Dear Editor,
Several primary points are still unsaid in this retendering fiasco. They are of that which reinforce how this country functions. In retendering we have a national crime drama, with the Agriculture Ministry’s attestation of ‘no mischief afoot’ introducing the delicious to the deceits.
Three state entities trip over each other concerning steel sheets. It is really about who should have won, but didn’t; who was cheated out of a rightful award; which set of public servants did not do their jobs ethically. Last, it is why politicians are as intimately involved in such things as tenders. Matters settle here: who is favoured, but thwarted temporarily; who is the legitimate and deserving winner, but is blocked. The troubled people at the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), the Ministry of Agriculture, and its subsidiary, the National Drainage and Irrigation Board (NDIA), all struggle manfully to show clean hands. They failed. The more they try, the more they fail pathetically; indeed, mischief is afoot. All the while, they lose sight of what their main functions are, what should be the primacy of their objectives: standing for principled process and as groups of honourable public people. There is abject failure on all counts. Instead of laudable result, there is laughable contortion.
At the heart of this issue stands these questions: Why is the NPATB reduced to a purely clerical role? That is, opening bids and stacking papers, and what passes for something called an evaluation process (a wormy can, by itself). Why is the Minister’s name mentioned so often, and where does he, a political figure, fit into a tender/procurement process? For what purpose? Under the auspices of what authority is a fair question. And what is the significance of such a practice now reduced to the customary scurrilous? For sure, the minister must be in the development/feedback loop, but no more. Whatever he or she gets are progress reports, possible problems, and actual bottlenecks. When I hear ministers’ names called so frequently, I detect that things are where or how they should not be. There is a standing process.
Now, I call matters as they are: to what standards and practices is the Hon Minister of Agriculture (or any other minister) complying with, when they are near tenders and retenders? To repeat: my position is that the extent of the minister is limited to possessing awareness of what is in motion inside his portfolio. He is given information; certain specifics. I would agree to who is procurer, facilitator, and advertiser are areas that should be available to him, and always for informational purposes only. When it goes beyond that, then tender troubles looms, and this farce about repeated retendering takes over. It is where ethical process stops, and corruptions begin. It means that (1) the public service is compromised; (2) the political reach is too much; and (3) the result is foregone: recipes for corruption.
I go up the ladder. Why is cabinet filter and finalizer and decisionmaker on the tender/procurement process? What happened to all these laws and procedures that are in place to make the tender and procurement exercise independent of, and untainted by, political hands? This longstanding ‘no objection’ farce involving subject ministers and the Cabinet has been subverted to opportunity and occasion for incredible corruptions. Interventions and managements: Political leadership corruptions and ministerial corruptions, ably aided and abetted by bureaucratic corruptions, as to who should and who should not get awards.
From my perspective, Cabinet’s role is setting policy objectives and limits involving, for example, education (a school), money (a billion), location (a Region), and so forth. The who and how of process and procedure go from there, should not circle back to Cabinet, other than status reports. Why has Cabinet arrogated onto itself and monopolize (through the bureaucracy) what now amounts to intrusive, collusive, and subversive practices? I go further. Guyana would be better off being informed, what stands above the NPTAB, as a clean and trusted arbitrator of disputed situations (like this retendering). The whole idea, as I understand matters, was to insulate the tempting procurement process from political people. Cabinet should note; it gets information, it offers advice (a loaded word), and nothing else. Why is this not so with these steel sheets and so many other big-money matters? It should never be about who should get, and who not; no matter how nuanced, how denied. This defeats the whole process, renders everything suspect, everyone derelicts. It seems that the more laws and regulations we have, the more corruptions occur.
I close with two personal beliefs: processes are only as good as the people overseeing. And the people overseeing are only as unsullied as the leaders who put them there. If one link is rotten, one scale out of place, the fish stinks. And let this perpetual confounded nonsense about ‘no objection’ be done with, since it places politicians in the mix, and no matter how nuanced, matters come down to this: who gets the bid, who doesn’t. Improperly maybe, definitely criminally. That I find sharply, thoroughly objectionable.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
