Tweet
PAC tackles unpaid 17-year advance
Published: Wednesday | November 3, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
A mystery advance of funds made 17 years ago to a parliamentarian by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade is yet to be repaid or adequately addressed.
Some members of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which was informed of the failure of the ministry to address the situation, yesterday reacted with dismay at its negligence.
Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis complained in her report that there was need for effective monitoring of advances, as several balances had been on the mission's books since February 1993.
The permanent secretary in the ministry, Ambassador Evadney Coye, received support from PAC Chairman Dr Omar Davies in not divulging the name of the parliamentarian involved.
(a wonder why the silence)
However, she and her team were soundly chastised by clearly annoyed members for being unprepared.
Government members Andrew Gallimore, Everald Warmington and Marisa Dalrymple Philibert, as well as opposition member Dr Morais Guy, reacted sharply to a request by Coye for two more weeks to probe the situation.
Backtrack
Warmington, who initially came to Coye's defence, later backtracked.
"She should not be saying much as she claims that she does not have the information" he argued.
Davies readily agreed. (How comes Davis and Warmington colluding?)
"For a host of reasons, let us be careful," he suggested.
Opposition member Ronald Thwaites, an attorney by profession, intervened.
"Wouldn't you say 17 years is a long time to verify something?" he queried. "There is something called the statute of limitations."
Thwaites was supported by another lawyer, government member Laurie Broderick, who contended that the statute of limitations would protect the member as the time had long passed for any funds to be repaid.
"What we should be doing is reprimanding the system," Broderick declared.
Davies appeared in a hurry to leave the subject as he took a swipe at the media. "Apart from the spectacular reporting, these are nothing new … ."
Inquired about advance
But some of the members would not let up.
Gallimore persistently inquired about the nature of the advance, why it was given and when last an effort was made to address the situation.
"Why is it that she does not wish to furnish the information?" he asked.
"Every week we complain about the anomalies … she said she can certify and yet she refuses to state the name. Why does she refuse?"
Coye maintained that she was not in a position to certify who the advance was made to, and has not seen what efforts had been made to recover the money.
The permanent secretary noted that some of the advances could be embarrassing for some persons involved, a suggestion that there were other outstanding cases.
Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis noted that outstanding advances do not suggest that persons involved are indebted to the ministry.
"In many instances, we find that advances remain outstanding because explanations are not proffered," she said.
"I am not satisfied that the ministry took the required steps to inform the person that the required documentation is outstanding," she added.
Published: Wednesday | November 3, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
A mystery advance of funds made 17 years ago to a parliamentarian by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade is yet to be repaid or adequately addressed.
Some members of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which was informed of the failure of the ministry to address the situation, yesterday reacted with dismay at its negligence.
Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis complained in her report that there was need for effective monitoring of advances, as several balances had been on the mission's books since February 1993.
The permanent secretary in the ministry, Ambassador Evadney Coye, received support from PAC Chairman Dr Omar Davies in not divulging the name of the parliamentarian involved.
(a wonder why the silence)However, she and her team were soundly chastised by clearly annoyed members for being unprepared.
Government members Andrew Gallimore, Everald Warmington and Marisa Dalrymple Philibert, as well as opposition member Dr Morais Guy, reacted sharply to a request by Coye for two more weeks to probe the situation.
Backtrack
Warmington, who initially came to Coye's defence, later backtracked.
"She should not be saying much as she claims that she does not have the information" he argued.
Davies readily agreed. (How comes Davis and Warmington colluding?)
"For a host of reasons, let us be careful," he suggested.
Opposition member Ronald Thwaites, an attorney by profession, intervened.
"Wouldn't you say 17 years is a long time to verify something?" he queried. "There is something called the statute of limitations."
Thwaites was supported by another lawyer, government member Laurie Broderick, who contended that the statute of limitations would protect the member as the time had long passed for any funds to be repaid.
"What we should be doing is reprimanding the system," Broderick declared.
Davies appeared in a hurry to leave the subject as he took a swipe at the media. "Apart from the spectacular reporting, these are nothing new … ."
Inquired about advance
But some of the members would not let up.
Gallimore persistently inquired about the nature of the advance, why it was given and when last an effort was made to address the situation.
"Why is it that she does not wish to furnish the information?" he asked.
"Every week we complain about the anomalies … she said she can certify and yet she refuses to state the name. Why does she refuse?"
Coye maintained that she was not in a position to certify who the advance was made to, and has not seen what efforts had been made to recover the money.
The permanent secretary noted that some of the advances could be embarrassing for some persons involved, a suggestion that there were other outstanding cases.
Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis noted that outstanding advances do not suggest that persons involved are indebted to the ministry.
"In many instances, we find that advances remain outstanding because explanations are not proffered," she said.
"I am not satisfied that the ministry took the required steps to inform the person that the required documentation is outstanding," she added.
Comment