The Public Accounts Committee quorum change and its implications: A closer look
Humanity is on thin ice—and that ice is melting fast. Our world needs climate action on all fronts—everything, everywhere, all at once. As today’s report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) details, humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years.
The rate of temperature rise in the last half century is the highest in 2,000 years. Concentrations of carbon dioxide are at their highest in at least 2 million years. The climate time-bomb is ticking.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
Last Monday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had to be aborted again because of absence of a quorum, with only one of the five members from the Government’s side offering an excuse for not attending. This is the second consecutive week that the Committee was unable to meet to scrutinize the country’s audited public accounts. It is the eleventh cancellation since the amendment to the National Assembly’s Standing Orders some eleven months ago to increase the size of the quorum of the nine-member Committee, comprising the following: PPP/C: Gail Teixeira (Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance), Juan Edghill (Minister of Public Works), Dharamkumar Seeraj, Vishwa Mahadeo and Sanjeev Datadin; and APNU+AFC: David Patterson, Juretha Fernandes,
Situation prior to the amendment
Since the PAC’s establishment in 1957, any three members, inclusive of the Chairperson, formed the quorum. By tradition, the Chairperson is a member from the main Opposition party in the Assembly. In fact, this is provided for under Standing Order 82(2).
I was associated with the PAC from 1991 to 2004. During this period, there were three chairpersons Reepu Daman Persaud, Dr. Kenneth King and Winston Murray, all of whom are no longer with us. At no time did the size of the quorum present a problem for the work of the Committee; and on only one occasion, political partisan interests took precedence over the national interest. This was in respect of the fiscal year 1992 – the first year of resumption of financial reporting and audit, following a gap of ten years covering the period 19821991. The Opposition members at the time (some of whom are still around) sought to discredit the effort to restore public accountability and virtually placed me on trial for the role I played in this regard, with the Government members sitting back helplessly. The onslaught was so much that for a time I refrained from attending the meetings of the PAC. I shudder to think what would have been the situation today had I failed in my efforts!
As of 1991, the PAC had not reported on the public accounts since the mid-1970s. I recall offering to draft the Committee’s reports for 1977-1979 and 1981 using the verbatim records of the minutes of the meetings held. The PAC accepted my offer, and when draft reports were submitted to the Committee, they were accepted without amendment and laid in the Assembly, thereby completing all of the PAC’s outstanding work by the time there was a change in Administration in 1992. However, the ten-year gap in financial reporting and audit would remain a significant blemish in the history of public accountability in Guyana.
The 1992 and 1993 public accounts were examined in a very timely manner, and the Committee’s reports were presented in the Assembly in September 1995. Following Dr. King’s resignation, Mr. Murray took over as the Chairperson. However, the political unrest in the late 1990s marred any effort to maintain the momentum so much so that the PAC’s report for 1994 was not issued until March 2000. Because of the build-up of the backlog accounts to be examined, the Committee for the first time took the unprecedented approach of combining a number of years together. As a result, the PAC report for the years 1995-1998 was issued in October 2000.
The 1999 PAC report was laid in the Assembly in March 2003. This was the last year that I assisted the Committee in the drafting of its report. I left for Africa on special nopay leave of absence to serve as the Chief Resident Auditor at the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations in Sierra Leone and Liberia. I returned in August 2004, only to demit office four months later in December 2004. Since then, except for the years 2006, 2009 and 2015, the PAC’s examination of the combined number of years became a regular feature of its work.
Current status of examination of the public accounts
While the PAC is currently scrutinizing the accounts for 2019, its last report to the Assembly was in respect of the fiscal year 2015, as shown at Table I. That report was issued on 8 August 2018.
With the last set of audited accounts presented to the Assembly being in respect of 2021, the Committee is now six years in arrears in its reporting to the Assembly. The Government’s Treasury Memorandum therefore could have been issued setting out what actions it has taken or proposes to take in relation to the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
In several of our columns, we took pains to emphasize that accountability for the use of public resources is substantially incomplete unless a Committee of the Assembly scrutinizes the audited accounts in the most timely manner to ascertain the extent to which the Government has utilized the resources made available to it the way Parliament intended; whether outputs, outcomes and impact were commensurate with those intended; and whether due regard has been had to the avoidance of waste and extravagance.
