Tag: Budget

Posted on

NICIL is in violation of the law

Ram & McRae in its Budget Focus 2010 drew attention to one example of the subversive manner in which funds constitutionally due to the Consolidated Fund are diverted into a government owned company with the impressive sounding name of National Industrial Commercial and Investments Ltd (NICIL). The steps are as follows: 1. “vest” into this company assets belonging to the state; 2. have the company sell those assets; 3. use the money thus received for unconnected purposes, without authority or oversight; 4. pay any chicken feed balance as dividends into the Consolidated Fund.

The company can even divert sewage. It financed the multi-million dollar sewage diversion for the Kingston phantom hotel project that refuses to go away. In 2007, it also used $5,000,000 of Lotto funds generously made available to it by President Jagdeo, to “support public viewing of FIFA [2006] World Cup Football.”

The Directors of the Company on record, as they were at 2004, were Mr Saisnarine Kowlessar (then Minister of Finance); Dr. Ashni Singh (then Director of Budget); Dr Roger Luncheon (Head, Presidential Secretariat); Mr Geoff Da Silva (Executive Director, GO-Invest) and the ubiquitous Mr Winston Brassington, Executive Director of NICIL.

The Secretary and Legal Officer of the company is Ms Marcia Nadir, attorney at law.

The law requires all companies to have annual audits, and to file an annual return with the companies section of the Deeds Registry. The return must be accompanied by audited financial statements, and must contain information on the directors, the company secretary, and the shareholders.

Additionally, an annual report, which is distinct from the annual return and audited accounts, must be submitted to the Minister no later than six months after year-end. He then has three months to lay these over in the National Assembly.

Now this is the situation:

1. The company has not filed any annual return for more than ten years.

2. No report and accounts have been laid in the National Assembly for the same period.

3. No notice has been filed to show that Mr Saisnarine Kowlessar has been replaced as a director.

Non-compliance constitutes an offence for which the company and every director and officer, including the secretary, are liable. They stand accused of gross violations of the law. Frighteningly, they also control, directly or indirectly, the billions of taxpayers’ money in the National Budget and the nation’s public assets.

The Registrar of Companies is responsible for enforcing the act and has the power to strike companies off the register. She has been demanding compliance by private companies. Why is nothing being done against NICIL and its directors?

Posted on

That other contract scandal

Introduction
Ram & McRae in their Focus on the 2010 Budget drew attention to a section of their 2009 Budget Focus which examined the explosion of the number of ministries between 1992 and then. In addition to including a table and commentary listing the ministries, the firm noted that a number of ministries, including the Ministry of Finance, have two ministers and some even have parliamentary secretaries as well. It pointed out that masking these numbers was a vast battery of consultants, contract employees and advisors, particularly in the Office of the President, where several former ministers are guaranteed a position, often more sinecure than substantive, and apparently indefinitely. In the Ministry of Local Government, there are two former ministers who are now employed as consultants, reportedly on the same terms and conditions they enjoyed as ministers.

Hard hearing, poor sight
The firm opined that given the country’s economic conditions and needs, the compensation paid to these persons, all of them on contract, and therefore outside the terms, conditions and low salaries of the public service, placed too great a burden on the taxpayers. It called for a major reorganisation and rethink of the public sector. As expected, the recommendation fell on deaf ears. In fact, the situation has gone well beyond poor management and now seems reckless, even as the donor community and the multilateral financial agencies turn a blind eye as they hand over additional billions into the bottomless treasury.

Yet, the Ministry of Finance, which has moved from 20 contract employees in 2008 to 80 in 2010, a 300% increase, seems unwilling and/or unable to engage in even the most elementary analysis of the billions which the Minister Dr Ashni Singh, loves to rattle off in his Budget speech. If the ministry would even do a cursory examination, it would realise from publicly available data on employment cost and revenue expenditure, that employment cost as a percentage of expenditure rose from 13% in 1992 to 32% in 2009. It would have realised too, that except for the significant increases awarded by the Armstrong Arbitration Tribunal at the end of the nineties, the increases have largely been as a result of a substantial spike in the number of contract employees across the central government, and the huge sums some of these people are paid.

As a result of this 300 % increase in the Finance Ministry, the wages and salaries for contract employees moved from $33 million in 2008 to a budget of $92 million in 2010 under Programme 31, Ministry Administration! The Minister is, regrettably to me, truly following in the footsteps of the President, both as a technician and a politician.

