Commentary

This newspaper has the highest regard for the efforts of the contractor general, Mr Greg Christie, to have public officials adhere to the Government's procurement procedures and regulations.

Indeed, no one could claim Mr Christie has been anything but independent and/or that his conduct has not been without fear or favour.

He has not always got the outcomes he desires, and as his reports to Parliament highlight, there is still a long way to go to having public officials operate firmly by the rules and to remove corruption from the system.

Yet, it is not for nothing that the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) is the most feared public-sector regulator in Jamaica, or that Greg Christie's work is highly admired by the wider public. People recognise that, on balance, he has been good for the country.

However, Mr Christie has to be careful that he does not depreciate the gains that has been made by the OCG and undermine the public's goodwill towards his office and himself.

Criminal charges

Our concern rests on some of the conclusions arrived at by the OCG on matters the office has probed, but more specifically its recent recommendation that the agriculture minister, Dr Christopher Tufton, his permanent secretary, Donovan Stanberry, and Mr Aubyn Hill be criminally charged for providing inaccurate information to his office. Mr Christie raised the matter of perjury.

We make no comment about the OCG's broader findings of the agriculture ministry's decision to give Mr Hill and his consulting company a contract to divest state-owned sugar entities at the same time that Mr Hill was chairman of the Sugar Company. Nor do we raise any issue with observations about the terms of the engagement and whether they were fair and/or competitively arrived at.

But it seems more than strange that Mr Christie would have cited Messrs Tufton and Stanberry for lying to his office for declaring Mr Hill's engagement normal employment, rather than a consultancy. Indeed, it is widely acknowledged that Mr Stanberry, early in the investigations, voluntarily conceded the error, genuinely made, and that it was he who misdirected his boss, Dr Tufton.

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn, as she has done with a slew of recommendations from the OCG in other cases, rejected preferring criminal charges against Dr Tufton and Mr Stanberry. Both men's complaint that their integrity had been publicly sullied without being given an opportunity to defend themselves has, understandably, received sympathy.

Jamaica's loss

This newspaper believes that it would be Jamaica's loss if the OCG became less zealous in pursuing its mandate of ensuring that public resources are properly spent and accounted for. Mr Christie's culture of transparency, in which he views the press as a valuable partner, has been an important element of his success.

Yet, it cannot be beyond the OCG to devise a mechanism, without weakening the independence or integrity of the agency, that allows persons who are to be accused of misbehaviour to comment before a hardening of public opinion.

We cherish the independence of the OCG and the DPP, as has been displayed in their different interpretations of issues of the law. But many also perceive a tension between the two agencies and their respective leaders.

We hope that such a tension, if it exists, does not override the larger matter of delivery of justice, including for taxpayers.

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.