Bond controversy Apology from Norton not enough - Goolsarran
Even as Minister of Public Health, Dr George Norton prepares to hand over a public apology tomorrow to Parliament for misleading it on August 4th on the pharmaceutical bond contract, former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran says that it will not suffice.
“His apology does not address the decision to rent the bond via the sole source method. Dr. Norton’s argument that it was an emergency situation is not valid since at the time when the advance was made from the Contingencies Fund the bond was still to be built. As of today, the bond is not complete”, Goolsarran told Stabroek News yesterday.
In the wake of controversy over the deal for the rental of the Lot 29 Sussex Street, Charlestown bond, with Linden Holding Inc. to store pharmaceuticals at some $12.5M per month, President David Granger appointed a Cabinet SubCommittee to do a review.
It has since recommended that government should try to negotiate a reduction of the agreed monthly rental fee and that if there is a refusal by Linden Holding Inc., government should give a year’s notice of a termination of the lease and build its own facilities in the intervening period.
Although government has admitted that Norton misled the National Assembly during questioning about the bond on August 8, 2016, the report says he was apparently misled by officials of his ministry when he provided the information. But Goolsarran believes that the contract should be scrapped and the person who signed it should be held liable. He said that government needs to get to the root of the matter and find out who initiated a discussion with Lawrence Singh of Linden Holding Inc. and whoever signed the controversial contract should be held to account.
He explained, “Minister Norton is not the Accounting Officer. If he signed the contract, it is not only invalid but also the Minister is liable under the FMA (Fiscal Management Accountability) Act. If the Accounting Officer, who is the Permanent Secretary, signed the contract he should similarly be held liable. We therefore need to know who signed the contract”.
It is unclear who signed the contract for government and for the landlord of the bond as the signatures seen by Stabroek News are not legible. It is also not known who the two witnesses to the contract are since their names can barely be discerned.
The APNU+AFC government’s single sourcing of the contract to Linden Holding Inc, which has had no previous involvement in the storage of pharmaceuticals, has raised questions about who in the administration made the initial connection with him.
This is not answered in the sub-committee report, although it says it was Permanent Secretary Trevor Thomas and other staff of the Public Health Ministry who commenced the search for the storage space. Goolsarran had previously said that a Cabinet subcommittee should not be investigating the matter as Cabinet itself had made a decision to proceed with the controversial contract.
When Stabroek News contacted the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Health on Tuesday, he said he will not comment on the issue but will defend his role if called on.
“We don’t want to comment on the matter…that thing has been so much in the public and I mean I know it’s a public matter but I don’t want to be adding to the debate on that matter,” Thomas said.
“If my name is calling then at the appropriate time then I will deal with it,” he added.
Norton said that he understands the public’s concern as it pertained to the initial contact with the contractor and admitted not finding out enough about the how the contract was formed.
When told by Stabroek News that someone had to have initiated contact with Singh for him to know that a storage bond would be needed, Norton replied “That is true. That is true and that is where I might have been a little reckless you understand. And If I made a mistake even though I might not have been able to let’s say change the status quo, it was in that path, that particular process of it. But that is the real sore point and the bad thing about the whole thing and I got slaughtered because of it, (I have) no doubt about it.”
Goolsarran recommends scrapping the contract altogether. “The contract needs to be scrapped altogether, and the bond at Diamond that was specifically built for the storage of drugs and medical supplies, be utilized for this purpose. It would be a double loss to the State if this bond continues not to be utilised. The argument about traffic congestion on the East Bank is a mere attempt to justify the decision to rent the bond in Sussex Street. It cannot hold water. As regards fire hazard, which has a greater risk of fire - the Diamond bond or the building in a densely populated area in Sussex Street? I have pictures of the building - inside and the surrounding area - which can attest to it being at greater risk of fire,” he stated.
Further, he recommended “terminating of the contract and taking disciplinary action against those who made the decision to rent the bond and who are responsible for the loss of public funds. In addition, the speciallybuilt bond at Diamond should now be used to store all of the Government’s drugs and medical supplies. It is not too late to do the right thing and to acknowledge that a wrong decision has been made.”
The former Auditor General says that an independent inspection should be conducted at the Diamond bond to verify the storage space and usability there as there are reports that the bond has ample space.
“Someone needs to independently verify the storage space at Diamond because Kaieteur News reported that the space was more than enough to store the Government’s drugs and medical supplies. Even if Minister Norton is correct, are we not going to utilize the Diamond bond to capacity before looking elsewhere for storage?,” he questioned.
Norton has ruled out Diamond explaining that there was not enough space there and it was for the very reason that New GPC’s bond was being used.
He informed that as at Tuesday the Sussex Street bond was in use and had drugs stored there.