Whereas in 2004, the percentage which the wages and salaries of contracted employees bore to the total wages and salaries of all employees was 8.9%, that percentage is budgeted to jump to 21.5%, with 5% of this coming in 2010 alone.

Wages and salaries costs for contract employees will rise in 2010 by 36.7% over 2009. By contrast, the wages and salaries for 21,154 persons in all the other categories of public servants – teachers, nurses, police, soldiers, clerks, etc. – rises by a mere 4.8%. That does not seem equitable or just, but the unions representing the public workers have been emasculated – either by their leaders or the employers. Of course, not every contract employee gets seven figure packages and the perks that go with them. Like the Orwellian Animal Farm, and our own private sector, some contract employees are more equal than others.

The bigger culprits
The table below showed the employment information in some of the principal agencies at the end of 2009 and 2010.

Source: Public Sector 2010 Estimates

Can’t beat OP
The Ministry of Finance is fast catching up on the worst offender, the Office of the President, where the number of contracted employees for 2010 has increased from 82 in 2008, 85 in 2009 to 106 in 2010. But while the increase in 2009 may appear insignificant, the cost is not. Line item 6116 under Programme 11 Administrative Services shows that of an approved wages and salaries budget of $21 million for 2009, actual spending was $42 million, a 100% increase. Dr Singh should explain what constituted the increase and the source of the financing, and whether this was financed from any of the Minister’s supplementaries. Programme 12, Presidential Advisory, which cannot even house the number of advisors and contract employees the President surrounds himself with, will increase that number by another 17 in 2010, at an additional cost of fifty million dollars.

Programme 12 includes former members of the government whose performance as ministers was, at best, mediocre; party apparatchiks and their relatives; those who use public resources to engage in personal and private business or run sports events, or who cannot find an office and work from their homes, or who seem unable to understand their functions and duties.

We have in the Office of the President an Advisor on Governance, but bills passed by the National Assembly lapse for want of presidential assent. Ironically, the holder of that post, Ms Gail Teixeira is also a key member of the Parliamentary Management Committee that should oversee the business of the National Assembly and the effecting of the laws passed.

But the Ministry of Health, whose senior minister has his own views on the need to comply with laws and systems of procurement and indeed most other things, must surely warrant attention with the number of contract employees fast approaching one thousand, even as the exodus of nurses continues unabated. Agriculture is not half as bad but the annual increase in this ministry and the education ministry needs to be watched, particularly in some of their programmes.

Sporting exit
In the Ministry of Culture Youth and Sport, all thirteen of the employees in Sports, are contract employees. The Department of Sport has not been constituted for more than two years and its audits are several years in arrears. Yet, the National Assembly will soon be giving it another hundred million dollars. I sincerely hope that the ministry will address and arrest this situation, sooner rather than later.

The Public Service Ministry also has a significant number of contract employees. This ministry is responsible for ensuring that the public service is properly organised and has a pool of persons on the fixed establishment to ensure that institutional memory survives any personnel changes. This practice, of which the Office of the President is at the centre, effectively subverts Article 201 of the Constitution that envisages the role of the Public Service Commission as being principally responsible for the employment of public officers.

A more recent convert to the syndrome are the regions, and it is perhaps not without significance that Region Six, the cradle of the ruling party, has both the highest number of employees among the regions and is doubling its number of contract employees in 2010. But so too are Regions 3, Essequibo Islands/West Demerara; Region 2: Pomeroon/Supernaam; and Region 5: Mahaica Berbice. In a year of regional elections and one year before the national elections, such a situation has to be viewed with skepticism and concern. This copying of a bad practice was called by ol’ people: “monkey see, monkey do.”

I called the Public Service Commission for an input on this issue but when the Chairman, Mr Ganga Persaud realised I was on the phone, he had suddenly “stepped out,” prompting me to ask his secretary whether he had a secret exit.

Conclusion
This other ‘contract’ phenomenon allows the ministers and the politicians, many of whom with no business experience or expertise have the freedom to create as many job positions as they wish, unhindered by any strictures of the Public Service Commission, or any principles of proper human resource administration. Contract employees are not eligible to join the Public Service Union but receive a generous gratuity every six months. The more senior contract employees enjoy generous tax and duty concessions, even as they also benefit from state-owned vehicles, chauffeurs and other staff that mask the true value of the cost of such employees.

