The Auditor-General was forced to rely on the files of the Ministry of Youth because the requested relevant copies of Cabinet conclusions did not “seem to be forthcoming” to clarify the controversial 2002 purchase of the Junkanoo bleachers.
According to the Auditor-General’s report the $1.2 million bleachers were ordered in October 2002, a month before Cabinet approved their purchase.
This is one of the items in the 2002-2003 audited report that is certain to send angry words bouncing back and forth across the floor of the House on May 31 when the Budget debate opens.
In 2002, in what became known as the “bleachers scandal”, Youth Minister Neville Wisdom vehemently denied that the purchase had been made before he had cabinet approval.
However, according to the auditor-general, the Youth Ministry’s files contradict his denial, but, despite the auditor-general’s request, cabinet has failed to confirm whether their files support either the auditor’s findings or the minister’s denial.
Reported the Auditor-General:
“Based on documentation (records of the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture) it appears that the contract for rental of the bleachers did not receive Cabinet approval before an agreement was signed between the Ministry of Youth. Sports and Culture and Towers Scaffold Services, Inc.
“Section 58 of the Financial Registration states that ‘all awarded contracts for supplies, works and services required by the Government for amounts in excess of $250,000 shall be made by the Cabinet.’
“The records at the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture show that an agreement with Towers Scaffold Services Inc was executed on the 28th October, 2002. However, approval by Cabinet for the venture was noted on 28th November, 2002.
“We have requested relevant copies of Cabinet Conclusions which does not seem to be forthcoming therefore we relied on information from files at the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture.”
The handling of the public’s money under the late Sir Lynden Pindling’s PLP administration makes interesting reading. We now go back to October 11, 1990.
In the House of Assembly that morning ļ¾ Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham accused Sir Lynden, as Finance Minister, of spending $27 million over the 1988 budget. “And he has not seen fit to come to parliament and provide an explanation to parliament for this unlawful act,” Mr Ingraham added.
It was noted that no government minister rose to Sir Lynden’s defence.
The maximum amount a Finance Minister can lawfully take from the Treasury to spend without parliament’s approval is $20 million and “even that has to be justified and in accordance with the law,” said Mr Ingraham.
On the morning of October 24,1990 Sir Lynden left the House to find answers to unravel government’s tangled finances.
Mr Ingraham, who was called by then Education Minister Dr Bernard Nottage “an unnecessarily hard task master” on public expenditure, met with Sir Lynden privately in the smokers room when the front bench could not provide explanations to the Opposition’s questions.
Sir Lynden agreed to leave the House to go in search of the answers.
In the meantime, Fred Mitchell, not yet a member of parliament, but leader of the People’s Democratic League, entered the argument from the outside. His position was that Sir Lynden should be held personally liable for all the public money spent without parliament’s approval.
“If our reading of the law is correct,” said Mr Mitchell, “then an action ought to be brought in the Supreme Court against Lynden Pindling personally for the expenditure made without parliamentary approval in advance.
“We believe that any member of parliament has the necessary locus standi to bring the action against the Prime Minister. Perhaps the official opposition ought to consider such an action.”
Mr Mitchell launched a lengthy argument, referring to the Constitution; the Financial Administration and Audit Act, the House’s Manual of Procedure and a 1924 Privy Council case to support his position.
He argued that Finance Minister Pindling went to parliament to get it to ratify an unconstitutional act that he had committed.
“That means, if we are correct,” he said, “the House of Assembly is seeking to make good an illegality without an amendment to the Constitution.”
In 1990 Private Citizen Mitchell argued an interesting case for holding a finance minister personally responsible for mishandling public funds. Today we wonder how much of that argument Foreign Affairs Minister Mitchell, now a member of the PLP cabinet, would endorse.
Editorial from The Tribune
