When A.J. Nicholson, in his role as legal adviser to the People's National Party, declared at a press conference that there was nothing untoward about that supposed $31 million 'gift' by the Dutch company Trafigura Beheer unless it was proved that some 'hanky-panky' was involved, we assume that he spoke in good faith and in keeping with the finest traditions of natural justice.

The precept, after all, in the system of justice to which we adhere, is that a person is innocent until proven guilty, based on the evidence presented.

In that context we did not believe then, and neither do we believe now, that Mr. Nicholson would have anything to apologise for with regard to his declaration. Yet, Mr. Nicholson has chosen to apologise, or, he is reported to have done so and has not denied the reports. So, we can assume that his back-pedaling is fact.

According to Mr. Nicholson, if he knew at the time of the press conference what he knows now, he would not have spoken in the fashion in which he spoke at his party's headquarters.

Given that Mr. Nicholson's most forceful and declarative statement was about this business of 'hanky-panky' the obvious, and widely-held assumption is that his apology is directly related to that remark. Mr. Nicholson has not said it is not so.

It therefore begs the question: What is the hanky-panky that he subsequently discovered had taken place in relation to the deposit of the money by Trafigura into an account controlled by PNP officials, including the ousted party general secretary and information and development minister, Colin Campbell?

The PNP has said that the money from Trafigura, which has an oil-trading contract with a government agency, was a donation to the ruling party, which, of itself, while perhaps morally reprehensible would not necessarily be illegal. Except that Trafigura initially said that he was the point man for the company to which it sent the money for consultancy services, before amending its position to hint that it was really a political donation, which it may have tried to obfuscate.

It is important, therefore, that Mr. Nicholson, assuming now the role for which he has responsibility to all Jamaicans, that of Attorney-General, tell us precisely what is the hanky-panky he has discovered that he felt so compelled to issue an apology. He should also say whether in this role, as the Government's senior legal adviser, he has determined what laws may have been broken and whether the situation warrants prosecution. He has, in the circumstance, a responsibility to tell the public what advice he has proffered to the Government.

Which brings us to the fundamental issue facing Mr. Nicholson, which has grown so apparent in the wake of the Trafigura affair. Few can honestly say they noted it before, but there is an inherent conflict of interest in Mr. Nicholson being the Attorney-General and legal adviser to his party.

In this case, there is the grave possibility of his public and constitutional responsibility conflicting with party obligations and loyalty. It is not that Mr. Nicholson, as an individual of great character, cannot rise above such conflicts, but Mr. Nicholson, Q.C., knows well the adage: justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.