Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Guyanese are fully aware of the assortment of problems we face with this People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) dictatorial regime, particularly as it relates to the awarding of state contracts to friends, members of the families of party operatives, party loyalists and those who sing the praises of the party. In fact, the continuous actions of the incumbent in this regard provides a political lesson in cronyism. One area in which this is amply demonstrated is the award of contracts. Most citizens are aware of the award a multi-million dollar contact to a company with no prior experience in constructing a pump station. The PPP/C awarded that contract to the company headed by Mikhail Rodrigues, known as ‘Critic’.
This award not only undermines public trust but also casts a dark shadow over the government’s commitment to responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money as well as revenues from the country’s vast oil reserves; it reveals the regime’s love for wasteful spending, squandermania and lack of accountability.
The award of the contract in question, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, has engendered widespread concerns due to the background of the company to which it was awarded. Its owner, notably well- connected to the vice president, and known for fronting the government’s aggressions against citizens, appears to have leveraged these ties to secure that lucrative deal, despite the glaring lack of relevant technical and allied experiences. This relationship raises red flags about potential nepotism, favouritism and cronyism, calling into question whether this decision was made in the best interest of the public or simply to benefit a well politically-connected individual.
To add “insult to injury” despite a significant percentage of the contract sum has already been disbursed, ($160.8 million) no tangible progress has been made on the project. Citizens rightfully question: what happens when contractors are awarded (or given in this instant case) such substantial contracts yet fail to deliver?
Unbelievably, when citizens raised alarms about the lack of progress, the government’s response was totally dismissive. They assured the public that the project remains within the contractual timeline, cunningly implying that there is no immediate cause for concern. But this defensive posture does little to alleviate worries about accountability. If this PPP/C government is willing to accept complacency in the face of such a glaring failure to deliver, then what does that say about their commitment to the fundamental principles of good governance?
If one were to picture a situation where all contractors awarded significant contracts operated with such gross lackadaisical attitude and disregard for public spending, then one would immediately recognise the devastating ramifications: essential services would stagnate, public infrastructure would collapse, and taxpayers would bear the brunt of financial mismanagement. The effects of a government that turns a blind eye to incompetence could lead to widespread disillusionment and eroded trust in public institutions.
Again, it is difficult not to see the government’s defense of this company as a thinly veiled attempt to shield its associates from scrutiny. This relationship not only puts public funds at risk but also demonstrates a very worrying disregard for the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens. The notion that a project can be so protractedly delayed without recourse, while funds are already allocated, illustrates a wider pattern of negligence that could have dire consequences for the nation’s purse and infrastructure.
Further, the PPP/C ‘s statement regarding questions about the timeline is, to say the least, very troubling. With the commencement date set for February 6, 2024, one has to question the wisdom of disbursing such a large sum upfront without any evidence of work being done. This not only undermines fiscal prudence but also poses a risk to tax-payers money.
For me, the government’s defensive stance fails to address the core issue: the company’s lack of experience in a project of this magnitude. This raises valid concerns about competency, capability and capacity. It seems only reasonable to assume that when public funds are at stake, the expectation should be that awarded contractors possess the necessary expertise to execute their obligations effectively. The government’s insistence that the project is within its contractual timeline seems to downplay the seriousness of these concerns, portraying an alarming level of complacency.
More, the government’s response indicates a certain political trait of that party that overlook legitimate and justifiable public questions, choosing instead to protect a crony. The fact that Mikhail Rodrigues, the head of that company, has close ties to political leadership only compounds suspicions of cronyism. This relationship creates more than an appearance of impropriety that is eroding public trust.
The current economic status of this country has created a climate where transparency and ethical decision- making are paramount. The PPP/C approach to the Belle Vue Pump Station contract is classic case of empowering those, who support this regime. It is a political lesson in cronyism.
