The PPP/C has done more than any other government to ensure transparency and accountability

Dear Editor, Since the PPP/C demitted office, the present regime has conducted several forensic audits, using firms and individuals that have expressed political opposition to the PPP/C, and even hostility. Despite the fact that these auditors have found no evidence of corruption, the media continues to spread disinformation.

The Stabroek News editorial of September 26, in its first paragraph said that under the PPP/C government “…there was a heavy veil drawn across the huge procurement sector.” This statement is untrue and completely unfounded.

We need to reflect on what the PPP/C inherited when it assumed office in 1992. The PNC, which now leads the APNU+AFC regime, had no tendering process. Contracts for projects, goods and services were given to their cronies and party financiers. The PPP/C administration not only changed that system, they introduced an open bidding process and implemented systems to establish and enforce transparency. These included inviting members of the media and representatives of the tenderers to the opening of the bids. Persons/companies that tendered for the job and they amount they bid were announced to those present and by extension to the public.

The media, therefore, clearly played a role in this process and yet the Stabroek News editorial speaks about a “heavy veil,” which shows either ignorance or anti-PPP/C bias and an intention to revise history.

The PPP/C was the first government in the entire region, and probably still is, whose Cabinet gave up its right to award contracts and only kept a “no objection” for contracts valued at more than $15M. It was the PPP/Civic that not only suggested the establishment of a Public Procurement Commission (PPC), but also passed the necessary legislation for its establishment.

Why it was not passed is the question that has been frequently asked and answered many times. Yet some sections of the media continue to ignore the explanation given and continue to repeat the half-truths and lies of the APNU+AFC.

It was not put in place because of the intransigence of the then APNU and AFC opposition.

At the level of the Public Accounts Committee, the then opposition attempted to take over by trying to appoint the majority of members of the PPC. They even proposed, unofficially, that they appoint the chairperson. They wanted to control the PPC.

In 2011, when the combined opposition got a one seat majority in the Parliament, they became more belligerent. They wanted to appoint all members and to remove the Cabinet’s no-objection role. APNU and the AFC were doing their utmost to bring the country to a halt. This was