Dear Editor,
I write with reference to an article captioned “Concerns grow over alleged one-sided distribution of Public Works contracts”. While the article assumes the form of impartial news reporting, it is actually a highly-partisan and inflammatory piece that is intended to disseminate injurious claims and propositions that are tantamount to race-baiting.
The central point of the article was first presented in another article under the title “PPP policies weakening competition, growth in business, other sectors – accountant”. The “accountant” in the latter title referred to Nigel Hinds. Both of the articles noted above relied on a document titled “Economy and Justice in Guyana”, authored by Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes.
Readers should consider the following points in their assessment of the allegations that the current administration favours party supporters and foreign entities over other groups in awarding Government contracts. Let us begin with the basics. The Procurement Act stipulates how tenders are to be advertised and administered. It is a transparent process administered through the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB). Any faulty decision could be challenged by any aggrieved individual or company at the level of the Public Procurement Commission.
This is a constitutional body under the direction and control of no one. If Afro-Guyanese individuals and companies have grievances, they have redress at the PPC. If they feel they are discriminated against, they have recourse to the Courts under the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Readers should know that, by law, all tenders must be publicly advertised and evaluated by a transparent team of evaluators. Within the Act, there are provisions for any technically justifiable deviation; for example, purchasing of items that are specialised and highly complex in nature, where only one supplier or producer can meet the specified requirements.
The evaluators are a team of professional public servants, not politicians, who are tasked with the responsibility of overseeing a very transparent process.
Note that APNU-AFC have two nominated members on a five-person PPC. The Chair of the PPC is no less than Attorney Pauline Chase, who is also the President of the Guyana Bar Association.
Now, let us consider the postulate that African Guyanese contractors are systemically excluded. If this is correct, it means that in addition to Pauline Chase (who incidentally is the daughter of the famed Labour Attorney and Trade Unionist Ashton Chase), the following Cabinet Ministers who are of African descent all gang up against African contractors – Bishop Juan Edghill, Minister of Public Works; Oneidge Walrond, Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce; Robeson Benn, Minister of Home Affairs; Kwame Mc Coy, Minister within the Office of the Prime Minister; Joseph Hamilton, Minister of Labour; Hugh Todd, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and, not least, Brigadier (r’td) Mark Phillips, who is the Prime Minister of Guyana. Add to this list at least four other Cabinet Ministers who are not of Indian ancestry, but who you are asked to believe gang up against African contractors.
It is imperative that readers know Cabinet has no role in the determination of the awarding of any contract. The awards are made by NPTAB, and merely go to Cabinet for its no objection. As all of us know, and that includes Mr Hughes and Mr Hinds, the civil service in Guyana is predominantly populated by non-Indians. I note this to underscore the scale of betrayal that would have to be in place for African contractors to be systemically excluded from contract awards to which they are rightfully entitled.
Might I also remind both Messrs Hughes and Hinds that thousands of Indians also voted for the APNU-AFC, and that a significant number of established Indian contractors are “big-time” supporters of the same APNU-AFC. In fact, this same coalition is on record giving out humongous contracts to Indian businesses; most of it well-deserved, I am sure.
Editor, I greatly urge the learned Attorney Mr Hughes to use his enormous skills, expertise and reputation to advance the causes of those whom he feels are victims of favouritism or racism, or are otherwise being discriminated against in the procurement process. He has nothing less than an obligation to protect and defend the rights of those whom he claims are discriminated against. In the meantime, an apology is necessary. He should know to whom.
Sincerely,
Dr Randolph Persaud
