The 2008 Auditor General Report: No change – part 1

Introduction
There is a certain ritual undertaken annually that has many purposes and effects – to placate the international gods and domestic audience with evidence of accountability and transparency in the country’s accounting for the billions spent annually by the government in our name; to meet in form if not in substance the financial reporting obligations under the constitution, the Audit Act and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act; to excite the press; and finally titillate the public. The ritual is over the publication of the Auditor General Report or, to give it its full name, the Report of the Auditor General on the Public Accounts of Guyana and on the accounts of the Ministries/Departments/Regions for the Year ended XXXX.

The initiation of the ritual takes place several months after its constitutionally due date which is nine months after the end of the year; is done in the glare of publicity with a hand-over of the first copy (?) of the report to the Speaker of the National Assembly; is prolonged over several weeks by the national dailies seeking to fill in news voids; and is revived sometimes years later when the Public Accounts Committee remembers its obligations to review the report.

Standard fare
Expect the officiating high priest to make noises about the abuse of the Contingencies Fund; splitting of contracts to by-pass the Procurement Act; huge sums of money belonging to the Consolidated Fund being left lying idle, dangerously unsupervised; presidential misuse of the Lotto Funds and other public monies; several billions of dollars controlled unlawfully by ministries and departments whose recordkeeping is as good as that of the proverbial cake shop; and stores and assets records not being properly maintained.

Even Business Page participates in the ritual although with about the same level of enthusiasm as that of the youth being forced to attend catechism classes; its interest long dissipated; its respect for the report, its authorship, its contents and its value having progressively diminished since the unceremonious departure of Mr Anand Goolsarran, former Auditor General who almost single-handedly brought back the report after a black hole from 1980 to 1991 when there was no national reporting.

For year to year nothing changes and the discerning reader of the report will notice that it is made up substantially of prior year matters which have not been resolved. While the government finds new ways to spend taxpayers’ money, the national audit office seems to be using the same old audit approach. The report seems to be constrained by restrictions and blinkers, particularly on areas most vulnerable to abuse such privatisation deals; the increasingly blatant use of NICIL to transact government business outside of the law; contract splitting; the abuse of constitutional arrangements for the proper accounting of funds; the spending habits of the President and some of his ministers; and poor accounting all around.

Dr Anand Goolsarran
The authorship is characterised by inadequate numbers and suitably unqualified or conflicted persons with an unhealthy connection to the government whose financial probity and management it is supposed to attest to. Long forgotten are the days when the Stabroek News could write of Dr Goolsarran:

“Now it seems, and is, a huge blessing — and a minor miracle — that we have an Auditor General who is actually doing his job of general auditing. He is exerting pressure to turn a new leaf in dealing with financial reporting in 1992, to tackle quite separately the backlogged financial reporting for ten years, and to exercise his powers of audit over divestment deals. And he is not, thank heavens, afraid to publicise his concerns. All that he is doing is, quite simply, fundamental to good order in the body politic. Let us watch with the greatest care what happens. If obstacles are not put in his way, if feet are not interminably dragged, then it may be we are really in a new era of cleaner more efficient, less corrupt government. But if… well, let us wait and see.”

Stabroek News’s concerns about the sustainability of miracles, no matter how small, seem to have been vindicated. We now have a most compliant Audit Office where the head is summoned by a political functionary and “invited” to carry out an audit/investigation completely outside of his constitutional and statutory mandate. This is the same ministry and the same audit office that cannot give us the report of the 2007 World Cup accounts and which have had difficulties relating to the Contingencies Fund. The Audit Office is woefully short of the right quality and number of staff but can now respond to a request to carry out an audit using resources that it does not have and to produce a report that unless it is highly critical of the cricket administration, would be seen as a cover-up.

No wonder then that the departure of Goolsarran – who has now earned a PhD in Business Administration from the Robert Kennedy College in Switzerland – has led to a progressively deteriorating situation in which not even a fire at a government ministry under a cloud of suspicion attracts more than perfunctory attention.

Issues that strike
It does not seem that any useful purpose would be served by an exhaustive examination of the 2008 report which was dated March 31, 2010, six months after it ought to have been submitted. Instead I will deal in today’s and the next Business Page only with a few striking issues arising from the report.

1. Remissions by the Guyana Revenue Authority

According to the report, remissions by the GRA in 2008 amounted to an unbelievable $70 billion of which $64B was for companies. This compares with $21B in 2006, an increase of 200%, and a mere $6B in 2006. By contrast, corporation tax collected in 2008 was $17B. You would expect some kind of relationship between remissions and GDP, which in 2008 increased by 3.1% and in 2007 by 5.4%.

