The latest disclosure by the embattled Attorney General concerning the stalled ambitions regarding procurement legislation is stunning.
It reeks of a notion that after all, this administration is not conscientious in its efforts at bringing transparency and accountability to the important issue of procurement of public goods and services.
Seven years after it returned to office with a commitment to make this ambition a reality in the conduct of public affairs, the Government stands woefully unprepared for this critical step towards proper accountability.
With his feet firmly on the ground over this matter, from the moment he had been appointed, Procurement Regulator Moonilal Lalchan outlined the crux of this shameful, scandalous state of affairs. He said since his appointment in 2020, his office has had proper communication with just 70 of the 314 public bodies which now fall under the ambit of his office.
He said a great many of them, including Ministries, have not taken the time to seriously address the issue. This involves, among other things, the appointment of an appropriate officer in each Ministry who would drive the process towards compliance with the Act.
By contrast, Mr Lalchan said his team has held some 150 public consultations and 299 sensitisation sessions with public officers on the issue.
Revealingly, he said nothing stands in the way of the ministries and other public bodies getting themselves compliant with the provisions of this Act. More importantly also, he has highlighted the eagerness among some sections of the public for the proper functioning of the act and of the Office. The Office, he said, has received 23 “whistle-blowing matters” on public procurement, which interested parties wish to have comprehensively addressed.
Incensed over this state of affairs, the Joint Consultative Council in the construction industry described the situation as one representing a “lack of commitment to transparency, accountability and value for money when spending public funds”.
It seemed appalled over its conclusion that in his statement, the Attorney General could only provide reasons for the non-operationalisation of the office and provided nothing in the way of timelines and deadlines for getting this ambition properly on the road.
The Judiciary itself included, there is almost nowhere across the public bureaucracy any sense of urgency in giving life to the office of the Procurement Regulator. Taking up from the JCC’s sentiments on this highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, it falls now to the Prime Minister to lead this charge, given it is an issue over which his administration came into office with recitations of best intentions.
The country of course notes the regularity and the ferocity with which he, first among others, pronounces upon what is regarded as the absence of rectitude in the conduct of the people’s affairs in the period of the former administration.
We take note also of the JCC’s lament that in his statement the Attorney General made no reference to providing any plan to effectively address this gaping hole in the administrative architecture for effective, responsible public procurement.
It is way past time that we get serious here on this critical aspect of minding the people’s business.
