Lead Stories

Arthur Hall, Senior Staff Reporter

The governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) is adamant that it cannot release the name of the donor who gave it the US$50,000 which was used to pay American law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

According to Prime Minister Bruce Golding, the JLP's hands are tied as the donor, the owner of a major corporate entity, has refused to give it permission for his name to be made public.

"I called him in and I said, 'Look, I'm under pressure with this matter. There are constant calls for your identity to be disclosed. Can I disclose it, because at least it would put one portion of this to bed?'"

Golding said the donor's reply was: "Absolutely no", while warning that he would consider it a betrayal of trust.

"And part of his reason for saying that, as he put it to me, he said. 'This is a smouldering cauldron. Why would I want to be thrown into it to satisfy someone's curiosity'?" Golding further disclosed as he addressed a media briefing at Jamaica House yesterday.

Golding said the businessman also expressed concern about the possible impact on his business if it was made public that he had made the donation to the JLP.

According to Golding, the businessman was not told why the party needed the donation and this was not unusual for political parties.

"I think it is unfair for someone - who knows nothing at all about Manatt; someone who was not involved in anyway in any extradition matter; someone who has supported the party financially for over 40 years - I think it is unfair to have them slaughtered, because that is what is going to happen to them."

PM surprised

Golding also expressed surprise at the seeming fascination and continuing questions about the source of the money used to pay Manatt.

"When the question was asked, 'what's the source of funds?', we could have said correctly, the Jamaica Labour Party. The party seeks funds from donors and those come into our coffers and we pay our bills," Golding said.

He admitted that the company owned by the donor could have received contracts from his administration.

But Golding argued that the firm would have also received several contracts from the previous government and that all these contracts would have to undergo the scrutiny of the National Contracts Commission and the contractor general.