The Guyanese public is fully aware that Minister Juan Edghill’s revelations about gifts received by former Ministers Patterson and Ferguson are more about personal and political grudges rather than about public accountability. The PPP ministers have themselves benefitted from this practice. No one is therefore fooled by the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of Edghill and his cohorts.
That said, CONPOV believes that, political rivalry aside, the matter deserves the close attention of citizens. What are we to think and conclude?
For clarity, two questions must be posed and answered: (i) whether the gifts received by former Ministers Patterson and Ferguson violate the Integrity Commission Act (20 of 1997) and its revised Code of Conduct, and (ii) whether the two former ministers should return the gifts or pay for them if they have not run afoul of the Integrity Commission Act.
Part V of the act is devoted to gifts. Section 32. (1) states:
“Every person in public life who receives a gift worth more than ten thousand dollars shall make a report of that fact to the Commission stating the name and address of the donor, the description and approximate value of such gift and whether, in the opinion of the donee, the gift is a personal gift or a State gift”.
The context clearly indicates that the act is exclusively concerned with gifting as a means to influence or corrupt public officials. As such, the law is silent on gifts received by officials from their own staff as tokens of appreciation, respect, tribute, or celebration.
On this score, the efforts by Edghill and the local media to use the integrity act to bash the two former ministers over the head are absurd.
But, even if the duo have not violated the act, should they keep the gifts? CONPOV says, absolutely not. They should return or pay for the gifts, which reportedly have cost taxpayers $2.6m. While taxpayers may understand the mores and norms of in-house gifting, the large sums involved are outlandish. They raise issues of opportunity costs—foregone benefits for the public. For instance, most of the gift money could have been used for worthwhile purposes such as funding community projects.
In conclusion, CONPOV advises as follows: (i) the two former ministers should return the gifts or entirely pay for them, (ii) the National Assembly should pass regulations to guide public entities on gifting within the entities (as noted above, the rules already exist for gifts offered by external players), and (iii) once the first two conditions are in train, David Patterson should retain his position as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.