During my seven-year stint at the United Nations as Executive Secretary of the Board of Auditors, I recall that the Board had to finalise its audits and issue its reports on the UN Peacekeeping Operations by 30 June each year. The Advisory Committee of Budgetary and Administrative Questions (ACABQ), the equivalent of the PAC, then began its scrutiny of the audited accounts the very first working day of July each year. The examination usually took 46 weeks after which the ACABQ would issue its reports to the General Assembly via the Fifth Committee. Our Permanent Representative to the UN can attest to this.
The actual amendment
According to the motion tabled in the Assembly on 13 April 2022 by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, reference was made to: (i) Standing Order 95(6) that provides for three members (inclusive of the Chairperson) to form a quorum to any Standing or Select Committee, unless the Assembly decides otherwise; and (ii) Standing Order No. 83(5) providing for the quorum for the Parliamentary
Management Committee to comprise of five Members two from the Government, two from the Opposition and one from the main Opposition party, with the Speaker and or the Deputy Speaker as the Chairperson.
The motion further states that due to the role and functions of the PAC, it would be appropriate to amend Standing Order 82 to provide for a similar quorum. The motion was approved to amend Standing Order 82 to allow for five members to constitute a quorum: two members each from both sides of the House, along the Chairperson.
Arguments for and against the amendment
The political Opposition vehemently opposed the quorum change, arguing that the amendment to the Standing Order 82 is an attempt to stymie the work of the PAC and to delay the examination of the public accounts for the years 2020 onwards. It will be recalled that there was a change in Administration in August 2020 following the announcement of the results of the March 2020 elections. The political Opposition held the reins of government from May 2015 to July 2020 and was replaced by the present Administration Prior to then, the latter held office for an unbroken period of 23 years from 1992 to 2015.
The Government’s side argued that: (i) the change is necessary to ensure an ‘efficient and accurate scrutinisation of the use of public funds’ and to avoid superficial examination being carried out for certain years; (ii) the quorum change offered protection to both sides of the House; and (iii) the 2-2-1 formula provides for greater participation when scrutinising the audited public accounts and secures representation of both sides:
The quorum being amended is not harmful. It will in fact ensure that both sides always have two on each side, that you don’t have to have everybody but you have to have two on each side to make sure the work goes forward…This will enhance the way we operate in the parliament. It is not harmful to anyone.
However, as noted above, since the motion was approved, there were eleven cancellations of the PAC weekly meetings because of the absence of Government members. One also recalls the Government’s side voting down a proposal to increase the number of meetings from once weekly to two times per week in order to address the backlogged accounts to be examined and reported on.
On the contention that the original quorum allows for the superficial examination of the public accounts for certain years, during the PAC’s examination of the public accounts for the years 2010-2011, a total of 50 meetings were held, that is, 25 sittings per year. This was under the Chairpersonship of Mr. Carl Greenidge. Following the change in Administration in 2015, the current President, then an Opposition member succeeded Mr. Greenidge. The records will show that for the years 2012-2014, the PAC met on only 12 occasions, this is, four sittings per year; while for the 2015 accounts the sittings were increased to 13. In a previous article, we had stated that, while we welcomed attempts by the Committee to address its backlogged examinations, we expressed the hope that such an approach did not in any way compromise on the quality and comprehensiveness of its examination.
Implications of the quorum change
According to the Chairperson, the constant cancellations of meetings are frustrating as the work of the Committee continues to be stymied by one side of the House:
This constant cancellation is getting annoying. No one showed up from the government side…This is time wasting, our time, the staff time, the advisors and the agency… Commitment to transparency and accountability is left with a question mark behind it. It is just so frustrating that this is what we have to go through.
Another PAC Opposition member argued that, considering the mandate of the Committee and the role it plays in ensuring accountability and transparency, the PAC’s work should not be held up at the whims and fancies of a government. He went on to state that Accounting Officers are not receiving the desired guidance from the Committee, resulting in a repetition of the issues in subsequent years; and the issues arising from the scrutiny of the 2018 and 2019 accounts are no different from those raised by the Auditor General in his 2020 and 2021 reports.
These numerous cancellations of PAC meetings for want of a quorum has prompted the Chairperson to consider tabling a motion in the Assembly to reverse its decision to amend Standing Order 82, contending that present situation is untenable and cannot continue without adversely affecting the work of the Committee.