New Public Health Minister Volda Lawrence is being urged to act on the recommendation by a Cabinet sub-committee to terminate the controversial drug bond deal.
Even though the drug bond deal was approved by Cabinet, a sub-committee subsequently recommended the termination of the contract in light of the immense public outrage which erupted over the matter.
PPP MP Anil Nandlall
Despite this proposal, which was made since August last, Government is still expending approximately $12.5 million monthly for the rental of what is basically a house on Sussex Street owned by a party affiliate, Larry Singh, to store the country’s pharmaceuticals.
But the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) is adamant it will not let the controversy die down.
PPP/Civic parliamentarian Anil Nandlall, during a press conference on Monday, renewed calls for the agreement to be terminated.
“It is expected that this contract will now be rescinded. After all, a Cabinet sub-committee has so recommended. It is inexplicable why this Cabinet sub-committee’s decision is being ignored,” he stated.
The Cabinet sub-committee found, among other things, that the lease entered between the Public Health Ministry and Linden Holding Inc for the storage of drugs and medical supplies “should be revised and strengthened” and that Government should seek to renegotiate the rental for a lesser sum, since a similar facility could be obtained at a lower rate.
Reports indicate that the sub-committee recommended to the President that should Singh’s Linden Holding Inc refuse to renegotiate a cheaper rate with Government, the company should be given one year’s notice within which time Government would seek to build its own bond.
Some $250 million has been earmarked in the 2017 National Budget to construct a drug bond in Kingston, Georgetown.
Public Health Minister Volda Lawrence
Former Public Health Minister, Dr George Norton had told Guyana Times that Government, as decided by Cabinet, would be renting the Sussex Street bond until it completed the construction of the bond in Kingston.
The truth of the secret bond deal came to the public’s purview after Government opted to pay Singh, a campaign financier, more than three times the amount asked by NEW GPC for use of its 70,000 square foot drug storage bond, to rent a facility that is less than 10,000 square feet, which is still to be completed and fails to meet minimum standards for pharmaceutical storage.
The Guyana Government, in 2015, terminated its prequalification agreement with the NEW GPC and forked over a $25 million deposit to Linden Holding Inc. There was no proof that the Sussex Street, Charlestown ‘house bond’ was compliant with international health and safety requirements, while the landlord would be receiving exceedingly generous benefits.An unsigned contract (Agreement of Tenancy) between the Public Health Ministry and the controversial warehouse owner Linden Holding Inc was subsequently circulated to parliamentarians in the National Assembly after much public outcry on the deal.
Among the red flags contained in the document, the most alarming is that the parties involved agreed that the building would be used for a professional office as opposed to a drug storage warehouse.
This would explain why the building, which critics have since argued is not certified to properly store pharmaceuticals, is presently under renovation while simultaneously keeping drugs which will be distributed to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) and other public health agencies for usage by the public.
Government was adamant that the building was certified by the Pan American Health Organisation/World Health Organisation (PAHO/WHO) for the storage of pharmaceutical supplies; however, the contract bears no such stipulation despite the importance of this bit of information.
Additionally, the released contract shows that the landlord will be benefiting greatly from this deal, particularly with provisions to hold the property for three years along with a 12-month notice of termination.
Dr Norton, who took the fall for this controversial deal, highlighted that he was being reprimanded for a decision taken by Cabinet all because he was the one receiving negative publicity on the matter.