Hopefully, the National Assembly will seek some sensible answers to this rapidly developing abuse that has effectively made the public service, once again, subject to party paramountcy.

Posted on

Estimates do not disclose total cost of overseas visits for Office of the President

In responding to concerns about the cost of presidential travel, Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh is quoted as saying that “over the past three years, the average annual expenditure for the entire government on travel has been $200M.”

The 2010 Estimates which Dr Singh presented just three days ago has a head ‘Transport, Travel and Postage’ under which is a line item ‘Overseas Conferences and Official Visits.’ The Estimates disclose nil costs for the Office of the President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and indeed all the ministries, departments and regions, barring the Finance Ministry and the Guyana Defence Force. It is under these two budget agencies from which Dr Singh would have derived his $200 million figures. But it would have been helpful and reassuring if Dr Singh had indicated, at least for the Office of the President, the total cost of overseas visits for the period, the subject of concern and speculation.

Dr Singh should have explained whether that line item includes per diem allowances and other costs associated with overseas visits, and indicate if payment for any such trips is reflected under any other line item, or channelled through any other government agency or controlled entity. The entourage to witness the President receiving an honorary doctorate in Russia included Mr Winston Brassington, head of NICIL. Details that would indicate the propriety of the financial arrangements for that trip (which had some private elements to it), would help to dispel many of the public concerns and neutralise speculation.

The in-country costs of presidential visits are invariably met by the host country. Dr Singh should disclose whether Dr Jagdeo has been receiving per diem for such visits, and the amounts paid to him for the past three years.

Finally can Dr Singh please say whether he agrees with a response to an Audit Office 2003 query on overseas travel, that the “concerned official” (suspected to be the President) is exempted from clearing his travel advances. If the President is not exempted, can Dr Singh tell us the number and value of advances the President has outstanding.

Posted on

Budget 2010: Looking back

Introduction
The Minister of Finance has announced that he would be presenting the country’s National Budget tomorrow February 8, 2010. This can be considered early, given that the law allows him to present the budget by March 31 of each year, while providing him with the money to run the business of government until the budget is passed. The relative timeliness of the 2010 National Budget is commendable. It is, however, in obvious contrast with his annually late presentation of the mid-year report which goes way, way, beyond the two month deadline, even though as this column has consistently pointed out, the report is routinely misdated. Hopefully, the Minister will tell Parliament how his ministry finds it possible to present the full year accounts five weeks after the end of the year but needs about twenty weeks to present the half-year report.

It is a matter of speculation whether the timing of the budget presentation has anything to do with the education the government would have received about the constitution and the law on the public finances of the country during a recent debate on supplementary funds and the Contingencies Fund, or to pre-empt the publication of another damning audit report on the use and abuse of public funds.

Constitutional deprivation
The Minister has shown that, certainly in relation to the National Budget, he has no time for Article 13 of the constitution which requires that citizens and their organisations be provided with opportunities to participate in the management and decision-making processes of the state and, more specifically, “on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.” Let us see whether any organisation, trade union, the ubiquitous and loquacious Private Sector Commission, the Guyana Manufacturers’ Association, the multiplicity of Chambers of Commerce, the Consumers’ Association and other private sector bodies will make even a murmur on this constitutional deprivation. If the budget, the principal policy instrument affecting every citizen not incidentally or singly, but in almost every aspect of her/his life is not considered appropriate for, not only consultation on, but meaningful participation in, then Article 13 should be repealed by any constitutional means necessary. If it is so considered, then it is time that this disdain be ended and the constitutional rights of citizens, and the corresponding duty of the government and its ministers, be respected and observed.

Today’s Business Page, barring a few minor comments, will not attempt a preview of the 2010 budget, but instead look back at some of the main issues Ram & McRae had raised in their Focus on the 2009 Budget, and offer a preview of some of the issues which the firm will be raising in its review of the 2010 one. Having examined three budgets and speeches from this once promising Minister, witnessed his utter lack of imagination and his passion for long and expensive spending lists, and been overcome by the tedium of increasingly partisan political rhetoric, I no longer expect much from Dr Singh’s budget speeches. That prevents any disappointment and allows for pleasant surprises.