2. Moneys that should properly go to the consolidated fund are being held in “Static Accounts”

These include $4.8B held in a handful of accounts of which the following are the more prominent:

a. “The amount of $2.617 billion shown on account N2 201360 was in respect of the Government of Guyana and the International Development Association (IDA) loan agreement, which was signed in January 2003, for Poverty Reduction Support Credit. The Loan provided for (a) investments in human capital under the health and education sectors; (b) strengthening of public institutions and improvement of governance; (c) expansion and improvement in the provision of basic services under the water sector; and (d) broad-based job-generating economic growth.” This entire amount earmarked for poverty reduction credit has been lying idle for more than seven years while we take credit for a loan scheme for single mothers initiated by a commercial bank.

b. In terms of age, the account that stands out is account # 200920 with a balance of $127 million. This account was set up sixteen years ago to meet certain expenditure related to the purchase and installation of Wartsilla engines.

c. A ‘grow match’ of this account is “Account # 201110, also established in 1994 through the transfer of $2.1 billion from the Consolidated Fund to establish an Infrastructural Development Fund (IDF). From the IDF, it is understood, that Wartsilla engines were purchased for Anna Regina and Wakenaam. In addition, this account was used to meet counterpart expenditure relating to an IDB loan to the electricity sector. There has been no movement on this account for more than twelve years.

d. Despite all the weaknesses in the country’s financial systems, there is an amount of $173M lying in an account ‘Financial Sector Reform Programme’ for the past four years. An amount of $2.2B was spent from this account in 2005 but it is unclear where that money went.

3. Mystery fire at Health Ministry

On July 17, 2009 a fire of mysterious origin destroyed the main office buildings of the Ministry of Health that housed its Central Accounting Unit and the storage area for financial and other records. The fire destroyed a significant amount of the ministry’s accounting records, while others became water soaked in the aftermath.

In next week’s column we will consider whether any attempt was made to co-operate with the auditors.

Minister Lall did not address the key issues I raised

In my letter appearing in the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News on March 12 and 13 respectively, I relied on the Local Government Elections Act, appearing on an official website, as the statutory basis for my position. I should have known better and corrected myself promptly on the internet edition of the Stabroek News website.

Nevertheless, and even after I had done so, Minister of Local Government, Mr. Kellawan Lall, decided to take the low ground, through going way beyond the error, and engaging in language and conduct unbecoming of a Minister of Government. This is also regrettable.

More significantly, Minister Lall did not address the key issues I raised about him: that he instructed the Auditor General contrary to the Constitution; that he set himself up as a tribunal to pronounce guilt on two NDC employees; and that the law gives to the Minister too much control over local authorities, control that is inconsistent with the relevant Constitutional provisions.

In closing, I reiterate my position on the aforementioned key issue, and associated ministerial overreach. I, also repeat my call to the Honourable Minister to clear the air, should he so desire, but this time with decorum more becoming.

The Minister of Local Government should not have control over local authorities and their elections

On March 8, I penned a letter ‘Under the constitution Minister Lall cannot instruct the Auditor General’ (SN) after he informed the nation that he had so instructed, and that the Auditor General (ag), had duly complied. After writing that letter, I read an equally strange and uninformed disclosure by the Minister in connection with a proposed sale of a playground in Nandy Park to a “prominent, very well connected businessman.”

The Minister revealed at a press conference that he summoned persons to his office, and that they pleaded not guilty “in that they did not know the law.” For good measure, the Minister, having set himself up as a tribunal, then ruled that “it was quite clear they are all knowledgeable of the law.”

I regret that I cannot say the same of the Minister, a senior member of this government. Although Mr Lall displays a regrettable ignorance of relevant, key provisions of the constitution and the laws that are specific to his post, we tend to regard such behaviour by a minister of Mr Lall’s standing as providing light relief, not worthy of a comment. But this time it is different. As Minister of Local Government, Mr Lall is empowered under section 3 of the Local Authorities (Elections) Act Cap 28:03, for the “general direction and supervision over the registration of voters and over the administrative conduct of elections.”

In my view, the electoral system should be entirely taken away from the political authority and vested in the Guyana Elections Commission. Some may say that this is still not ideal, since the commissioners are all political appointees. But at least in GECOM, the Carter model prevails with both government and opposition parties represented, under an independent chairman.

That model was intended for a limited time only and it is more than time for it to be changed. But we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The ruling party should go through with the agreement for an amendment of the law to remove the control which the Minister of Local Government has over the local authorities and their elections. That will help to foster confidence in the electoral process.

