The year 1990 was a year that could be called the battle for the survival of the Public Accounts Committee.
February, 1990 opened with the question of whether the committee had for more than a century exercised without interruption the powers that government now said it did not, and never did have. According to government an amendment was needed to give the committee power to send for persons and papers to examine the country’s finances.
According to Attorney General Paul Adderley: “The committee has no powers now, in our view, although the committee has sought to exercise powers outside of the power which the House gave it.”
Government’s position was that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had the right only to examine the auditor-general’s accounts that government had laid on the table of the House. Arthur Hanna, (PLP-Ann’s Town), who is now Governor-General, disagreed with Mr Adderley’s position. He told the House that according to British practice, which is the model for the Bahamas, the auditor- general’s report ﾠis not the only report that the committee has to look at.
“I think we must be clear on that,” he said, “because it is impractical to wait on an auditor’s report that you may never get. So, I don’t think, in Britain, it was ever envisaged that the committee was restricted only to the auditor’s report. It cannot be right. It never was.”
Agreeing with him were Opposition members and Dr Matthew Rose (PLP-St Barnabas), who was a government member on the committee and who, with the committee’s three Opposition members had signed the interim report that complained about how the PAC was being hampered in its attempts to carry out its statutory duties. By the end of that year when the question of the PAC’s powers was still before the House, Dr Rose announced that if the committee did not have the necessary powers to function, he might as well pack his bags, call it a day, and go home. “We will be wasting our time and I don’t have any time to waste,” he told his parliamentary colleagues.
“If the committee wants a blank cheque to examine accounts which have not been laid on the table, we think that is outside the powers of the committee, which it has never had and we do not think it ought to have those powers,” insisted Mr Adderley.
Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, Opposition Leader and chairman of the PAC, asked Mr ﾠAdderley about the accounts that the law said should have been laid on the table – four, five, six, seven years ago – and were not yet on the table of the House.
“Because you don’t obey the law then you get away,” Sir Cecil told Mr Adderley. “The Public Accounts Committee cannot examine anything because you don’t obey the law.”
Although Mr Adderley said the committee should have had the 1988 accounts, it could not change the rules just because it did not have them. Sir Cecil informed Mr Adderley that the PAC had not seen the accounts since 1980. It was now February 23, 1990. Government was 10 years behind; 10 years in breach of the law.
Meanwhile, rumours of corruption dogged the PLP like an unshakeable shadow.
Among many other things, the PAC was trying to trace the path of $10 million that one day took a leave of absence from Bahamasair and failed to return. Members were also trying to uncover government’s shenanigans on a Far East trip in 1988, paid for by the Bahamian people. It was reported that a member of the delegation was given $10,000 of the people’s money. He returned to the Bahamas without change.
He claimed he had spent $4,443 on meals and $3,577 on tips. That’s what one calls stepping out like a real Mid-East potentate! As a government minister commented a short time ago in a different context, Bahamians must drive out in style so as not to let the country down. One can imagine that $3,577 in tips would certainly have left the impression that the good gentleman had in fact come from a country flowing in milk, honey and mountains of dollar bills. He was obviously determined to do his country proud. On top of this he spent $1,989 on miscellaneous items.
It was obvious that this was not his money. However, and, this is what worried the PAC, it was reported that another $10,000 was issued from the Public Treasury to pay for these same expenses. The PAC wanted to know if the bill had been paid twice.
No wonder government was twisting and turning in so many Houdini contortions to keep the PAC out of its business.
Although, Mr Adderiey had told the PAC that it was not the PLP’s affairs, but the people’s affairs” that it was guarding, his government obviously did not agree with him. However, considering how hard he fought to keep the door to their secrets barred, we often wondered if he truly believed his own words.
“Anytime you start covering up you get deeper and deeper into the mire,” Mr Hanna told his PLP colleagues. “If they do not give this power, my charge is going to be that they are hiding something.”
Unless this government starts to cooperate with today’s PAC, the same charge could be laid at its door.
Editorial from The Tribune
