“Pay to Play” ...and now what?

“Pay to Play”...and now what?

In its performance audit on the building permit process, the General Audit Chamber confirmed what many people have whispered for years: some applicants say they were approached with offers to “expedite” their permits. A little under ten percent of respondents reported this, and the Audit Chamber itself notes that, given fear of repercussions, the real number may be higher. These claims add weight to comments made by Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs months ago that there were indications of bribery within his Ministry. A statement for which he came under intense critique from the members in the opposition benches.  

The Audit Chamber report is careful, it says this does not prove systemic corruption, only that such practices occur. That sentence in itself should trigger immediate pause, and several questions. If a public oversight body such as the Audit Chamber receives concrete reports that people were asked for favors or payments in exchange for service they are entitled to, then we are no longer talking about hear-say. We are talking about alleged attempts at extortion inside or around a ministry.

From what we can gather from the Audit Chamber, the survey was not anonymous. Especially since persons who applied for building permits between 202-2024 were specifically included in its survey. That means the institution knows which applicants say they were approached. So the public is entitled to ask: what happens next?

Does the Audit Chamber have a duty to notify the Minister of VROMI, the Minister of Justice, or the Prosecutor’s Office when it encounters such statements? Has this been done in this case. If not, why not. If it has, what has the receiving authority done with that information? And were the complainants ever contacted in a protected way? It cannot be that respected institutions collect stories of possible criminal behavior, publish them as statistics, and then leave them there. Either there is a clear protocol for escalation, or there is a dangerous gap in our integrity framework.

Another oversight body, the Integrity Chamber, made similar observations in its report on public transportation. It noted that while no direct criminal activity was proven, the environment was conducive to it and illegal acts likely occurred. The current situation with the Audit Chamber is quite different. The Chamber apparently knows who reported that someone from the Ministry of VROMI allegedly tried to extort them. In fact, the report mentioned exactly 7 persons with the caveat that it could be more due to the sensitive nature of the question and fear of reprisals.

The building permit system clearly needs modernization, better procedures and proper staffing. The Audit Chamber is right to emphasize that. Yet before anything else, the public deserves clarity on a simpler question. When citizens tell a watchdog that someone tried to sell them what should be a basic public service, who picks up that case, and when will we hear what happened to it?

‍