In this column yesterday [Tribune Editorial dated May 16, 2006] we told of Norman Solomon’s difficulties in the seventies to get relevant documents to permit the Public Accounts Committee, of which he was chairman, to make its annual report to parliament.
In an interim majority report on December 2, 1974 the committee recounted how it was not permitted to enquire into the more than $5.5 million borrowed in the name of the Bahamian people between 1973 and 1975 to keep Bahamasair flying.
Of that amount $2.6 million had been borrowed in the first three months of 1975. A ruling by then Attorney General Paul Adderley stopped their enquiry.
However, although they succeeded in identifying the bank from which the money had been borrowed, they could not find where the legislature had given government permission to either borrow or spend those sums.
They also discovered that the annual entertainment allowances, which in those days were not a part of a minister’s salary, had been drawn down by six ministers. These ministers had not provided the Treasurer – as was required – with any written confirmation that the money had in fact been spent in “the course of entertainment for the direct benefit of the Bahamas Government.” The question does not arise today as the allowance is now a part of a government minister’s salary.
The PAC also asked to see the books of the Hotel Corporation to investigate how the public’s money had been spent in the purchase of three hotels on Cable Beach. After an exchange of letters, the Financial Secretary advised the auditor-general that he had no authority to investigate the trading results of the Cable Beach hotels, owned by government in the name of the Bahamian people.
The auditor-general wrote to then Attorney General Paul Adderley for a ruling on the Financial Secretary’s opinion. Up to the time of presenting its interim report to parliament, the attorney general had not replied to the auditor-general’s request for guidance.
This was the contempt with which the commitiee, which Mr Adderley himself acknowledged was parliament’s ‘most important standing committee’, was treated. Obviously Mr Solomon had become too much of a bull dog on the committee that Mr Adderley had called parliament’s “watchdog of public expenditure.” The following year the Speaker removed him from the committee. His replacement was a PLP member of the House.
This manoeuvre completely emasculated the committee, which by tradition – and Mr Adderley’s own admission – is supposed to be controlled by the Opposition. With Mr Solomon being replaced by a PLP, government now had a majority on the PAC.
The committee died a natural death, until Mr Adderley made the mistake of shaming it back to life.
Fulfilling its statutory requirement, the PAC reported on December 20, 1989. Their complaint was repeated almost annually during the life of the Pindling government. lt is being echo again by Brent Symonette, the current PAC chairman, under a government that calls itself the “New” PLP. Nothing in this document sounds new to us. We shall publish it so that our readers will understand how the philosophy of the “old” PLP is still holding the “new” PLP hostage.
The committee appointed by the Speaker on September 2, 1987 made its first interim report on December 20, 1989. And this is what it had to say:
“Your committee wishes to report that its authority has been challenged in the following respects, namely: (1) that the jurisdiction of your committee does not extend to demanding the production of documents, and (2) that it has no authority to- send for persons and papers.
“Your committee wishes to report further that its work is also seriously hampered by the failure of the Treasurer to produce, as mandated by law, the accounts of the government for the year ended 31st December, 1988. The 1988 accounts were required to be completed not later than the 30th June, 1989 in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act.
“Your committee is obliged to complain and to pray in aid assistance of Mr Speaker and this Honourable House, to obtain access to certain essential public documents and records, and the testimony of certain relevant witnesses in the public service of the Bahamas.
“For the removal of doubt and far clarity, your commiittee requests that this Honourable House specifically confirm, bestow on grant to your committee power to send for persons and papers with leave to sit from place to place and with leave to sit during the recess.
“For the avoidance of doubt, it is the committee’s desire that this Honourable House specifically include in the committee’s terms of reference all public corporations and/or any entities in which the government has a financial or business interest.
“Your committee, in pursuance of its function and duty; wishes to continue its work in the public interest and on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas “to check whether the taxpayer is receiving value for money from the actions of government or is losing out, whether through maladministrationtion, fraud or corruption.”
This document was signed by Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, chairman, Hubert Ingraham, Pierre Dupuch – ﾠall FNMs — and Dr Matthew Rose, a PLP. The fifth member of the committee, Moses Hall, also a PLP, did not sign.
The most interesting signature on that document was that of the late Dr Rose.
(Stay tuned – the author promises to discuss this further in upcoming editorials.)
Editorial from The Tribune
