Dear Editor,
It is rather interesting that certain media houses weekly repeat ad nauseam the accusations of the Opposition members on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in regard to PAC meetings without any attempt to verify whether the claims have merit. Much liberty is given to conclusions accusing the Government members, but regrettably for the critics, the functioning of the PAC in the 12th Parliament has not been diminished in comparison to the 10th and 11th Parliaments, quorum or no quorum.
I had provided factual information at the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance’s “2023 in Review” press conference on January 10, 2024, and further spoke on this matter in Parliament, as did Minister Edghill, providing comparative data on the number of sittings of the PAC and other committees during the 10th, 11th and 12th Parliaments. This information was evidently ignored.
I have therefore once again updated the information to the most recent meeting of the PAC, and this is enclosed herein for easy reading. The information provided is sourced directly from the records of the Public Accounts Committee.
Table showing a comparison of the work done by the PAC during the 10th; 11th and 12th Parliaments
One can easily observe from the matrix that the PAC of the 11th Parliament, which worked for 40 months and held 58 meetings, produced the most work under the then Opposition Chairperson Mohamed Irfaan Ali, whereas the PAC in the 12th Parliament has had 61 meetings over 30 months.
Presently, the review of Government agencies in the PAC relates to the Annual Auditor General’s Reports for the period of the former APNU+AFC government, but the number of violations of the Procurement Act, missing documents, the refusal or non-cooperation of former Permanent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers to appear before the committee, have been of little interest to some media houses, which have full and complete access to the PAC hearings for these agencies.
During the 11th Parliament, the level of scandals and violations of the Procurement Act was pervasive, widespread, and commented on almost daily by some media houses. Therefore, the Government members on the PAC have no intention of rushing through these years, as the Opposition members would like us to do. Their objective is to go through these reports rapidly so as to detract public focus from what transpired during those years.
It may seem presumptuous these days for a Minister to make a suggestion to the media on how it covers the Public Accounts Committee, but may l do so anyway – The Auditor General reports, special reports and performance reports provide a wealth of information which should inform journalism, or reporting, on the work of the PAC and its findings, including undeniable evidence of poor management, unaccounted expenditure, lack of transparency, and denial of services to the poor and vulnerable. These shortcomings, to be polite, were compounded by inadequate pharmaceutical and medical supplies to the regions, mismanagement of the school feeding programmes, and injustices meted out to the healthcare sector which, for example, suffered extensively from inadequate COVID-19 protective equipment and supplies during a global pandemic.
The Opposition members in the PAC may want the public to forget these harsh realities that directly hurt the people of Guyana, and instead occupy the public’s attention with vacuous questions of whether the Government members and Ministers should sit on the PAC, or whether the members are attending the PAC meetings, and if the committee is meeting enough times. These are mere distractions from the real issues being uncovered by the PAC.
The fact is that the PAC today has met more often than during the 10th and 11th Parliaments, and produced two (2) reports. During the 11th Parliament, within 44 meetings, three (3) reports were produced, and the first Public Procurement Commission (PPC) was established under the leadership of Mohamed Irfaan Ali, who was chair of the 11th Parliament’s PAC.
Further, the insinuations made by the APNU/AFC that Ministers of Government should not sit on the PAC is hypocritical and preposterous, as during the APNU+AFC’s tenure in Government, during the 11th Parliament, two of their members on the PAC were sitting Ministers of Government. Those were Mrs. Volda Lawrence and Mrs. Valerie Patterson.
The main issue, however, cannot be wished away – facts are facts, the APNU and AFC could not adequately manage Government in their term of office, and could not deliver to the people simply because corruption was rife, and much to their dissatisfaction, the work of the PAC exposes this at each meeting.
I have no intention of resigning as a member of the PAC, as l am very aware of the analysis and skills l bring to the meetings, regardless of how much wilful haste the Chair and Opposition exercise to rush through paragraphs at one time in an effort to hide the corruption which hallmarked the 2015-2020 period.
It is the role of the PAC to offer to the National Assembly, and truly to the people of Guyana, a critical analysis of public expenditure, which includes revenues earned from tax-payers. As such, no efforts will be spared by the Government members of the PAC to review the accounts of every year, 2015 to 2020 and beyond, as such haste from the Opposition only proves to be a wilful disservice to all the people of Guyana.
Sincerely,
Hon. Gail Teixeira,
MP, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance
