The Alliance For Change (AFC) has outright rejected assertions by Joel Bhagwandin, People’s Progressive Party (PPP) nominated Commissioner on the Public Procurement Commission, against the party’s nominated Commissioner, Dianna Rajcumar on the Akamai issue. The party in a release expressed the view Bhagwadin’s letter to the press was an attempt to discredit Rajcumar for stating her dissenting position on the Akamai’s Summary of Findings.
The AFC has been forthright on this issue, making known in a previous statement, the Commission must also state the dissenting report of any dissenting Commissioner. And “in the Akamai case, the AFC nominated Commissioner, Dianna Rajcumar, correctly wanted the complainant to be engaged in the investigation procedure before determining the report.”
Seeking to set the record straight the party has made public Rajcumar’s verbatim deliberations on the matter to the Commission on December 14, 2023 via email excerpts, and repeated its call for her right to a dissenting position be stated in the investigation report as distinctly as the majority opinion.
The full statement follows:-
AFC response to PPP’s PPC Commissioner Bhagwandin
The Alliance for Change (AFC) has noted a letter titled PPC vs AFC – the case of Akamai, to the editor of Stabroek News on 11, January 2024 by Mr. Joel Bhagwandin in his capacity as the PPP nominated Commissioner to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). The letter sought to personally attack and discredit the AFC’s nominated Commissioner, Dianna Rajcumar for stating her dissenting position on the Akamai’s Summary of Findings in which she asked that the complainant be engaged in the investigation process.
Excerpts from Commissioner’s Bhagwandin letter claimed that the “AFC‘s apparent special interest in this specific matter (Akamai) is alarming. Of note, there is a similar case for which Motiram that the AFC strangely ignored or probably has no interest in”.
Further, Commissioner Bhagwandin stated: “Given that AFC cited their nominated Commissioner’s position, I am seizing this opportunity to disclose some of my own contentions, positions and questions posed to the AFC nominated Commissioner during the deliberations. Indeed Commissioner Rajcumar requested for the complainant to be engaged, to which I posed the question…”to what end?”
The Commissioner’s response was… “I don’t know.” Observably it has become a norm for the AFC nominated Commissioner, in her deliberations, failing consistently to justify her positions objectively and adequately. In fact, on multiple occasions during our deliberations at the Commission’s statutory meetings, I have had to remind my learned colleague (the AFC nominated Commissioner) about our Constitutional duties and obligations pursuant to Article 212 W (2) which states that … “the Commission shall be independent, impartial, and shall discharge its functions fairy.” This means that the Commissioners ought not to subject themselves to political influence or directives. Yet, this fundamental principle seems to evade my colleague from the AFC.”
The AFC puts on record that at no time did the AFC nominated Commissioner Dianna Rajcumar personally attack her PPC Colleagues. Rather, she stated her dissenting position on the Akamai Case where deliberations were ongoing. She only indicated publicly her reasons for dissent after the majority ruling of the commission was made public. Her candid statement seems to have enraged her colleague Mr. Bhagwandin causing him to attack her credibility, with glaring untruths.
The AFC is now inclined to respond, as reported to it from its AFC Nominated Commissioner, Dianna Rajcumar, her verbatim deliberations on the matter to the Commission on December 14, 2023 via email excerpts. It should be stated that the various Commissioners deliberate via email before the final deliberation at in person meetings.
Commissioner Rajcumar: “I have perused the report prepared. Unfortunately, I do not know what was the methodology used to compile the report. Internally, an investigation policy and procedure was developed by the Legal Department which has not been adopted as yet. I have
stated my support for the said procedure which thoroughly outlines the steps to follow to conduct an investigation including a step for interviews with parties involved.
Firstly, all contracts over G$15M are awarded by NPTAB, and as such they are required to provide the commission with all the requested information.
Secondly, the copy of an evaluation report without all the supporting documents is not sufficient to make a determination as to the validity of this award – if there was an error in the preparation of the evaluation report as questioned by Mr. Motiram. This can only be discovered by a full examination of the supporting documents as to confirm the findings in the evaluation report.
Complainants come to the Commission expecting that we would impartially examine their claims. Therefore, reporting what is contained in the NPTAB report without fully verifying the details is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to the complainant. As such, I cannot agree with the report findings. I suggest that we contact the complainant through written / oral interview to ascertain that what we received from NPTAB is what he submitted. In light of the foregoing, I am unable to support and append my signature to this report”.
Further, Dianna Rajcumar emailed her colleagues on December 29, 2023 as follows:
“I have stated my opinion via emails and in the last Statutory meeting re Motiram summary of findings that the complainant, as a party, be engaged to corroborate on the findings in an investigation, hence to go beyond relying on NPTAB’s report, since PPC has an oversight function in the procurement process.
I maintain this position with regards to Akamai’s summary of findings as I have stated before via email, hereunder that Akamai be engaged to collaborate on documents re NPTAB submission. For that reason, I do not agree with the Summary of Findings.”
In view of the fact that it is Commissioner Bhagwandin who put in the public domain the internal deliberations of what he claims obtained at the PPC meeting to discredit Commissioner Rajcumar, the AFC is compelled to report the above mentioned deliberations of its AFC nominated Commissioner on the matter which Mr. Bhagwandin said is “failing consistently to justify her positions objectively and adequately.” What is said above in the excerpts are sound, cogent and adequate reasons of Ms. Rajcumar’s dissenting position.
This is unlike Commissioner’s Bhagwandin one sentence deliberation on both the Akamai and Motiram case which did not extend beyond – “I concur with the reports by the Secretariat.” There is absolutely no need to compare the intelligent analysis of Commissioner Rajcumar versus the one sentence “deliberation” of Commissioner Bhagwandin. The AFC leaves it to the public to form their own conclusion as it will not be engaged in sordidness to defame Mr. Bhagwandin on his deficiencies in analytical reasoning and supposed impartiality. This deficiency is vindicated daily by his political ramblings in the press.
As asserted by Commissioner Bhagwandin that the AFC has a special interest in Akamai and not in Motiram’s case, this is proven by the email excerpts to be a grand lie, since Commissioner Rajcumar did object to the PPC’s summary of findings for both Motiram and Akamai case on similar grounds.
The AFC repeats its call that a Commissioner has a right to a dissenting position which must be stated in the investigation report as distinctly as the majority opinion.
