Georgetown, Guyana
January 13, 2024
AFC response toPPP’sPPC CommissionerBhagwandin
The Alliance for Change (AFC) has noted a letter titled PPCvsAFC–the caseofAkamai, to the editor of Stabroek News on 11, January 2024 by Mr. Joel Bhagwandin in his capacity as the PPP nominated Commissioner to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). The letter sought to personally attack and discredit the AFC’s nominated Commissioner, Dianna Rajcumar for stating her dissenting positon on the Akamai’s Summary of Findings in which she asked that the complainant be engaged in the investigation process.
Excerpts from Commissioner’s Bhagwandin letter claimed that the “AFC‘s apparent special interest in this specific matter (Akamai) is alarming. Of note, there is a similar case for which Motiram that the AFC strangely ignored or probably has no interest in”. Further, Commissioner Bhagwandin stated: “Given that AFC cited their nominated Commissioner’s position, I am seizing this opportunity to disclose some of my own contentions, positions and questions posed to the AFC nominated Commissioner during the deliberations. Indeed Commissioner Rajcumar requested for the complainant to be engaged, to which I posed the question…”to what end”? The Commissioner response was… “I don’t know.” Observably it has become a norm for the AFC nominated Commissioner, in her deliberations, failing consistently to justify her positions objectively and adequately. In fact, on multiple occasions during our deliberations at the Commission’s statutory meetings, I have had to remind my learned colleague (the AFC nominated Commissioner) about our Constitutional duties and obligations pursuant to Article 212 W (2) which states that … “theCommissionshallbeindependent,impartial, andshalldischargeitsfunctionsfairy.” This means that the Commissioners ought not to subject themselves to political influence or directives. Yet, this fundamental principle seems to evade my colleague from the AFC.”
The AFC puts on record that at no time did the AFC nominated Commissioner Dianna Rajcumar personally attack her PPC Colleagues. Rather, she stated her dissenting position on the Akamai Case where deliberations were ongoing. She only indicated publicly her reasons for dissent after the majority ruling of the commission was made public. Her candid statement seems to have enraged her colleague Mr. Bhagwandin causing him to attack her credibility, with glaring untruths.
The AFC is now inclined to respond, as reported to it from its AFC Nominated Commissioner, Dianna Rajcumar, her verbatim deliberations on the matter to the Commission on December 14, 2023 via email excerpts. It should be stated that the various Commissioners deliberate via email before the final deliberation at in person meetings.
Commissioner Rajcumar:“Ihaveperusedthereportprepared.Unfortunately,Idonotknow whatwasthemethodologyusedtocompilethereport.Internally,aninvestigationpolicyand procedurewasdevelopedby theLegalDepartmentwhichhas not been adopted as yet. Ihave statedmy supportforthesaid procedurewhich thoroughlyoutlinesthestepsto followto conductaninvestigationincludingastepfor interviewswith parties involved.
Firstly,allcontractsoverG$15MareawardedbyNPTAB,andassuchtheyarerequiredto providethecommissionwithalltherequestedinformation.
Secondly,thecopyofanevaluationreportwithoutallthesupportingdocumentsisnotsufficient to makea determinationas tothevalidityofthisaward-iftherewasanerrorinthepreparation oftheevaluationreportasquestionedbyMr.Motiram.Thiscanonlybediscoveredbyafull examinationofthesupportingdocumentsas toconfirmthe findings intheevaluationreport. Complainants come to the Commission expecting that we would impartially examine their claims.Therefore,reportingwhatiscontainedintheNPTABreportwithoutfullyverifyingthe detailsis,inmyopinion,doingadisservicetothecomplainant.Assuch,Icannotagreewiththe reportfindings.
Isuggestthatwecontactthecomplainantthroughwritten/oralinterviewtoascertainthat
whatwereceivedfrom NPTABis whathesubmitted.
Inlightofthe foregoing, Iamunabletosupportandappendmysignature tothisreport”.
Further, Dianna Rajcumar emailed her colleagues on December 29, 2023 as follows:
“Ihavestated myopinionviaemailsandinthelastStatutorymeetingreMotiramsummaryof findingsthatthecomplainant,asaparty,beengagedtocorroborateonthefindingsinan investigation,hencetogobeyondrelyingonNPTAB’sreport, sincePPChas anoversightfunction in theprocurementprocess.
Imaintain thispositionwith regardstoAkamai’ssummaryof findings as Ihavestatedbeforevia email,hereunderthatAkamaibeengagedtocollaborateondocumentsreNPTABsubmission. Forthatreason,IdonotagreewiththeSummaryofFindings.”
In view of the fact that it is Commissioner Bhagwandin who put in the public domain the internal deliberations of what he claims obtained at the PPC meeting to discredit Commissioner Rajcumar, the AFC is compelled to report the abovementioned deliberations of its AFC nominated Commissioner on the matter which Mr. Bhagwandin said is “failing consistently to justify her positions objectively and adequately.” What is said above in the excerpts are sound, cogent and adequate reasons of Ms. Rajcumar’s dissenting position.
This is unlike Commissioner’s Bhagwandin one sentence deliberation on both the Akamai and Motiram case which did not extend beyond – “IconcurwiththereportsbytheSecretariat.”There is absolutely no need to compare the intelligent analysis of Commissioner Rajcumar versus the one sentence
“deliberation” of Commissioner Bhagwandin. The AFC leaves it to the public to form their own conclusion as it will not be engaged in sordidness to defame Mr. Bhagwandin on his deficiencies in analytical reasoning and supposed impartiality. This deficiency is vindicated daily by his political ramblings in the press.
As asserted by Commissioner Bhagwandin that the AFC has a special interest in Akamai and not in Motiram’s case, this is proven by the email excerpts to be a grand lie, since Commissioner Rajcumar did object to the PPC’s summary of findings for both Motiram and Akamai case on similar grounds.
The AFC repeats its call that a Commissioner has a right to a dissenting position which must be stated in the investigation report as distinctly as the majority opinion.
END
Comments are closed