Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Raises Concerns | Editorial

Government spending on social media consultants has come under scrutiny after revelations that blogger Rhoda Bharath received $3.3 million in public funds over an eight-year period for communications services to state entities.

The matter was brought to light during a parliamentary session last Friday when Government Minister Saddam Hosein disclosed that Bharath, who operates the Facebook page “Newsauce,” was paid approximately $37,000 monthly between 2017 and 2025 for work contracted by the Ministry of Finance and the National Lotteries Control Board (NLCB).

In response to the disclosure, Bharath defended her contracts on social media, stating, “In the entire time I have worked for the Ministry of Finance, no Auditor General’s Report has ever flagged my contracts. I have complied with all OPR requirements.” She also listed several communications campaigns she had created for the previous People’s National Movement (PNM) administration.

The controversy highlights broader concerns about transparency and accountability in government procurement processes. The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act of 2015, which established the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR), specifically promotes “principles of accountability, integrity, transparency and value for money” in Section 5(1).

Critics question whether these principles were upheld in Bharath’s case, as her contracts were reportedly awarded on a sole-select basis under former finance minister Colm Imbert. The Newsauce page has been characterized as promoting PNM political messaging under the guise of government information, raising questions about whether public funds were appropriately used.

Public procurement experts note that Section 29 of the Procurement Act requires contractors to possess “the necessary professional and technical qualifications and competence” for their roles, and mandates that procuring entities evaluate qualifications according to specified criteria.

Political analysts suggest the issue highlights a systemic problem in Trinidad and Tobago’s governance structures, where the line between legitimate government communications and partisan propaganda often blurs. This practice can undermine public trust in government institutions and the appropriate use of taxpayer funds.

The controversy occurs amid heightened political tensions between the PNM and the United National Congress (UNC), with Minister Hosein representing the latter party in raising concerns about the contracts. However, observers point out that similar practices have occurred under different administrations, suggesting a pattern that transcends party lines.

Government communications specialists argue that the state already maintains extensive communications resources, including access to television and radio stations, websites, and social media accounts. Most ministries and state entities also employ dedicated communications staff, making additional contracts with external consultants potentially redundant.

While specialized expertise may occasionally be necessary to reach citizens more effectively, transparency advocates emphasize that such arrangements must be subject to proper oversight and competitive bidding processes rather than ministerial discretion.

The controversy also raises questions about the opposition UNC’s own practices regarding media consultants. Political commentators note that Minister Hosein, while highlighting the alleged impropriety of Bharath’s contracts, has yet to explain how his party would prevent similar issues if returned to power.

As the debate continues, citizens and watchdog organizations are calling for stronger enforcement of procurement regulations and greater transparency in government contracting, particularly for communications and social media services that shape public perception of government activities.

The case underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring that government communications serve to inform the public rather than advance partisan political agendas at taxpayer expense.