There is a compelling case for an independent review of the circumstances surrounding the Housing Development Corporation’s now cancelled $3.4 billion housing project, particularly given serious concerns reportedly raised by the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR).
Former housing minister Camille Robinson-Regis, during her contribution to the Budget debate, cited what she said were findings by the OPR that the procurement process “was not conducted within the established regulatory framework and consequently did not give full effect to the Act”.
Those are serious assertions involving a multibillion-dollar public project and cannot simply be brushed aside.
The Government subsequently used its parliamentary majority to amend procurement legislation, changing the framework governing certain projects. But legislative authority, however substantial, cannot substitute for transparency and accountability in the expenditure of public funds.
There is no disputing Trinidad and Tobago’s urgent need for affordable housing. Thousands of citizens have waited years, sometimes decades, for access to homes. Delaying construction therefore has real consequences for families seeking the security and stability of home ownership.
But that urgency cannot justify inadequate scrutiny. Indeed, the larger the project and the greater the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, the stronger the need for rigorous procurement safeguards.
According to Robinson-Regis, documentation obtained through a Freedom of Information request contained troubling details about why the project was halted. She alleged deficiencies involving due diligence and contractor qualification, including concerns about the financial standing of one company selected for a contract.
She also raised questions in Parliament about the speed and timing with which multiple approvals were allegedly granted, as well as financial arrangements associated with the housing programme.
These claims require authoritative answers.
The issue should not become another partisan contest in which allegations from one political side are automatically dismissed by the other. Neither should Parliament be the final arena in which the matter is ventilated.
The OPR exists to strengthen transparency, accountability and integrity in public procurement. When concerns attributed to that institution involve expenditure on this scale, citizens are entitled to know precisely what occurred, whether appropriate procedures were followed and whether corrective action is required.
More importantly, the credibility of independent oversight institutions depends on their ability to perform their responsibilities without their findings becoming secondary to political expediency. Governments may disagree with regulators, but questions raised over the handling of public money deserve clear and detailed responses.
Trinidad and Tobago has had enough experience with controversies surrounding major public projects to understand the dangers of inadequate oversight. The need for housing does not diminish the need for accountability. The two objectives must coexist.
An independent examination of the procurement process would therefore serve both the public interest and the Government itself. If the process was sound, such scrutiny should establish that fact. If deficiencies existed, they should be identified and corrected.
What should not happen is for legitimate questions involving billions of dollars in public expenditure to disappear beneath the weight of a parliamentary majority.
Transparency cannot be legislated around. It must be demonstrated.
