A policy insisting that ministers declare ownership of private companies here, and outlining how government would address such issues, needs to be created in the interest of transparency, head of the Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI), Troy Thomas says.
“When you move into public life, especially with something like heading a ministry, I think it should come with some recognition of rules. You have to choose; if you are a private business owner, be a private business owner or stay in government. It cannot be both,” Thomas told Stabroek News.
“There needs to be a policy about what people should do. This is something that they need to address urgently going forward,” Thomas said, stating that such a document should clarify the expectations of ministers who also function as business proprietors. “Otherwise, you can’t get away from the appearance that something wrong is going on,” he added.
Thomas’ comments come in wake of Minister of Public Telecommunications Cathy Hughes’ company, Videomega Productions, being awarded an $800,000 contract by the Department of Energy (DoE) to produce three Public Service Announcements.
Hughes has been accused of impropriety as a result, however, she has said that since becoming a Minister of Government, she has relinquished day-to-day management of the video production company and was unaware of the transaction.
Manager of the communications and production company, Russel Lancaster, says he was personally approached by the DoE concerning some work for the agency and in turn, asked that it be transferred to the company. The veteran artist and producer/broadcaster has sought to absolve Hughes from any blame directed at the company, saying she knew nothing of it.
But former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran, has said that Hughes is in clear breach of the Integrity Act and should immediately relinquish all ties to her company or resign if she wants to keep it.
The minister yesterday rejected Goolsarran’s assertions, saying that the Integrity Act specifies that the minister has to use their influence for their personal interest in order to be considered in breach and reiterated that she had no knowledge of the contract and thus, could not influence any decision.
“No person in public life shall use his or her official influence in support of any scheme or in furtherance of any contract or proposed contract or other matter in regard of which he or she has an interest. I have never made or participated in the making of any decision in the execution of my office as Minister of Public Telecommunications in the deliberations of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) decision to award a contract to Videomega Productions. I have no relationship with the decision making processes of the DoE. The decision was entirely that of the Department of Energy, she said in the statement.
“I have never utilised any influence official or otherwise to influence the furtherance of any contract with VideoMega Productions Ltd. I have never at any time prior to the public comments by MP Gail Teixeira and Edward Layne from Channel 28 been aware that the DoE was considering the award of any contract to Videomega Productions,” she added.
Hughes said that she has followed all guidelines and last year declared, as is required, her company to the Integrity Commission.
“In my declarations to the Integrity Commission made in July 2018, prior to the declarations of most members of the National Assembly, including the Leader of the Opposition, I fully disclosed my interest in Videomega Productions Ltd. I have taken no decision in my capacity as Minister of Public Telecommunications or in my personal capacity which has been the subject of a conflict of interest,” she stated. (See full statement on page 6.)
Not enough
While making it clear that he is not singling out Hughes or any other minister, Thomas said that a minister declaring that they did not know of a deal of their company or that they are not involved in that business’s daily operations was not enough to satisfy that there is transparency of public funds use. He said the public has a right to have more than verbal commitments from their government representatives and if verbal commitments would be used as a defence and are accepted for one government minister, then it should go across the board for all.
“It is never a good appearance. I heard the minister say she is not involved in the company’s day to day operations but it is still her company and I don’t know what procedures are in place for this kind of thing. There should be some kind of declaration so it is known that this is her company and an official decision on how it would be handled. I don’t want to discredit her without evidence but if they are not willing to accept that for everyone then what? If we are just going to accept someone’s word then everyone should be able to say that and we should accept the words of everyone,” he said.
“The very people are not prepared to do (so) when it is someone else, or someone some can’t trust. Well you cannot expect that concession for you…the minister should not say ‘this only applies to me’ or ‘that it is just somebody pointing a finger at me’, the same rule has to be applied to everyone. If not then it would just be picking and choosing whose word we take,” he added.
Thomas said that when choosing public life, persons have to understand that there are certain commitments that come with it and if they cannot abide with those then they should continue to pursue the private ventures that they have.
“You might say that you are not involved but do the people who are looking at those contracts, do they know this? How did that [knowledge] feature into how they handled the case? There is the potential for corruption and perceived corruption and you have to stay clear of that,” he said.
“People in public life, in general, if you don’t want to be open and transparent, that is the choice that you have but if you are a minister and own a firm then you should stay clear of government contracts or give up your ministerial post and continue with your business. It is a choice,” he added.
