Like Rip Van Winkle awakening from a great slumber, the Judiciary seems to have finally opened its eyes to the reality of procurement legislation and doesn’t like what it sees.
Apparently it was only when the Attorney General enquired about its readiness to comply with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment) Act that the Judiciary decided to examine the law. What followed was a 29-page submission to the AG questioning elements of the act, its powers, its impact on the Judiciary’s workload, and the Judiciary’s lack of resources for complying with the law, among other things.
In cricketing terms, the submission was a googly delivered with perfect timing to clean bowl the nation’s hopes for the imminent implementation of this long-awaited piece of anti-corruption legislation.
The communication from Chief Justice Ivor Archie to AG Reginald Armour has become the latest grounds for the Government’s continuing delay in implementing procurement legislation. Bearing in mind that this legislation has been in the making for over a decade and has already been subject to several amendments, it is difficult to accept that the Judiciary has only in the past few months woken up to its implications. Not only that but, as the president of the construction industry’s Joint Consultative Council, Fazir Khan, has pointed out, this is the same Chief Justice who, two years ago, appeared to have no issue with the act when, in opening the 2020-21 law term, he disclosed that the Judiciary had “partnered with the Office of Procurement Regulation to assist in meeting training needs to ensure their effective operationalisation”.
Notable in the Judiciary’s 29-page submission is the suggestion of a negotiation in play as it points out the superior level of authority and independence that the act gives to the Office of the Procurement Regulator (OPR):
“The Judiciary must respectfully note that while all attempts by the Judiciary to be given the opportunity to determine its necessary staffing, job descriptions and structure and to be afforded a greater say in terms and conditions of staff holding unique positions have been met with negative responses, the OPR has been provided with this opportunity.”
It goes on to cite Section 18, which allows the OPR to appoint “such staff as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Office… on such terms and conditions as the Office may determine.”
While accepting that Section 18 is “appropriate to ensure the independence and efficiency of the OPR”, the submission points out that “the independence of the Judiciary and its need to be afforded this administrative independence is not recognised despite the fact that the Judiciary deals with a far wider remit than does the OPR, requiring independence in fact and de jure”.
It also addresses what it sees as the “wide authority of the OPR” over all other public bodies “including the Judiciary…”
Having received the Judiciary’s submission four months ago, AG Reginald Armour must now speak up and tell the country how he intends to respond while delivering on the Government’s pledge to implement the act during its current term.
