No breach of the country’s laws

Apr 13, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – It is absolute foolishness to accuse the government of breaching the Procurement Act and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act by the contract it has entered into for the production and supply of a new national identification card. No such breach has taken place.

There are other legitimate concerns over the decision to have a new national identification card with electronic features. Those concerns relate to the lack of public consultation and the strange, ongoing and one-sided relationship that has developed between Guyana and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which facilitated the identification of the company who will produce the cards.

There has been no breach of the Procurement Act. The National Procurement and Tender Board Administration (NPTBA) has confirmed that it approved the sole-sourcing for the new identification cards. The Act vests the NPTBA with the authority to approve such sourcing of goods and services.

It is absolute astonishing that anyone should raise a red flag about the sole-sourcing of the production of national identification cards. The production of national identification cards – with or without special biometric and security electronic features – is a national security issue and therefore qualifies to be sole sourced.

The Attorney General is absolutely correct in asserting that the production of these cards is a national security issue and thus not necessarily subject to open sourcing. The security risks, including risks to personal privacy and the threat of cybercrimes is much too great for anything other than sole-sourcing for such identification cards.

Privacy is now a national security consideration. The World Bank has noted that the recording, storage, and use of sensitive personal data carry risks associated with privacy violations, data theft and misuse and identity fraud as well as threats from cybercrime. These new e-cards can be used to store not only biometric data but also medical and treatment histories. This further adds to the security concerns of any penetration or misuse of the data.

But it is precisely these considerations which make it necessary for there to have been widespread public consultations on the decision to go towards a new national identification card. The PPP/C government has behaved recklessly in this regard.

However, it cannot be accused of breaching the country’s procurement. The Procurement Act allows for sole-souring on national security grounds.

And it absolutely absurd for the contention to be made that no contract can be entered into by government unless the National Assembly has approved funding for such a contract. If this were so, it would mean that in the event of an emergency or because of unforeseen circumstances, the government would be unable to execute works which involve acquiring goods and services.

It is bewildering how anyone can conclude that Section 30 (1) the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) prohibits government from entering into a contract unless provision has been made for payment by the National Assembly. That Section of the FMAA deals with programmes for which there is an appropriation and it merely provides, and quite sensibly too, that before any procurement takes place in relation to a programme for which there has been an appropriation that the government should first ensure that there are sufficient funds remaining in the voted allocation for programme.

It constitutes some stretch of the imagination to infer that this places a prohibition on entering of contracts for which there has been no appropriation. And it is disappointing to learn that such inference has been made by persons who ought to know better.

There are other more solid grounds on which the new national identification card project can be criticized. First, as mentioned before, there is the issue of the total lack of public consultations on an issue of such sensitivity and security concerns. The public is bound to be wary of this new initiative which will allow for the capture, store and retrieval of personal information and over which they are ill-informed. In the absence of public consultations, the decision to move ahead reeks of recklessness.

Second, the role of the UAE in this project raises serious red flags. Jagdeo’s Middle Eastern diplomacy was an abject failure; and now it appears that this failure is being replaced by wholly lopsided relationship between the UAE and Guyana, one in which the UAE has managed to supply Guyana with vaccines, nailed a contract for the training of coders and now helped to facilitate a contract with a European firm for the supply of national identification cards. What is Guyana getting in return for forging such relations with the United Arab Emirates?

Guyanese should not reject the idea of a new e- identification card, as it is being called. But they should certainly demand widespread public consultations and call into question this cozy but lopsided relationship that is developing between Guyana and the United Arab Emirates.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• Accountability Act, Fiscal Management, Peeping Tom, Procurement Act, United Arab Emirates (UAE)

---