Govt refuses to make full disclosure on D’Urban Park financing

…says private company solicited donations

Government on Monday for more than six hours sought to skirt a matter raised by the political Opposition regarding the financing of the D’Urban Jubilee Park, constructed for the 50th anniversary celebrations by saying it was done primarily by a private company – Homestretch Development Inc.

The matter was raised in the National Assembly by Opposition Member of Parliament, Bishop Juan Edghill, who – by way of a motion – sought to compel the Government to make full disclosure on the financing of the project in addition to the $406 million utilised from the Contingency Fund – a move that has been deemed a breach of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act by Auditor General Deodat Sharma.

Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson was the final Government speaker on the Opposition motion and in his presentation he told the House that since the company was a private one, the details could not be had at this point in time.
He suggested that the company’s internal audited statements could possibly have the information being sought, but since it was a private company, he could not make the disclosure.

Private company
The Minister did disclose, however, that following the Public Infrastructure Ministry’s takeover of the project on April 21, he wrote to the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board seeking approval for the use of restrictive/selective tendering at which point in time the Ministry approached pre-selected contractors to finish the project.
Minister Patterson told the House that Homestretch Development Inc had been responsible for the project prior to April 20 of this year and, as such, he could not provide any details on the project for that time period. According to Patterson, none of the monies collected by Homestretch Development Inc had been turned over to the Consolidated Fund.
Patterson – who was not initially slated to speak on the motion – told the House that the Ministry did provide some details on the project when he was grilled on the matter in May.
Detailing some of the Directors of the private company, Patterson named an L London as one of the principals of the company.
Pointing to the list of contractors that the Ministry had approached to complete the project, Patterson reminded that in May he had provided a list.
He recalled that among the contractors approached were McBrands, Barns Construction, N Norton and Sons Quarry, C&N Construction, TBL, and Home Designs.
Contractors who donated materials included Toolsie, Baracara, and BK International. The Government, Patterson said, also paid the Demerara Harbour Bridge $59 million for asphalt supplied to the project.

$16M contracts
According to Patterson, the estimated cost of each contract handed to the pre-selected companies was just about $16 million each.
His answers to the House, however, were not considered satisfactory, since according to the mover of the motion, after six hours of debate, the members of the House were none the wiser.
Bishop Edghill sought to remind the members of the National Assembly that the Opposition and, by extension, the members of its constituency were looking to have the details on the project for the months prior to the April takeover by the Public Infrastructure Ministry.
He accused the Government of seeking to hide behind Homestretch Development Inc by saying it was a private company, “so we don’t know what they collected or what they spent”.
The former Minister within the Finance Ministry in his rebuttal castigated the responses of the Public Infrastructure Minister, saying while he called out a list of contractors that had been engaged in the project, these were all after April and the motion was specifically looking to find out who and what sums were involved in the project prior to the Ministry’s takeover.
Edghill accused the Administration of being less than forthcoming on the project since all of the answers that have been provided thus far have been provided under pressure from the political Opposition.

Scandal
“There was no intent to provide information to the people of Guyana,” said Edghill, who repeatedly sought to query under what authority Homestretch Development Inc was allowed to collect and spend monies on behalf of the State.
He called the unfolding saga, a scandal of momentous proportion.
His colleague on the Opposition benches, former Minister Irfaan Ali went a step further and, in fact, called the entire affair criminal since it was not only in breach of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act but the Constitution of Guyana.
He spoke to the fact that the motion had nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the D’Urban Park Jubilee Project as was being espoused by several Government speakers, but rather the Opposition was looking to find out just how much was spent on the project, where the monies came from and on what authority was the private company allowed to undertake the task it did.
He was adamant that despite the fact that a private company was involved in the process, the monies by definition were in fact public monies and should have been accounted for as provided for under the laws of Guyana.
“What we are asking for in this motion is what is required in the law…if the information is not delivered, the Government is in breach and it is criminal,” Ali contended.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo at this point quipped that the matter was about the theft of public funds.
By the end of the debate, it was clear that the House was divided on its support for the motion, leading for a call for a division of the votes to be recorded.
Government’s majority prevailed and the motion was subsequently defeated, leaving the PPP/C members to explore further options in their quest for the information on the project.