Editorial | Don’t hold your breath

If history is any guide, this newspaper would not advise anyone to hold their breaths, expecting someone at the Rural Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) to pay anything towards the more than J$64 million worth of fertiliser for which there is no credible accounting.

That would be like inviting their deaths. To put it plainly, no one is likely to be held accountable.

It is also unlikely that anyone has been, or will be, censured, or otherwise tangibly punished, for the J$869 million worth in contracts which was issued by the agriculture ministry during the 2021-2022 fiscal year without adhering to critical parts of the Government’s procurement regime.

In the meantime, the finance ministry should provide a case-by-case report of the outcomes/resolutions of the eight cases which the auditor general referred to it between 2021 and 2025, to recoup monies from public officers for the J$1.8 billion their actions, or failings, caused taxpayers to lose over the period. While The Gleaner would be happy to be proven wrong, it would be shocking if a cent, much less a dollar, was collected.

Therein lies a key reason for the sloppy attitude public officials often have to the fiduciary obligation they owe to taxpayers, as was highlighted in two reports by the auditor general (AuG), that were tabled in Parliament in recent days. Very rarely is anyone held to account.

FLAWED EXERCISE

One of the auditor general’s reports, on which The Gleaner previously commented, is of an audit of the University Hospital of the West Indies (UWHI), where bureaucrats similarly spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, without reference, most times, to the procurement statutes. They even used the hospital’s tax-exempt status, according to Pamela Monroe Ellis, to help private companies avoid duties on imports. Which is a loss to the national Treasury.

In her annual audit report of government ministries, agencies and departments (MDAs) for the 2024-25 fiscal year, Ms Monroe Ellis highlighted discoveries from a review of the 2021-22 operations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Mining.

“ The ministry did not provide evidence that the procurement committee met and reviewed recommendations for the award of contracts/procurement of goods and services totalling $865.85 million, as mandated by Section 2.2.5.1 of the Government of Jamaica Procurement Guidelines,” the auditor general said.

The upshot: Ms Monroe Ellis’ auditors could not confirm that the procurements were subjected to the appropriate vetting and that taxpayers were getting value for money.

Except that ministry officials argued that notwithstanding the absence of the procurement committee minutes, evaluation reports confirmed compliance with the competitive bidding process – an explanation that strikes a resonance with some of what was said by officials at UHWI about their similarly flawed exercise.

It was not only at the central agricultural ministry that, per Ms Monroe Ellis’ report, officials seemed to apply a loose interpretation to their fiduciary responsibilities.

MATTER REFERRED

RADA is an agency of the agriculture ministry. It provides extension support to farmers.

After Hurricane Beryl sideswiped Jamaica’s southern coast in 2024, Morocco gave the island hundreds of tonnes of fertiliser to aid with agriculture recovery.

The distribution of the fertiliser was primarily RADA’s responsibility. The agency routed some of it through members of parliament (MPs). RADA, however, had an obligation to ensure that the fertiliser recipients were actually farmers.

An AuG audit last year showed that RADA could n0t account for scores of tonnes of the fertiliser, worth approximately J$66.7, which was presumably passed to MPs.

The auditor general has now referred the matter to the financial secretary, the top civil servant in the finance ministry, for the accountable RADA officer(s) to be fined a “surcharge” for the loss of government assets, as is allowed under the Financial Accounting and Administration Act.

In a separate matter, a similar recommendation was made against the National Environment and Planning Agency to recover the loss of J$125,000.

We repeat: don’t hold your breadth! There is a sound reason for this advice.

ABSENCE OF URGENCY

In October 2021, the auditor general recommended that Grace McLean, the then de facto permanent secretary in the education ministry, and her predecessor, Dean-Roy Bernard (who was challenging his removal) be made to pay surcharges for their alleged roles in causing the ministry to wrongly transfer J$124 million to a private company with which it did business.

Dr Bernard was never fined. Dr McLean was told that she would have to pay $11.2 million.

In the end, Dr McLean was never called upon to forfeit a penny.

Between the slow internal workings of the finance ministry; the snail’s pace with which the finance and education ministries communicated on the matter; and, from the outside, the apparent absence of urgency with which the finance ministry pursued the issue with government lawyers, the clock ran out on the three years they had from the date of the alleged offence, and in which there was a conclusive, legal requirement to pay.

Dr McLean may have proved the accusation of dereliction wrong. But the bungling did not afford her that opportunity. Which is likely to be the case with those who might now be in a similar situation.