Finally, let me recommend that our ministers replace their in-house public relations contract employees with in-house attorneys-at-law. Larger private sector entities ensure they have in-house legal expertise to advise them on the laws and prevent them embarrassing themselves either in public or private.

Edit: I have been informed, and can confirm that section 3 referred to in my letter was changed in 2009 so that the fear about the Minister’s control of elections has been removed.

His control of the local authorities and city councils remain however.

Under the constitution Minister Lall cannot instruct the Auditor General

Minister of Local Government, Mr Kellawan Lall boasts in a letter (‘Minister of Local Government called in Auditor General’ SN, March 3) that the investigation currently being carried out by the Auditor General into alleged financial irregularities by Region 4 personnel was done on his “explicit instructions.”

Perhaps Mr Lall is unaware of Article 223 of the Constitution which states: “In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution, the Auditor General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”

While no minister should be excused for ignorance of the constitution, it is absolutely unacceptable for the Auditor General (ag) to act on such instructions. But that is what Mr Sharma did. As Mr Lall further proudly announced in the letter, the Auditor General has since submitted to him a preliminary report.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the Auditor General has acted on political instructions, with the flood money and the Polar Beer scam being prominent cases. All the talk about transparency and accountability amounts to nothing until we appoint a qualified person as the Auditor General and deal with the egregious case of conflict of interest between the Ministry of Finance and the Audit Office.

Report of the Auditor General 2007: Different year, same mess

No change
The report of the Auditor General on the Public Accounts of the country for 2007 has been tabled in the National Assembly and is now officially available to the taxpaying public and commendably on the Audit Office’s website. The story is no different from that of last year, from that of the year before, or from that of the year before that: late by ten months beyond the statutory deadline; a story of reckless abuse of the public funds; condemnation and threats from the opposition; and the nine-day outrage by the public followed by whatever revelation inevitably comes to light. Let us go back to the report for 2000 which was reviewed in Business Page of May 19, 2002 in the form of an imaginary letter to Mr Stanley Ming, then a member of the Public Accounts Committee which is mandated to review and report on the report. In part, this is what the ‘letter’ said:

“A significant number of bank accounts currently in use, including the Guyana High Commission London Account, as well as non-operational accounts were allowed to be overdrawn by large amounts in contravention of Section 22 of the Financial Administration & Audit Act (FAA). Continues.

“The Consolidated Fund is overdrawn by tens of billions while the sum total of all bank accounts (including the overdrawn balance on the Consolidated Fund but excluding the balances on the bank accounts special projects) reflects a positive balance. Continues.

“The State continues to provide funding annually to several public entities even though they do not comply with their statutory duty to submit audited financial statements. Continues.

“The Contingencies Fund continues to be abused despite repeated negative comments on this practice. Continues.

“Proceeds from the Guyana Lotteries are not being paid over to the Consolidated Fund but are kept in a ‘special bank account’ held at the Central Bank and used to meet public expenditure without parliamentary approval… despite the public commitment given by the President and de facto Minister of Finance that this would be corrected.”

Some change
Some things have changed. The report has been cut down in size – the 2000 report contained 2,120 paragraphs; now it is 557 paragraphs. Government expenditure has jumped from $47 billion in 2000 to $101 billion, or more than double. Reports of corruption no longer make news. There has been a Financial Management and Accountability Act that demands more not less accountability, and an Audit Act that sets greater obligations and higher standards on the Audit Office. Have things got better? I do not think so. Back then, we had a professionally qualified accountant heading the office, now we do not. The independence of the office is now more compromised than it was with Mr Deodat Sharma, Auditor General (ag) reporting that he was summoned for instructions by President Jagdeo, clearly in breach of the constitutional provision that the Audit Office should “not [be] subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.” Egregiously, the wife of the Finance Minister is now in a position to give professional guidance to the Auditor General (ag) by virtue of her position as his qualified assistant.

The administration’s response
Predictably and once again, the Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh has criticised the report for not reflecting the comments and responses of the various budget agencies and accounting officers. He cannot be serious. The report is in fact full of such comments, even when they make little sense or are misleading. For example on page 5, the Ministry of Finance’s response to the absence of end of year outcomes required under section 68 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 is that the information was not forthcoming from the ministries, agencies and departments. That obligation falls on the Minister of Finance who has more than an adequate set of sanctions to ensure that he gets the information he needs.

