In an unsurprising move, the GHRA found its voice to criticise the signing of the US$35M e-ID card by the Government, saying that there was sole-sourcing in terms of the contractor, and a lack of public consultations or parliamentary oversight.
It would be interesting, however, if the GHRA can show that it is always concerned about such matters, especially in relation to sole-sourcing, by showing Guyanese its ‘statement’ on the matter of sole-sourcing in June 2017, under the previous administration, of $366.9M in emergency drugs, when the Ministry of Public Health at the time was accused of handpicking the HDM Labs over three other companies that had submitted tenders.
It would be interesting, too, if the GHRA could show its concerned statement when the former Health Minister under the APNU/AFC Administration was accused of, and even charged with, misconduct in relation to the act between June 2016 and January 2017, instructing his Permanent Secretary to sign a contract between the Ministry of Public Health and Linden Holdings Inc (LHI) for the rental of a property situated at Lot 29 Sussex Street, Albouystown, Georgetown, renting this bond for three years at $12.5M monthly for the storage of pharmaceuticals, and $337.5M was paid to LHI without the approval of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board.
Then it would be interesting again if the GHRA can show the concerned statement they made when thousands of sugar workers were dismissed and could not feed their families; and on top of that, were not paid their severance, having to take the APNU/AFC Government to court to get it.
But maybe the GHRA might be able to show their statement when old age pensioners had to once again pay for water, as well as had VAT added to the cost during the period of the APNU-AFC.
But I won’t hold my breath that GHRA would show the statements, because everyone knows none was made, nor were they concerned.