When the issue first broke – the controversial purchase of 50 Very High Frequency (VHF) communication radio sets by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for close to Gy0 million – it sparked much criticisms and prompted a special probe into this and other similar transactions conducted by that organisation.
This particular transaction has been under some level of suspicion, and State auditors last year launched an audit into the procurement operations at GECOM after it was noticed that there were some discrepancies in relation to the purchase – which was done prior to the holding of the 2015 General and Regional Elections.
There were several concerns raised about this entire transaction. For instance, the contract for the supply of the radio sets was handed to a Water Street businessman under questionable circumstances. There were also questions in relation to the huge cost of the items. It is believed that the radio sets could have been procured at a much cheaper rate via other suppliers.
Additionally, even though the radio sets were purchased for use during the 2015 General and Regional Elections, particularly in the outlying regions of Guyana, they allegedly were never put into use after it was discovered that many of them were faulty.
Further, media reports later surfaced that some of the equipment purchased were obsolete and were not covered by warranty. As a matter of fact, it was reported that the Australian-based manufacturer, Barrett Communications, through its European office, distanced itself from the purchase.
This, however, was just one of many cases wherein concerns were raised regarding the procurement practices employed by GECOM. There were, over the years, quite a few other instances when certain expenditures raised eyebrows. Whether or not those concerns had any basis, GECOM officials did very little to assuage the concerns of stakeholders – who, in our view, were interested in ensuring that public funds were properly accounted for.
In relation to this most recent probe into the VHF radio sets, Auditor General Deodat Sharma was recently quoted in this newspaper as saying that the report has been completed, but the other aspect – in relation to the purchase of toners, batteries and other supplies – is still to be completed. The Parliamentary Opposition and members of the public, via letters in the press, have made numerous calls for the findings of these audits to be made public.
Already, much time has elapsed since the launch of the audits, and one wonders when exactly the entire investigation would come to finality and the report be presented to the relevant authorities. We fully understand the complexity of the work involved and the need for specialised staff to conduct interviews, etc; especially with the audit office having limited financial resources to hire the necessary complement of staff. However, citizens are eagerly awaiting the findings of these audits, as they (reports) will shed light on methods employed by GECOM to procure goods and services, and disclose whether such methods are in compliance with the necessary procurement laws and practices.
If it is found that persons are indeed culpable of not adhering to the laws, they should face the necessary penalties.
GECOM spends hundreds of millions of dollars, especially in election years or periods when there are heightened activities – such as continuous/house-to-house registration etc – and all efforts must be made to ensure that national procurement laws are followed in utilising those funds. The Auditor General has, over the years, highlighted many lapses in the system; but we are not certain what actions are being taken by GECOM and the powers that be in ensuring public funds are spent in a transparent and accountable manner.
While it is not our intention to portray the impression that any official of GECOM is guilty of any wrongdoing, as that is the job of the auditors, the point should be reinforced that as an independent constitutional body, GECOM enjoys financial, functional and operational autonomy; and like every agency which is financed with public funds, must be held accountable for the manner in which it spends these funds.