But I suspect that the reason is more political. One of the major variances is the revenue collected from the new VAT and Excise Tax introduced in 2007. A single agency over which the Ministry of Finance exercises controls administers those taxes. More than one of them knows that the reason for the massive surplus is that the VAT rate had been incorrectly calculated, but that despite the early detection of the error, the government persisted in what some may consider a fraud on the nation. This information was around and an independent Audit Office should have done its own assessment and put the findings to the ministry.

Indifference
A constant refrain in the responses is that the Head of the Budget Agency had indicated that this matter was being addressed by the Ministry of Finance; that these were presently engaging the attention of the Ministry of Finance; that the Head of the Budget Agency had indicated that this issue was being addressed by the Minister of Finance; and that the Head of Budget Agency had explained that the administration had since written the Finance Secretary to have this matter rectified and was awaiting a response (they are all in the same building). The state of the audits for entities coming under the Office of the President and for which reports have not been laid in the National Assembly deteriorated, while the excuse by the budget agency that “every effort is being made” to do so was met with a further comment from the Auditor General (ag) calling for “special effort” – at best an apparent form of indifference by the Audit Office. But can society be so indifferent about the failure by the administration to properly account for public funds? Since the Minister would also have been aware that a substantial part of the report is of prior year matters which have not been resolved, his response to the report can only be seen as a political rather than technocratic reaction, confident that all will soon be forgotten.

New GPC again
For all the apparent sound and fury generated by the report, all it does is identify some of the better known examples of gross financial irregularities and improprieties that feed the public’s appetite for scandal. Advances of hundreds of millions of dollars to the New GPC, friends of the President, continue to be made for the company to buy drugs for the Guyana Public Hospital Corporation in breach of the tender procedures. One of GPC’s senior officials sits on the board of the hospital, which also does not maintain proper accounting records so that both the non-receipt of items and their issue cannot be determined. What successive reports have failed to do is cause any change in behaviour by a government whose financial management is repeatedly endorsed by the electorate. Perhaps the President was right when he described segments of the public as financially illiterate.

By now the public is well aware of the breach of the constitution regarding the Lotto funds and one wonders why the report only mentions the amount over a ten-year period rather than the period covered by the audit. The report also does not state that the Lotto money is being spent by a person who has no authority under the law to spend any money. There is no great virtue in repeating the statement that the Lotto funds are not being put into the Consolidated Fund as required by the constitution. It is not that it is being held safely in trust or investments – the money is being spent by President Jagdeo as he pleases.

Tardiness and illegality
Where are the sugar unions in the face of the continuing failure to provide satisfactory evidence of $1.451 billion as deposits held for investments on behalf of the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund, the Sugar Industry Rehabilitation Fund and the Sugar Industry Price Stabilisation Fund, two of which have not been audited for twenty-eight years and the other for eleven years? One of the ironies is that GINA, which is being used to defend the government’s record of financial management is itself in breach of the audit requirement.

The report also highlights a transaction involving Region 6 that smells of illegality including differences in vehicle chassis number and full up-front payment when the contract calls for progress payments. If the Customs officers could be referred to the DPP why not those involved in this purchase? And why has the Guyana Elections Commission not taken action against the “firm” that took 268 cartons of Polaroid film valued at $30.485 million which it has failed to recover from the “firm”?

Value for money
Once again the report announces that a Value-for-Money Unit (VFM) is being set up and after four years we can expect a VFM report. That we had to get assistance from Canada to achieve this is bad enough, but the choice of entity makes the idea into a mockery. I visited the Palms briefly not too long ago, and it was shocking to see the conditions under which the residents are housed and the staff have to work. The laundry, kitchen, sleeping and dining facilities are all in a state of disrepair, strangled for cash and other resources. What the Palms requires is not a Value-for-Money audit, but a money-for-value audit, refurbishment, additional staffing, new equipment for the kitchen and laundry, etc.

Conclusion
The recurrence of the egregious weaknesses and exorbitant losses resulting from poor financial administration and a weakened Audit Office suggests either an unwillingness to deal with the problem or a ‘we-like-it-so’ attitude by the government. Even the superficial enhancements in the Audit Office have to be financed with grants and loans, and in 2007 a second grant was obtained from the IDB to implement certain aspects of the office’s three-year Strategic Plan. Unable to do some of the most basic audit functions, to discharge the office’s obligations under various legislation and to complete the audits of the state entities in a timely manner, the Audit Office is now about to establish a Forensic Audit and Quality Assurance section.

How that will solve the problems that have persisted for more than ten years is anyone’s guess. Meanwhile the Auditor General tells us he cannot be sure about the accounts presented to him for audit by the Ministry of Finance.