Dear Editor,
The first major signal of colossal chicanery on the part of the APNU+AFC administration emerged in a press report in August 2015, that Cabinet had approved increases in salaries for ministers and other office holders by 50%. A senior minister of the administration, who hosted the post-cabinet press conference of that week, came out swinging with the government’s unqualified rejection of what he termed a rumour. He appeared visibly upset. He assured the nation that the coalition government was not going to do this. The nation swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Less than two months thereafter, an inconspicuous ministerial order in the Official Gazette was stumbled upon by an industrious reader, which shocked the consciousness of this nation.
It revealed salary increases by over 50% for the prime minister, vice presidents, ministers of the government and other office holders. The outrage further intensified when it became known that the unconscionable increases in salaries were made retroactive to July 1st, meaning that the first month’s salary received by this government for virtually doing nothing after the May 11th elections, was flatly rejected. It became obvious that the foolish intention was to conceal such vital information from the very people upon whose backs this humongous financial burden was imposed.
The government’s first reaction was one of embarrassment. Attempts at justification flew from every corner of government. When they did not succeed, the embarrassment transformed into arrogance.
The very Minister who stoutly denied that the government was planning any such salary increase, impudently declared that the public should “get over the salary increase and move on”, and from the floor of the National Assembly, he boldly announced that the government will make no apology for the same.
The same level of opaqueness and guile that permeated the atmosphere surrounding the astronomical salary increases now envelops the payment of an outrageous maximum rental for living accommodation for out-of-town ministers. It is now pubic knowledge that the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and senior ministers of the government are entitled to a housing allowance of $25,000 per month by law. Alternatively, the government may provide living accommodation for them. There is no provision in the law for such allowance to be paid or such facility to be provided for junior ministers. Also, as the Clerk of the National Assembly pointed out to me in a recent letter, there is no legal authority authorizing the payment of rental of living accommodation for a minister, a fortiori, a junior minister. Boxed in a corner, the Clerk was forced to resort to the innovative mechanism of an “administrative decision” as a justification for the payment of rental at a rate of $500,000 for Minister Simona Broomes. The truth is that barring the President, the law does not authorize any public official to pay public monies in such circumstances based upon “administrative decisions.”
In my response to the Clerk, I posed the following questions: Who made the “administrative decision” to rent at a rate of $500,000 per month? What factors were taken into account in determining such a rate of rental of living accommodation for a junior Minister, having regard to the fact that the law provides only $25,000 as a housing allowance for the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and senior ministers of the government? What process of competitive procurement was embarked upon, if any, in respect of this transaction? Finally, was the approval of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) obtained? In this regard, I requested a copy of the rental contracts, if any, which the NPTAB approved. I also reminded the Clerk that a decision of an executive President of Guyana to grant certain concessions to a most senior functionary of his Cabinet and senior Minister of Government and Attorney General, as part of the latter’s contract of service, resulted in the institution of a criminal charge which is still pending.
To date, we are told that the Parliament Office foots such rental bills for only two junior ministers of the government. However, we are aware that they are several senior ministers who are living in rented premises. We are unaware what is the rate of rental per month and how these rents are financed.
This vital volume of information, I believe, is kept discreet and away from the taxpayers. It is clear that since the Parliament Office budget is now approved in a block vote as a constitutional agency, and is no longer the subject of a line-item by line-item scrutiny, it has been converted into a ‘milking cow’ by this administration. Under the PPP administration, most if not all the expenditures personal to ministers and members of Cabinet were part of the Office of the President’s budget and in some instances part of the budget of individual ministries. Under such a construct, these budgets were and still are subject to line-item by line-item scrutiny in the Committee of Supply. This facility of oversight is no longer available as these expenses now are hidden within and form part of a lump sum, which is approved for the Parliament Office’s budget. Was the transferral of these expenses from central government’s budget to Parliament Office’s budget done with the intention of removing them from parliamentary scrutiny?
I see apologists for the administration desperately contending that the PPP government paid similarly high rates of rentals for their ministers. The names Clement Rohee, Robert Persaud, Pauline Sukhai and Dr Jennifer Westford have been mentioned. As a result, I made some inquiries. I learnt that Clement Rohee lived in a property owned by the state. Robert Persaud lived in a property either owned by or controlled by GuySuCo. Neither of these premises attracted rent from central government. Pauline Sukhai lived in a house for a period rented at a rate of US$900 or $180,000 per month. Dr Jennifer Westford’s rental was US$1,000 or $200,000 per month. So there is no basis to compare.
Nothing short of a full and complete disclosure of all expenses paid from public funds, personal to members of Cabinet and ministers of the government will suffice. Bishop Juan Edghill was hauled before the Privileges Committee for disclosing to the people of this country that the salary increases imposed by this administration for ministers amounted to them receiving over $200M annually. Those computations did not include the increase in per diem allowances paid to ministers travelling overseas; it did not take into account the gigantic rentals paid for ministers’ living accommodation. If these are included the sums will swell.
In any event, the public does not know what else might be paid with public monies. Commissions of Inquiries are trending.
A most compelling case exists for one to be launched immediately into the perks, privileges, allowances and other personal facilities enjoyed by members of Cabinet and ministers of government at the public’s expense. A government committed to transparency and accountability will most willingly oblige.
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall, MP
