Questions worth asking about the PM’s Official Residence

By *Marlon Bute

A few days ago, I posed a simple question in a private exchange: would it be a fair assessment to suggest that between 2001 and 2024, EC$10 million may have been budgeted for repairs and maintenance to the Official Residence of the Prime Minister? While the figure is admittedly a guesstimate, it does not seem unreasonable when spread across more than two decades of annual capital and maintenance allocations.

That question gained wider relevance after I listened to Deputy Prime Minister Major the Hon. St. Clair Leacock on the talk show Ridealong on Tuesday night. His remarks suggested that he holds a similar view about the likely scale of expenditure over that period. More importantly, he noted that it would be worthwhile to go back year by year and examine exactly what sums were budgeted for repairs and maintenance to the official residence.

The concern, however, is not merely the quantum of money potentially given, but the absence of equal results. Reports of the poor and even deplorable condition of the residence raise earnest questions about whether public funds achieved their intended purpose.

Further insight came from comments by the Opposition Leader and former prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves, who said that the railings at the official residence were replaced on at least three occasions due to rot. He was speaking on Monday on his party’s radio station.  

That admission points to a deeper issue: the repeated use of inappropriate materials. Pine, even when pressure-treated, is widely known to be ill-suited for exterior applications in a tropical, coastal climate. It’s susceptibility to moisture, termites, and decay makes failure predictable rather than accidental.

More suitable options — such as greenheart or teak — are far more suitable for our environment. While modern alternatives like aluminium, PVC, or glass also exist, it is understandable that a heritage building might favour traditional wooden railings. What is difficult to understand is why pine was used repeatedly despite its known shortcomings, and why no corrective decision was taken after the first or even the second failure.

This question becomes more pointed considering the former prime minister’s own observation that greenheart was used at his private residence in Gorse, while pine was repeatedly installed at the official residence. Given his reputation as a micromanager, it is reasonable to ask how such decisions were allowed to persist.

Why was BRAGSA, or whichever contractors were responsible, not directed to use more durable and appropriate materials? Why were public funds repeatedly spent on labour and materials to redo the same work, with the same foreseeable outcome?

All of us ought to be interested in these types of questions that speak to public procurement standards, value for money, and the stewardship of state assets. A transparent, factual review of what the government budgeted with taxpayers’ money, what was spent, and how decisions were made by those who managed the work would not only clarify the record but also help ensure better outcomes in the future.

*Marlon Bute is the owner of District Stairs SVG Ltd., a building materials and construction company with experience in railings and exterior finishes.

The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].