The state of statistics
One thing I will certainly hope for and that is that the Minister will put to rest the confusion he and the Bank of Guyana caused when, in their respective half-year reports, one was reporting growth in the economy while the other reported a decline – both using the same source, the Bureau of Statistics. It will be fascinating to see what the Minister announces as the 2009 growth (decline) and inflation rates to be, which no doubt will be attributed to the same Bureau of Statistics. In this regard, the Minister will be ahead of the bureau, which up to three days ago had posted on its website inflation data only to September 30. It would be unfortunate if, soon after the Minister announces his number, the information on the website is updated. If it were, that would do little for the integrity, independence and professionalism of the bureau. If we cannot rely on the quality and integrity of the official statistics or the competence of the Audit Office, it is near impossible to engage in any meaningful analysis of or discussion on the country’s economy or finances.

Flood and drought
Last year, the Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud, responding to public disquiet over the delay in addressing the flood problem, announced that the government was treating the construction of a $3B Hope Relief Channel as “a priority,” a decision that met with dismay from a number of professionals who raised several questions, including the source of the technical study and advice on which the multibillion dollar investment was being made. Even though the country is now experiencing a drought, the debate on the budget should at least answer those questions. For if the critics are right, then not only will we have wasted three billion dollars, but we will have lost valuable time and done little to remove the danger of a recurrence.

Focus 2009 constructed what the firm referred to as the expectation gap – the difference between the growth rate set out in the Economic Recovery Programme – 4% – and the actual growth rate. The Guyana economy performed better than many of the more open economies which are only now recovering from some steep declines. The Minister would of course, be reluctant and disappointed to announce that for the first time under his stewardship, the economy recorded a decline, particularly after projecting growth in real GDP of 4.7%. The graph will be updated in Focus 2010.

Oversized government
Last year Focus examined the explosion of the size of government, including the huge increases in the number of ministries, corresponding with a large growth in the number of statutory bodies. Space constraints do not allow for the table presented last year showing how from eleven ministries in 1992, the number has increased by 50% in 2009, with many of the ministries now having two ministers, dozens of ex-ministers, scores of advisors, and hundreds of contract employees. Budget Focus will tabulate some of the more shocking cases of contract employees, noting that the concern is not about the concept, as much as about the numbers and who some of those advisors are.

We recalled last year that the 2003 budget speech had reported that an IDB-financed Public Service Modernisation Programme was expected to be concluded and the consultant’s final report would be used as input into the design of a major modernisation project. We recommended that the IDB financed report be tabled and considered in the National Assembly and its recommendations critically reviewed with a view to implementation. That recommendation was clearly ignored by the government which seems more concerned to provide jobs for members of the ruling party, and increasingly their children.

Meanwhile the obviously over-financed IDB, the EU and others, continue to make further billions available for the government to spend, sometimes in the most wasteful manner, even as large segments of the population live in poverty.

The regulatory environment
In regulatory matters, last year belonged to Clico – the insurance company that represented perhaps the worst case of regulatory failure this country has ever witnessed. Focus 2009 identified and discussed the level of effectiveness of the multiple regulatory bodies, with most of them not equipped with adequate in-house, full-time analytical skills or legal expertise, and each operating well below what can be considered a moderate level of effectiveness. It recommended the establishment of a Financial Services Commission (FSC) under which is brought the supervisory functions of the Bank of Guyana, Securities Council and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. It further recommended that the Financial Intelligence Unit be placed within the Bank of Guyana or under the FSC.

Despite the colossal failure of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, the only action taken by the government in 2009 was to bring that office under the Bank of Guyana, which itself was at fault in Clico’s collapse. One particular statement by that unit, responding to a press statement about Clico, signalled an unacceptably harsh tone from an otherwise moderate institution.

Meanwhile the policy-holders and depositors of Clico find themselves in legal limbo even as the Bank of Guyana holds more than three billion dollars in funds available to pay them.

Other issues
Some of the other issues addressed in Focus 2009 were sugar, about which we continued to hear much almost throughout the year, debt management which has continued its inexorable rise during 2009 and for which Ram & McRae has recommended a statutory borrowing cap. Focus 2009 touched too on tax reform which has assumed the status of an annual, obligatory promise. The GRA recently announced that it had substantially exceeded its 2009 collections budget, even as the hugely expensive and much touted TRIPS was cheated to the tune of more than $300 million. I doubt whether the Minister would even bother to mention this, the largest single cash fraud ever to have been perpetrated on a state institution in Guyana.

