Who recommended Larry Singh for bond contract?

Who in the David Granger administration recommended Larry Singh of Linden Holding for the controversial pharmaceutical bond contract or entertained his interest in such an arrangement? The answer to this question, observers say, would reveal much about the nature of the deal and whether it could withstand scrutiny. However, despite Cabinet’s establishing a sub-committee to investigate the contract and its production of a report, no light has been shed on how Singh could be sole-sourced for such a contract when he had not been in this business and had no appropriate building ready to begin accepting drugs for storage. His being favoured with the contract under these circumstances would raise questions about the rectitude of the government’s decision to go to him. And though his signature appeared on the contract, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Public Health, Trevor Thomas yesterday refused to answer any questions on it. He said it would be unethical and unprofessional as President David Granger and the Cabinet have already acted on the matter via the setting up of a subcommittee. “I really don’t want to say anything else…the President spoke and Cabinet made decisions and so forth…it would be really an unprofessional and unethical thing for me to do,” Thomas told Stabroek News. pertaining to his role. Thomas on Wednesday told Stabroek News it would be unethical for him to say anything as President David Granger and Cabinet have already pronounced on the matter. “Public resources are expended and no one is willing and able to provide information as to how Mr Singh came into the picture. The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act places the onus on the PS and the Minister to provide the information as to the basis of selection of Mr Singh, bearing in mind that at the time the agreement was entered into with Mr Singh, he had no drug bond in Sussex Street,” Goolsarran told Stabroek News yesterday. “In addition, should the Minister of Finance also not be held liable for authorizing withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund, when the criteria have not been met for the grant of such advances?” he questioned. He listed the withdrawal criteria as being either urgent or unforeseen and for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made and that the expenditure cannot be postponed without jeopardizing the public interest. He pointed to the roles of a government Permanent Secretary, which he has also written an article on and queried if Thomas understood his or had one. “Did Mr. Thomas not receive a copy?” he questioned.