Wanted: Strong institutions

Jamaican economist and University of the West Indies lecturer, Dr Damien King certainly provoked the ire of the government when he issued a very gloomy forecast of Guyana’s future at the intersection with the veritable oil bonanza that the country is now tapping.

Dr King was of the view that Guyana will fall victim to the resource curse because it lacks strong institutions to prevent corruption.

On March 21st, the Ministry of Natural Resources responded to Dr King and said that his statements attempted to “to undermine the progress made towards the prudent management of the Guyanese economy and the shared development vision of the Government and its people”.

It then provided a catalogue of measures it has taken to defend against the ill-effects of the oil wealth and to generally improve governance.

There is no mistaking that Guyana is at a crucial juncture in its history and whether it becomes overrun by oil-fuelled corruption, grand inequalities, failed mega projects, deepening political and ethnic divisions and high crime is largely dependent on the quality of governance from the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Primus inter pares is naturally the government. The executive presidency affords the government and by association - the ruling party - unrivalled and largely unchecked powers. The legislature in the majoritarian Westminster model is a mirror image of the executive and has shown no independent mindset in any post-independence period. The judiciary can rein in excesses - as in Friday’s ruling on the President’s suspension of Police Service Commission members - but it is easily hamstrung by the executive when one countenances how since 2017 its engine, the Judicial Service Commission has not been renewed by two governments despite umpteen promises.

In that milieu, also exists the cold harsh reality that indeed, Guyana does not have strong, independent institutions to hold the government accountable and to ensure sustained improvement in the quality of governance.

This is all the more worrying as the ruling PPP and its PPP/C governments have not been open to strong, independent institutions occupied by professionally-minded persons. The government would not for instance ever conceive of supporting the appointments of Christopher Ram and Anand Goolsarran, two of the most credible and accomplished persons in their fields of expertise, to bodies such as the Natural Resource Fund or the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) for fear that they would actually discharge their duties without qualms or favour. It prefers to find people it is comfortable with in the expectation that they will act largely in the government’s interest.

This outlook then leaves the quality of governance and checks and balances that are so vital to an inchoate oil economy at severe risk. The evi

dence is all over to be seen as for instance with the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament as spelt out in detail in yesterday’s editorial.

There are many other examples where watchdog bodies and institutions have been overtaken or are just not performing. In the same way that the Granger administration captured the Guyana Elections Commission, the PPP/C government set out to do the exact thing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its opening gambit was the dismissal of the highly qualified Dr Vincent Adams who had made it clear to ExxonMobil and other corporate transgressors that they would be made to account for failings, including having to pay fines. The unjustified removal of Dr Adams opened the floodgates for decisions in favour of ExxonMobil and its aggressive exploration and production plans and also witnessed the unfathomable waiving of Environmental Impact Assessments for major projects such as the new bridge over the Demerara River and the natural gas to energy plant. If that wasn’t bad enough, the EPA appeals body, the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is being manned by persons with overt conflicts of interest with the subject material they are presiding over and who, if they had any pride in their professional standing, would immediately resign. However, it is the government who has appointed them being fully aware of the blatant conflicts that would be posed.

The Integrity Commission is vitally important as a bulwark against corruption among public officials particularly now with the oil money flowing copiously into the country and the multitude of risks for illicit conduct. The submission of annual returns by those public officials who come under its purview is an important means of determining whether there is filthy lucre, conspicuous spending or the possible hiding of assets in relatives’ names.

Despite having been appointed at the end of May in 2022, a 16-month gap since the previous body expired, the public has not been advised of any significant action by the Integrity Commission to ensure fiscal probity by those who must account to it.

Indeed, an extension for the submission of returns expired at the end of December last year and nearly three months later there has not been a single word from the Integrity Commission on the level of compliance and what steps have been taken against the defaulters. It may have escaped the Integrity Commission that it is accountable to the people of this country and not to the government no matter how inclined it might be to that misconception.

The Public Procurement Commission also falls into this category. It is yet to be heard from on any matter of substantial public interest despite being appointed on July 2nd last year, again after a significant hiatus. In the interim, major issues have arisen such as the quality of work of the evaluation committees of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board, the awarding of contracts to failed contractors and more recently the bizarre single-sourcing of an electronic ID system by the government in a shadowy arrangement that involves the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, one of the PPC commissioners spends much of their time defending the government on any and everything including Dr King’s recent criticism.

One could go on an on. While the Natural Resources Ministry sought to take apart Dr King’s contention by pointing to a series of measures that have been taken, it was jarringly silent on the gaping failure to establish a Petroleum Commission to regulate the oil and gas sector. How can the country be producing oil for more than three years in the absence of an overarching regulatory body? That must be a recipe for failures across a broad front particularly when such a Commission had been promised by the PPP/C government since August 2020. Gas will soon be produced in prodigious quantities, brought to shore and transformed into energy. Who will be regulating this? Citizen Joe? The Regional Democratic Council in the area? It isn’t at all clear.

It is also worthy of note because so much money is at risk and the honesty of ExxonMobil and its partners is on the line that the government has hidden from public view the findings of IHS Markit on the validity of pre-contract costs claimed by the oil companies. Which government operating in the interest of its people does that? Perhaps one operating in its own interest and that of ExxonMobil and its partners?

To Lord Acton is attributed the following quotation: “Everybody likes to get as much power as circumstances allow, and nobody will vote for a selfdenying ordinance.”

The government must begin to show that in the interest of good and accountable governance it is prepared to circumscribe and temper its broad powers particularly as it relates to the empowering of watchdog bodies and related institutions.