The questions about conflict of interest swirling around two ministers of government, the Minis-ter of Public Telecommunications Catherine Hughes, and the Minister in the Ministry of Communities Valerie Adams-Yearwood, have gone completely unanswered by government. Neither President Granger nor Prime Minister Nagamootoo has addressed these matters even though they pertain to ensuring conduct to the highest standards by ministers and where it applies, their relatives.
In Minister Adams-Yearwood’s case, the revelation that a contract was awarded by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA), for which she has oversight, to her husband, had been made by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo on April 3rd. On April 15th, the minister issued a statement in her own defence but up to today, the government is still to say whether it has investigated the matter and arrived at a conclusion on the contract which was secured by her husband, Godfrey Yearwood.
In her statement, the minister said that Mr Yearwood was contracted by the CH&PA to construct a duplex unit, two single elevated units and two units for the differently-abled. The three contracts were all signed in 2017, with the final one signed in December, 2017. The minister and Mr Yearwood were married in August of 2017.
In her exoneration of herself, the minister said, “I had no input whatsoever, with regard to the award of these contracts. I became knowledgeable of same when Mr. Yearwood informed me directly”.
Unfortunately for the minister, it is not as simple as that. Mr Yearwood’s pursuit of contracts with the CH&PA, even after their marriage, has created a major conflict for her. No close relative of a minister should be benefiting from contracts issued by a government agency under her supervision. This was inappropriate conduct by Mr Yearwood but the minister cannot escape unscathed as she has to be held accountable for his behaviour. Secondly, while she may claim not to have had any input in the CH&PA decision, the appearance of a conflict of interest and the possibility that there was influence even when it was not intended, cannot be ruled out. In jurisdictions where accountability by government officials is paramount, Minister Adams-Yearwood would have resigned or her resignation sought. The minister, the CH&PA, the Ministry of Communities and the government, all have to be held accountable over the contracts to Mr Yearwood.
In the case of Minister Hughes, there are equally disturbing questions which she, the Department of Energy (DoE), the Ministry of the Presidency and the government must answer. First, the DoE was apparently interested in securing the services of Russell Lancaster for evaluation for public service announcements (PSAs) connected with oil and gas. Mr Lancaster, the manager of Minister Hughes’ company, Videomega, in turn told the DoE he wanted the contract to go to Videomega. A contract worth $832,200 was eventually awarded and the three PSAs produced.
It is bewildering that the DoE, a new agency operating within the Ministry of the Presidency, would engage in such poor judgement in securing a provider of service. It should have issued public advertisements for PSAs setting out the parameters. Why it didn’t do this is troubling particularly as it will no doubt be handling numerous other contracts in the near future. At the point at which Mr Lancaster said that he wanted the contract to be granted to Videomega, alarm bells should have gone off in the DoE over the manner in which this contract was being processed, and a public tender issued. The DoE must now explain to the public why it paid $832,200 for a testing exercise and whether it has since concluded a final arrangement and with whom.
As it relates to Minister Hughes, she can claim that she is not involved in the day-to-day running of her company. However, the bottom line is that Videomega benefited from a contract worth $832,200 and a portion of that consideration has accrued to her. No sitting government minister’s company should be making money off of government contracts. This is the ineffaceable truth that Minister Hughes will not be able to get around. The onus should have been on her to instruct the principals of her company not to bid for government contracts as the appearance of a conflict of interest would be insurmountable.
Further, the Code of Conduct for ministers and others which the government belatedly presented, raises serious questions which the minister is not in a position to exculpate herself of. That would be left to the Integrity Commission and other good governance bodies.
Article 4(1) (b) of the Code says where a conflict is perceived to exist, the public official must report the matter to the Integrity Commission for the necessary guidance to be provided, and any resolution of the conflict must be in favour of his or her official duties. This is distinct from the annual declaration of assets and liabilities of a public official, which includes any information about a public official’s private interests. Further, under Article 4(3) (c), a person in public life shall, among others, “refuse or relinquish any outside employment, shareholdings or directorships which create or are likely to create a conflict of interest”.
President Granger’s government has failed to ensure the highest standards of conduct by ministers and other senior officials in its near four-year tenure. It is left to be seen how these two cases are handled.
