Commentary

THERE IS wide acceptance that Contractor General Greg Christie is doing an excellent job in trying to plug the holes through which public money may creep into corrupt hands. Many feel assured that he has been diligent in monitoring the award of government contracts to ensure transparency and probity.

However, the recent alarm raised by Mr Christie regarding the sale by Government of shares in Clarendon Alumina Production (CAP) brings into question the precise powers of the contractor general.

This comes against the background of the stance adopted by Mr Christie in relation to the alleged arrangements between the American law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and the Government. In explaining the limits of his powers, Mr Christie said then: "The primary jurisdictional function of a contractor general is to monitor the award and the implementation of government contracts with a view to ensuring that such contracts are awarded impartially and on merit (and that) the circumstances in which each contract is awarded or, as the case may be, terminated, do not involve impropriety or irregularity."

Not everyone was satisfied with the explanation that the contractor general is powerless to act if he is not first possessed of unimpeachable evidence that a government contract, as defined by the Contractor General Act, has been or is in the process of being awarded.

Preliminary enquiry

There is still a widely held view that the contractor general should be able to investigate and determine who really hired the firm - the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) or the government. In the absence of even a preliminary enquiry into the matter, the public is left with the impression that Mr Christie is satisfied that it was the JLP and not the Government that hired the firm. But can we simply ignore Manatt, which has steadfastly maintained that it was hired by the Government of Jamaica?

The Contractor General Act says he has the power to investigate what are called 'government contracts'. The act defines these as licences, permits or concessions issued by a public body, as well as building and other works to be carried out by or on behalf of a public body, or contract for the supply of goods and services.

But the CAP deal involves the sale of shares and has nothing to do with granting of any licence or permit or the undertaking of any building or public works. Is it then a contract for the supply of goods and services? And the pertinent question is whether shares are to be treated as goods.

Laymen know that the law doesn't always accord with public perception and that legal terms don't often mean what we believe they do, but we find it puzzling that shares could ever be classified as goods.

Strangely enough, neither the Government nor the contractor general has said anything to enlighten the public on this controversial matter. We note that the contractor general has published on his website an opinion from eminent lawyer Dr Lloyd Barnett, which suggests that divestment of government assets falls within the purview of the contractor general.

In order not to devalue the important work he has done and is doing, the contractor general must administer the law with certainty and consistency.

If it is that his powers are deficient, then he needs to persuade Parliament to extend his powers to cover any gaps or grey areas that exist.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.