The Tribune

By DANA SMITH

Tribune Staff Reporter

dsmith@tribunemedia.net

JOHN Pinder, former National Insurance Board member, says the recently tabled forensic audit into that company’s daily operations should have been sent to tender rather than the accounting firm of Grant Thornton having been chosen.

The Bahamas Public Service Union president said, although he doesn’t take issue with the government calling for an audit into the allegations made by former chairman Gregory Moss and suspended director Algernon Cargill, against each other, he “would have wished” that the selection of an auditing firm would have been sent out to tender.

“If they are really accusing Mr Cargill of doing some things that didn’t go to tender, they’re practising the very same thing,” Mr Pinder said.

“Part of the (allegations) was that Mr Cargill didn’t allow some work to go to tender and did some things that should have been given board approval. So the cabinet now is doing the very same thing they’re accusing him of. Instead of sending it to tender, they choose this firm.”

Mr Pinder also noted the cost was “a little high,” in his opinion.

“The audit was completed in three-and-a-half months and the scope of that audit – it went back to 2008, five years from the time Mr Cargill was appointed, they were given specific areas of which to look at – and so to me I thought the price was kind of high,” he said.

The former board member said accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers was the auditor for NIB back when he sat on the board and questioned why that firm wasn’t selected. Mr Pinder sat on the board until a month before the last general election, he said.

“Pricewaterhouse was the auditors for NIB when I was on the board. I’m sure they have expertise and they have the knowledge of the audit and so, to me, it would probably have cost less to have them do a forensic audit,” Mr Pinder said.

“They already have knowledge of the establishment and the business practices. I think it would have been easier for them to conduct an audit, at a cheaper price.”

Mr Pinder noted a forensic audit should be done “if there are complaints of improprieties” and audits are “necessary” to uncover if such complaints exists. However, he explained, he “doesn’t know if there was a need” for the NIB audit to have been done.

“If you found some improprieties to exist, I thought the proper thing would have been for them to respond to those improprieties first. And then, failing to not meet your requirements, then you do what you have to do,” he said.

“We have a man getting full salary on administrative leave, you paid over $800,000 on an audit – you got to add his salary into that. It was just cheaper to say you know what let’s cut ties with this guy, if we’re going to cut ties with him.”

Amid question over the choice of Grant Thornton as the forensic auditor, National Insurance Minister Shane Gibson had said earlier this week: “Section 7 of the National Insurance Act says that the minister may give specific instructions to the board after consultation with them, whatever he considers to be in the best interest of the public... If you read section 7 that is very, very clear as to the powers of the minister, very clear.”

Section 7 of the National Insurance Act reads: “The Minister, after consultation with the Board, may give to the Board such directions whether of a general or a specific character regarding the discharge of the Board’s functions under this Act or any regulations as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the public interest, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions.”