The Tribune

HOUSE Speaker Kendal Major was not the only person shocked by the so-called “leaked” document from the Attorney General’s office that purports to question the manner in which the Public Accounts Committee is investigating how tax payers’ money is being spent on Urban Renewal’s small homes repair project.

The covering letter, signed “For Fairness and Balance” by the sender of the document, claims that it represents “the advice of eminent attorneys of international and national stature”. However, it fails to name those eminent attorneys. We are not surprised. Indeed it would be surprising if any lawyer considered “eminent”, whether national or international, would attach his or her name to such a document, the sole purpose of which seems to be to emasculate the House of Assembly’s most powerful committee — the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

There has been much public rumbling — starting in 2012 – when public funds in the name of Urban Renewal, were being used to clear whole swaths of land in the Mount Vernon area with the declared object of eliminating possible hiding spots for criminals. This is the section of Urban Renewal that really needs investigation by the PAC. Not only was the tree and bush clearing enterprise badly managed, but it soon became obvious that it was a “thank you” gesture to certain PLP supporters who had voted the party to power two months earlier. Even a lone voice from prison contacted The Tribune to complain that Urban Renewal had not paid him for the area of land that he had elected to clear.

However, this section of Urban Renewal has nothing to do with the area now under scrutiny, nor is it in any way connected with the heads who have been invited to meet with the PAC chairman and his board.

The two heads – Mr Algernon Allen, and Mrs Cynthia “Mother” Pratt, whose charitable work over many years is well known – were invited by the committee to meet with its members to shed some light on the findings of the Auditor General, who had been invited by the committee to audit the public funds. Neither of them was being accused of any wrong doing, but their help was obviously needed to guide the committee.

“I am of the firm view,” said Mr Allen in rejecting the invitation, “that the Auditor General has failed to appreciate the philosophy of Urban Renewal; more specifically, the philosophy and policy of the Small Home Repairs project, thus making the erroneous statements in his audit report. Despite assurances to review, amend and correct the report, he has failed to address errors.”

Mr Allen should have known that the Auditor General was duty bound to do an audit when asked by the committee to do so. The auditor was called to do a specific job for which he was trained. It was not his duty to approach his task with a philosophy about social work. Not only do the people of this country have a right to be assured that their money is being properly spent, but the poor on whom it is being spent have a right to know that they are getting the benefit of all the money earmarked for them.

“What really disturbs me,” said Mr Hubert Chipman, chairman of the PAC, “everyone is saying let this go. This has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with the Bahamian people’s money.”

He is perfectly correct. It is the duty of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to see it through to the end, and it is the public duty of Mr Allen and Mrs Pratt to assist him and his committee.

Mr Allen criticised the auditor general for failing to consult the prime minister, minister of works, or either himself or Mrs Pratt before finalising his report. The auditor general is independent and neutral. He doesn’t need the guidance of anyone, nor does he have to consult anyone in doing his job. And anyone to suggest otherwise is not only doing a disservice to the auditor general, but to the people of this country who are entitled to know the truth – not the edited “truth”.

Mr Allen has now vowed to “pursue to the depths of hell” those contractors who were paid by Urban Renewal to repair homes, but either did not do so, or having once started, did not complete their duties. Mr Allen should thank Auditor General Terrance Bastian for bringing the matter to public light, and the PAC for inviting him and “Mother” Pratt to the table so that together they can weed out the bad apples. One can only wonder how long this state of affairs would have continued without the wide awake Public Accounts Committee and government’s auditor general.

There are many areas in this “eminent attorneys” document that need questioning. For example, quoting from Sir Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, it says: “A select committee cannot require the attendance of witness or the production of document without express authority from the House. Thus, it is usual in the appropriate Standing Order, or in the order relating to appointment, or subsequently on the motion of the chairman, to give a select committee the power to send for persons, papers and records.” It then goes on to say that “prior to the 2005 Rules of Procedure, the PAC and other sessional committees were not specifically granted powers to request witnesses or documents, although they could exercise this power by means of an authorising resolution by the House which constituted the committee.”

More than 50 years ago, we were The Tribune’s only House of Assembly reporter — they were the days when the House met at 8pm and often went into the early hours of the next morning. We recall that at the opening of each new session the Speaker appointed his select committees. When it came to the Public Accounts Committee it was also appointed with “powers to send for persons and papers”. This was one committee that did not have to wait until 2005 to get that automatic power. The PAC from the moment of its appointment, by the written authority of the Speaker, could call for persons and papers to appear before it without any further reference to the House. And so for anyone to suggest that PAC chairman Chipman has to go to the Speaker or anyone else to function is just a red herring to slow the process.

The Public Accounts Committee is recognised as parliament’s most powerful committee – the only committee controlled by the Opposition for the sole purpose of being the public watchdog over the spending of the people’s money.

When the two committee chairmen refused to appear before the PAC, the Tribune242 conducted a public poll. Eighty-six readers participated. Of the 86, 83 felt that they should appear, while three believed they should not.

We are on the side of the 83. If our democracy is to function, then Mr Allen and Mrs Pratt have a duty to assist this committee in keeping a close watch on the people’s Public Treasury. We are delighted that after so many years of being forced into the shadows, the Public Accounts Committee is at last functioning.