2010
Focus 2010 will revisit, as appropriate, some of these matters but will look at others as well. It will examine in some detail the serial violations of the constitutional and legal provisions governing receipts and expenditure, supplementary appropriations, and the Contingencies Fund. We will look as well at the abuse of the contracts to undermine the self-undermined Public Service Commission, the abuse of the Public Corporations Act to divert proceeds of privatisation from the Consolidated Fund to the politically controlled NICIL, whose executive head is Mr Winston Brassington himself at the centre of the QAII deal, and who secured funds from NIS and NBS for the Berbice Bridge Company.

We will touch too, the debate on the LCDS that was probably the biggest issue in 2009, the limitations, conflicts and performance of the Audit Office, the allocation and distribution of the national sports budget, and take another look at the Companies Act 1991, and the Deeds Registry.

Posted on

Supplementary or contingency: Same abuse

Introduction
So often we hear time-worn sayings like ‘Chickens coming home to roost,’ ‘History repeating itself’ and ‘Forgetting the lessons of history,’ and we think they are just platitudes of no consequence. Yet the brouhaha in the National Assembly last Monday showed how some such things are not only more than idle talk, but rather powerful enough to have an after life.

The occasion for the war of words in the National Assembly was consideration of Supplementary Appropriation (No.3 of 2009) Bill 2010, for $8,245,758,278 as further and additional funding for various purposes, some of which had already been spent (Contingencies) and to be spent (Supplementary Appropriations).

On one side there were Prime Minister Sam Hinds, Housing Minister Irfan Ali and Health Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy, three persons whose ministerial portfolios were significant would-be beneficiaries of the bulk of the supplementary funds. Over the other side were two attorneys-at-law, Opposition Members of Parliament Winston Murray (PNCR) and Khemraj Ramjattan (AFC), both of whom eventually left the arena in anger and frustration, threatening to take the fight elsewhere.

Déjà vu
To understand the exchanges one needs to delve a little bit into history, going back to the National Development Strategy which was adopted by the National Assembly a couple of years ago. Chapter 13 of that strategy dealing with Fiscal Policy and The Public Sector had this to say about the Contingency Fund which is so often confused – either by design or otherwise – with Supplementary Appropriations.

“Deficiencies in the Budget Process: Largely due to deficiencies in the budgetary process, the Contingencies Fund has been used to meet all kinds of expenditures, such as shortfalls in ministries’ provisions arising from basic miscalculations in estimates and unrealistic budget assumptions about exchange rate changes, inflation and spending patterns, and the introduction during the course of the year of new projects or programmes deemed ‘necessary’ or ‘relevant’ by a political or high-ranking technical functionary. Instead of being used for emergencies, such as a major breach in the sea defence system – the use intended by the National Assembly – the Contingency Fund now serves as a source of financing for unauthorised (by Parliament) and additional expenditures.”

More and more we have to admire, and owe a debt of gratitude to, the scores of persons who contributed to that document. Had we taken the NDS seriously we would long have been on an environmentally-conscious development trajectory rather than travelling to dictatorships like Iran to beg for money to sustain our economy.

The first walkout
The French have a wonderful way of expressing the English equivalent of “the more things change the more they remain the same.” And that introduces the second bit of history, this time in December 2003 when the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 came up for consideration in the National Assembly. The Stabroek News of December 16 of that year reported the PPP/C refusing a request from the Opposition PNCR to send the 87-clause bill to a select committee for detailed consideration. The Minister of Finance then was Mr Saisnarine Kowlessar and the reason he advanced for the government’s refusal of the request was that urgent passage was necessary to pave the way for debt relief of US$30 million from the World Bank and the IMF for the next twenty years. That explanation appears as strange as the request was sensible but then the National Assembly has never been the forum for the most sensible decisions or debate in Guyana.

