Davies wants audit of JDIP

Published: Thursday | May 5, 2011 Comments 0
Dr Omar Davies
Dr Omar Davies

INSISTING THAT the implementation of the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP) lacked transparency, the parliamentary Opposition has turned to the contractor general and auditor general for help.

Opposition spokesman on finance Dr Omar Davies wants Contractor General Greg Christie and Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis to implement a system to audit the contracts/works under the JDIP.

Davies on Tuesday posed several questions to his Government counterpart, Audley Shaw, on the multibillion-dollar programme.

"Who is China Harbour contracted to? Is it to the National Works Agency (NWA), or is it to the China Export Import Bank?

"Why was the selection of China Harbour and the subcontractors not subject to the normal procurement rules? Who is responsible for judging whether there is value for money expended?

public disclosure

Davies demanded public disclosure of all contracts with the China Ex-Im Bank, China Harbour, NWA, Road Maintenance Fund and any other Government entity involved.

The Opposition spokesman also responded to an assertion by Prime Minister Bruce Golding that Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) could summon the relevant bodies to seek answers about the operations of JDIP.

"It cannot be that I must conduct a post-mortem. It cannot be that the biggest expenditure of the Government will be shrouded in such secrecy that one would need to utilise the PAC to find answers," Davies charged.

He said the treatment given to the biggest capital expenditure of $8.7 billion by the Government was "seven bullet points" in the Jamaica Public Bodies document.

Davies said projects with small expenditure were set out on two to three pages in the Budget.

The Opposition walked out of Gordon House during a recent meeting of the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament. Members of Parliament on the Opposition benches complained that the JDIP programme was concealed in the Jamaica Public Bodies document instead of being set out in the Estimates of Expenditure.

 



Share |

The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. Please keep comments short and precise. A maximum of 8 sentences should be the target. Longer responses/comments should be sent to "Letters of the Editor" using the feedback form provided.
blog comments powered by Disqus