC bond.
The government, it was revealed, was to pay the new rental company, registered as Linden Holding Company, $12.5 million a month and according to Norton there was no public tendering because it “was an emergency.”
Norton had said that with the “exorbitant price called by the New GPC” for storage at its Ruimveldt warehouse and the conflict of interest posed by using a facility run by a potential drug supplier, there was an urgency to find new storage.
It later emerged that the new facility was in fact a converted house and was still being renovated. In addition, no payment had been made to New GPC.
In light of the ensuing controversy, President Granger appointed a Cabinet Sub-Committee to review, examine and report on the deal. It completed a report which found that the bond was fit for pharmaceuticals storage but also recommended negotiations for a lower rental fee.
In November last year Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland referred Norton to the Committee of Privileges after he found that a prima facie case was made out against him as regards the inaccurate statements he made on August 8, in the House on government’s rental of the property.
It is unclear whether the Committee has ever addressed the matter as repeated efforts by this newspaper to find out were unsuccessful.
D’Urban Park
With regard to the D’Urban Park development project, which many critics have called scandalous, Heath-Retemyer said the same position applies. He said that while SARA will certainly go after any agency that misappropriate government funds, “we also have been very mindful that you have to allow the agencies to do their initial work and then refer the matter to us.”
He told this newspaper that cases are dealt with by the agency “…when somebody has referred it to us or it is obvious that we should get involved because nothing is being done.”
Last December, Auditor General Deodat Sharma had said that a special audit will be conducted into the D’Urban Park project, given the amount of money involved. It should have started earlier this year. It is unclear if the audit has begun. While the true cost of the project is unknown, it is said to be over $1.3 billion.
Based on the available information, a special company, Homestretch Development Incorporated (HDI), was formed to manage the site and is now owes approximately $798 million. The government took over the project after HDI floundered in the lead up to 50th independence anniversary celebrations that were to be held at D’Urban Park last May.
By that time, in the name of the government, HDI had collected donations and materials towards completing the site. When it was removed from the project, it was taxpayers’ money that had to be utilised.
The 2015 Auditor General’s report states that $36.509 million from the Lotto Fund went towards the rehabilitation of D’Urban Park without parliamentary approval.
The matter was a hot topic during the debate of the 2017 budget last December and later during the scrutiny of the Estimates of Expenditure. The government has said that it can only provide $500 million to HDI and those contractors who don’t get their money could sue the company.
During a previous interview, Heath-Retemyer has told this newspaper that the biggest area being looked at by the agency was the misappropriation of money. He had noted that the PPP/C was in office for 23 years and a number of offices and agencies had been compromised. “This is not witch hunting. This is common sense,” he said, while adding that a lot of corrupt deals were allowed to go unchecked and unreported. “When people steal government money, they don’t keep it where with one flick of a page or a click of the computer mouse you can find it. It is layers and that is why money laundering is such a problem when you have people who steal government money. Some of it would stay in the country, a lot of it would be banked in other safe havens around the world,” he had explained.