Given no more than forty-eight hours to study and debate the bill, Mr Winston Murray, the PNC Shadow Finance Minister walked out in protest, allowing the overwhelming passage of the bill that may soon be at the centre of a legal action by the Alliance For Change. Ironically, the PPP/C may itself be a loser for not having read and understood what is clearly a complex and possibly badly worded piece of legislation. Indeed a statement given by Mr Robert Corbin, the PNCR leader on the recent exchange suggests that, at the very least, the act lends itself to continued misunderstanding in how billions of taxpayers’ funds are spent and accounted for. Over the next couple of weeks Business Page will examine some of the main provisions of the act, the principal objective of which is better transparency and accountability for the receipts and payments of the state in the Consolidated Fund which has as a sub-fund a Contingency Fund.

The Supplementary Appropriation
Section 24 of the FMAA requires that the variation of an appropriation other than reallocation of approved appropriations must be authorised by a supplementary appropriation act prior to the incurring of any expenditure. And that is where the experienced Prime Minister, the adventurous Health Minister and the green Housing Minister appear to have run into problems, confusing the supplementary funding with the kind of expenditure for which the Contingency Fund was specifically set up.

It seems too that the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh is also not sufficiently familiar with the act’s provisions on supplementary appropriations since he consistently fails to comply with the requirement that on the introduction of a supplementary appropriation bill, he is required to present to the National Assembly the reasons for the proposed variations and “a supplementary document describing the impact that the variations, if approved, will have on the financial plan outlined in the national budget.”

And before we go on perhaps it would be useful to note that Ram & McRae in Budget Focus 2008 had identified the absence of meaningful debate and real accounting for such additional funds.

Did it not strike our parliamentarians as odd that they should pass legislation that requires a request for $100 million in the budget to be subject to extensive scrutiny and debate but for an $8 billion supplementary request to be supported by only very limited information and subject only to questions and not a debate?

Cocking a snook at Parliament
Because of the supremacy of the constitution which empowers and regulates the raising of revenues and the incurring of expenditure by the government, we will also be looking at how the FMAA gives effect to and is circumscribed by the constitution. In researching for this column I found an interesting article by Indian Professor P.K. Tripathi and titled Lawless withdrawals from public funds: Cocking a snook at Parliament. It is apparent from that article that the application of responsible public accounting begins with the appreciation of a fundamental point about democracy and the rule of law.

As Tripathi points out, in a democracy the government must function both in respect of determination of its policies and the administration of those policies strictly under the control of the representatives of the people. The democratic process requires that no public monies can be spent without a grant made by the Parliament following a request by the government in the form of an Appropriation Bill or a Supplementary Appropriation Bill presented to the National Assembly specifying the purposes for which it plans to spend and the amounts of money it plans to spend on each of those purposes.

One exception for the prior approval of the National Assembly is in respect of monies out of the Contingencies Fund. I will look at the governing constitutional and statutory procedures next week, but for now it is not at all clear that those on the government side of the House, including the Prime Minister and Leader of the House Samuel Hinds and the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, Dr Leslie Ramsammy and Mr Irfan Ali are familiar with those provisions. The two financial papers which were embodied in Supplementary Appropriation Bill #3 were in respect of both advances from the Contingency Fund and Supplementary Provisions for the year 2009. If we accept the position in the law that supplementary provision must be approved prior to expenditure it would seem beyond logic that one can be asking for supplementary provision for 2009 in 2010!

The New GPC again
Included in Financial Paper No. 5/2009 for $1.449 billion were amounts totalling $473 million for purchases of drugs mainly from the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation towards which this government had earlier found itself acting illegally. Is history now repeating itself with breaches of the Contingency Fund being involved in payments made to the company between December 28 and 31 to procure drugs to last up to April 2010? What neither Dr Ramsammy nor Dr Ashni Singh told the National Assembly is when the drawing rights for these were requested, and issued in accordance with section 41 of the FMAA.

It may well turn out to be entirely ironic that one of the few amendments proposed by Mr Winston Murray and accepted by the government when the FMAA Bill was debated in 2003 may come back to haunt the government. And that is in relation to penalties for breaches.

The act makes it an indictable offence punishable on conviction to a fine of two million dollars and to imprisonment for three years for any official to knowingly permit any other person to contravene any provision of the act.

Maybe the Prime Minister sensed the rising temperature and not so implicit threats during the exchange in the National Assembly, taking refuge in the need to consult legally.

Those who have honed their political skills and owe their allegiance to the architects of the more permissive recent financial arrangements do not appear so compelled.

To be continued