‘A stitch in time saves nine’ means it's better to solve a problem immediately, to stop it from becoming much bigger. That is what the cabinet has done by asking the Gambling Control Authority to provide an analysis on how they intend to pay back the $12.5 million loan they intend to get from the Samoa National Provident Fund.

The intervention from the cabinet is on condition that the GCA provides a credit risk assessment report to ensure it can make the repayment for the substantial loan intended for its relocation project. While SNPF does not report to the cabinet on its decision-making on large investment loans, the approval of substantial investment loans by the Board has been flagged from time to time over concerns about handling contributors' retirement fund.

The cabinet’s eleventh-hour intervention came last Wednesday, when the loan was due to be released on Friday. Leatinuu explained that the GCA was recently instructed by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to submit a credit risk assessment report to support its loan proposal channelled through Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). This was after the cabinet rejected the GCA application through ACC for $12.5 million and directed the authority to submit the credit risk assessment. 

In the last year, SNPF granted huge loans, and a list of names was published by the newspaper, raising concerns about the lending of SNPF members’ contributions on such a large scale. The cabinet’s intervention in the GCA case raises serious questions and concerns. Hopefully, all companies and entities given loans were assessed on their ability to pay the amount back.

According to the financials of the GCA provided on the Ministry of Public Enterprise website, in 2016, its annual revenue was around half a million tala and $1.1 million in 2017. The financial records from 2018 onwards are unavailable on the MPE site.

This would be the right time to know how much revenue the GCA is making annually, and if it is in a position to service that loan. It is estimated that the repayment for the loan would easily exceed $1.5 million annually. We stand to be corrected if the figure misses the mark. Does the GCA make enough revenue to be able to pay this loan? This is an important question that the SNPF and GCA owe to the people of this country, whose money is in the SNPF.

It was highlighted last month that a major business has been defaulting on repayments to the SNPF. In the Princessa case, the company was loaned $4 million and was expected to pay back around $50,000 monthly. SNPF has taken the business to court to retrieve its money because the company could not keep up with the payments. Was there an assessment done for this company?

It is also time for the cabinet to review the composition of the SNPF board. In light of the heavy loans that have been granted, there is a need for this to be done. The Chief Executive Officer from the Ministry of Finance needs to be brought back as the chair, and the Attorney General’s presence on the board is required. The contributors’ money needs protection, and there has to be a legal overview of the decisions that are being taken by the board.

Another good example is the Medi-Insure scheme. A compulsory deduction healthcare scheme that the SNPF board went ahead with without a proper referendum. Perhaps a board with the MAF CEO and the AG would be transparent and accountable.

Hopefully, the SNPF can also explain how the repayments of the loans given to other businesses are going and if all repayments are on time. This is not a confidential matter. When you use the money that belongs to people to give loans, people have a right to know if that money is being recovered or not.