Unprepared for the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) over discrepancies in spending in 2016 on the repairs to land transportation, a Guyana Defence Force (GDF) accounting team yesterday got a reprieve when it was granted a deferral.
The decision was taken yesterday at the first PAC hearing held since 2018, where APNU+AFC MP David Patterson, who chairs the PAC, recognised that Commander Vernon Burnett was unprepared to provide satisfactory responses to questions asked by both government and opposition committee members.
While highlighting that it was unacceptable for the PAC to accept the responses given, Patterson said the GDF should have been better prepared to answer the questions on the expenditure.
“Additional time would definitely give us an opportunity to peruse all documents and even interface a little bit more with the state auditors who prepared the audit and maybe that would put us in a better position to provide more clarity and concerns to these questions,” Burnett said as he agreed with Patterson’s recommendation to suspend their hearing, held at the Public Buildings, yesterday.
With the Audit Office finding that over $8.5 million spent on repairs for a single vehicle in 2016, the GDF was grilled on the expenditure but the accounting officer was unable to provide satisfactory responses.
According to the Auditor General’s 2016 report, “$239.659M was expended on repairs and maintenance to sixty-four vehicles. It was also noted that the average cost to repair and maintain each vehicle was in excess of $3.744M and the highest amount paid for one vehicle was $8.531M.”
Under intense questioning by both sides of the House as to why that amount was expended on the maintenance of the vehicle, Commander Burnett, despite the presence of former accounting officer, Retired Col. Paul Arthur, was unable to answer the questions.
Burnett initially told the committee that the money spent on the vehicle was due to a major repair, which he stated was an engine replacement. However, when grilled further he was unable to provide answers such as the type of vehicle that had been repaired.
However, after making enquiries, Patterson informed the committee that the money was spent on a Bedford 4 tonne tipper truck carrying registration number DFB 1530. He noted that for every month of 2016 moneys were paid to conduct repairs on the truck.
Patterson said in “January, $1,467,100; February, $231,580; March, $1,738,700; April, $960,400; May, $1,535,500; June, $824,250; July, $943,200; August, $10,000; September, $236,800; October, $379,500; November, $75,800; and December $128,600. It all amounted to a total of $8,531,430.
Costly maintenance
Burnette explained that the army does not have enough vehicles to support its mission and while it is cognisant of the fleet being old, it cannot easily discard any of the vehicles. He noted, too, that it is aware that the maintenance of the old vehicles is costly but with its limited resources it has to utilise what is available.
Additionally, he pointed out that during 2015 to 2017, the force’s operational tempo increased significantly as officers from every department were more involved in activities of the force.
According to the Auditor General’s report, a sum of $374.881 million was spent on Vehicle Spares and Maintenance. Included in this amount is the sum of $290.054 million, which was spent on the maintenance of vehicles. Upon examination, the Auditor General said there was duplication of payment on six invoices, totaling $2.706 million.
However, Burnett said that they were able to recover overpayments and systems were put in place to prevent a recurrence.
“This was a lapse on the part of the staff. I am happy that we had been able to recover the sum. I want to assure the committee that our SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) are now in tandem with the financial regulations and the stores regulations and it is our hope that such recurrence will never happen. We also have better trained staff that is working in the finance department and other departments that manage these transactions,” Burnett said in providing the explanation.
Questioned by Public Works Minister Juan Edghill on the disciplinary action taken against the ranks involved, he was unable to provide a satisfactory answer.
Meanwhile, committee members asked for an explanation of why some of the logbooks for the vehicles were not presented to the Auditor General. Burnett, while acknowledging that the force withheld some of the logbooks, said that due to the sensitivity of some operations they did not provided those books for scrutiny.
“These vehicles are usually involved in very sensitive operations,” he said as he pointed out that those vehicles are also attached to the Military Criminal Intelligence Department, the Chief of Staff and G2 Branch.
An officer from the Audit Office, however, informed the PAC that the GDF under the Stores Regulation Act is not exempt from submitting logbooks.
It was at this point that Governance and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Gail Teixeira said that for such exemption to occur a recommendation must be made through the Defence Board, discussed at Cabinet and brought to the National Assembly for approval.
However, upon further scrutiny, it was discovered that a majority of the 32 vehicles for which logbooks were not submitted, were not a part of sensitive operations. Such vehicles included tractors, mini excavators, front end loaders and skid steers, among others.
Burnett informed the PAC that since then they have implemented systems to monitor the movements of vehicles by equipping the vehicles with tracking devices and they have upgraded their filing systems to better keep track of the maintenance done on the vehicles.
30% advance
Burnett was also unable to provide detailed explanations for the advance of 30% of the contract sum to a contractor. Edghill posed several questions in regard to the disbursement and approval of the fund to the contractor but most of his questions were unanswered.
The audit examination found that the contractors were paid advance payments equivalent to 30% of the contract sums. In this regard, the Force was found to be in breach of General Conditions of Contract Clause 3 – Mobilisation Advance, Sub Clause 3.1, which clearly states that “payment of the mobilisation advance is subject to submission of a mobilisation advance bond guarantee to cover the advance and the amount is 15% of the contract sum”.
Burnett explained to the committee that during his preparation for his appearance at the PAC, he held a meeting with some of his colleagues but one, Captain Mc Allister, who was at the time an engineer in the force could, not have been contacted. He noted that Mc Allister was no longer a member of the GDF and contacting the former officer proved difficult.
Edghill, speaking on the advance, said that 30% of the contract sum cannot be viewed as a mobilisation advance but as a loan. He further questioned whether the sum advanced was covered by the contractual bond.
The PAC meeting was adjourned after Teixeira moved a motion that was supported by other government members, who have a majority on the committee. No reason was given for the motion of adjournment but at the start of the meeting, Teixeira had requested an early adjournment since there was an emergency meeting with members of the sectoral committee on Foreign Relations to discuss the border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela. Her initial request was denied by Patterson as he refused to put her motion to the floor.
