Please permit me to address a few articles and letter (s) that were published in the mainstream media on November 3, 2024. I have opted to adopt this approach because my commentary on each is very brief, and to avoid having to write multiple short letters.
First, let’s start with an article with the caption “Goolsarran slams award of second oil audit to VHE”.
Goolsarran’s attack on this firm is not only misplaced, but without merit and credibility. It is important to note that the cost-oil audit contract to VHE was awarded in accordance with due process and the correct procedure as per the Procurement Act. On the contrary, several forensic audit contracts were improperly granted/gifted to him, Anand Goolsarran (note my choice of word (s) “granted or gifted” to him, not awarded), in violation of the Procurement and Audit Acts, by the former Minister of Finance, Winston Jordan.
Second, in his letter captioned “the half-year reports raise issues of ethics, data, language and trust”, Ramesh Gampat argued that the Bank of Guyana erred in the half-year report for the year 2024, that the base period for which the GDP growth was computed is unknown, thus he made the assumption that it has to be the end of 2023, and asserted that any other period would be nonsensical. He also asserted that the report does not contain any table with GDP as at the half-year period for 2024. These argumentations and assertions by Gampat were a total waste of ink. Evidently, his writing was meant to confuse the average reader and more so to mischievously cast aspersions on the credibility of the work produced by the Bank of Guyana and its staff.
Gampat is a trained economist, and he ought to know that in the conduct of any comparative analysis that one has to compare like with like. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that the base year for the half-year GDP growth obtained in 2024, would be the GDP figure for the full fiscal year January-December 2023. The correct base period is the corresponding half-year period for 2023, which is January-June, 2023, and not for the full year as per Gampat’s assumption. This is explicitly reflected in other tables within the report. It is quite mindboggling that these basic concepts and techniques have to be explained to a trained, seasoned economist.
Further, his assertion that there was no table on the GDP figures for the half-year period January-June, 2024, is inaccurate. Tables 10.3 (a) – 10.3 (d) reported on the production indicators for all the sectors, including for the half-year period, January–June, 2024.
Finally, in his weekly commentary featured in the Stabroek News with the caption “Jagdeo promises gross constitutional violation: Ali needs to assert his authority”. This is yet another piece of public commentary that is a waste of ink. Ram argues that the unacceptance of the Government to legislate the distribution of cash grants is a violation of the Constitution of Guyana. According to him, “Article 217 of our Constitution could not be more precise in its requirements: no moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund except through proper legislative authorisation”. Contrary to this view, Mr Ram conveniently ignored the fact that pursuant to the referenced Article 217 of the Constitution of Guyana, that in order to operationalise or to give effect to that Article, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (2003) (FMA Act) was enacted. Thus, all monies withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund are governed by the FMA Act. The decision to distribute cash grants is a matter of public policy and accordingly, the monies have to be properly appropriated pursuant to the FMA Act; hence, there is no violation of the Constitution.
But just imagine that if the Government should adopt Ram’s argument, then by his logic and reasoning, he is essentially saying that the Government would have to enact a plethora of legislations to govern all withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund, for example, to pay public servants wages and salaries, salary increases, old age pension, increases to old age pension, all the social welfare programmes, infrastructure, health care, education, agriculture, tourism, and all aspects of public financial administration and public expenditure. Such an approach to fiscal governance and administration would be totally chaotic and complicated. One may have to carefully examine the brain of the source of these ideas carefully, to determine what might have caused the erosion of the quality of the author’s thinking capacity in these respects.