Procurement bamboozle
Trinidad and Tobago
After seven years of being fed one excuse after another, the public should now face the awful prospect that the Rowley administration has no intention of bringing the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act into effect any time soon, not even in the gutted form to which it had reduced the act two years ago.
One would have thought that having substantially watered down the law by removing critical financial transactions from the remit of the procurement regulator, the Government would be happy to have pressed on to the proclamation of the weakened law if only to claim bragging rights for having implemented anti-corruption legislation. However, having succeeded in stripping the law of the big-ticket items of government-to-government contracts, agreements with international financial institutions and a range of contracted services—including legal services, debt-financing services for the national budget, accounting and auditing services, medical emergency or other scheduled medical services, and virtually any other service the Minister of Finance may one day decide to remove—the Government continues to peddle backwards on this issue.
The excuse for the latest delay was provided by the Judiciary in response to a letter from Attorney General Reginald Armour asking about its state of readiness to handle matters arising out of the Procurement Act. Lo and behold, 25 years after the Panday administration opened up a public discussion about procurement legislation, 17 years after the Manning administration produced a white paper on the subject in 2005, and eight years after the Kamla Persad-Bissessar administration piloted the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Bill and eventually secured Parliament’s approval on December 16, 2012, the Judiciary was finally prepared to submit its views on the law. How fortuitous that the AG asked! What if he hadn’t?
In a 29-page response, the Judiciary detailed its concerns, essentially saying that no, it did not have the resources to handle what could become a deluge of matters, revealing in the process an understandable touch of envy that the Office of the Procurement Regulator was afforded greater administrative independence in resourcing itself.
On Friday, the Judiciary’s position was seized upon by Government MPs Terrence Deyalsingh and Keith Scotland when Procurement Regulator Moonilal Lalchan appeared before Parliament’s Joint Select Committee on Finance and Legal Affairs, of which both are members. Their comments echoed the position of AG Armour, indicating where the Government is heading with respect to the legislation: “I don’t think we should be rushing into full operationalisation without regard to the views of the Judiciary,” declared Deyalsingh.
In July, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley had expressed disappointment about the delay, saying he was anxious to have the law come into effect, and promising the Government would move with “reasonable haste” to have it proclaimed as soon as the AG was able to address the “pitfalls” identified by the Judiciary.
Anyone expecting the PM’s comment to be followed by a time-table for action from the AG was doomed to disappointment. Four months later, he has released no plan of action, nor presented a progress report of any kind. Perhaps this matter, too, has slipped his mind.
Image: Shelf-of-Legal-Books