LETTER OF THE DAY - Is Christie on mission of mischief or malice?

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I backed Contractor General (CG) Greg Christie in the initial stages of the issue involving his response to requests from the People's National Party (PNP) to investigate the prime minister's bird-shooting vacation payments, and in relation to demands for an apology for his 'revelations' about contracts received by Y.P. Seaton under the current Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) administration.

In the absence of any contrary evidence, however, it now appears that the CG's slip is showing.

My supportive stance was based on the fact that the CG's original response to the PNP request did not sound like an accusation.

I even thought I detected a hint of mischief, or a suggestion of mild sarcasm, towards the PNP request, when he said something like:

"IF, you have EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, I am not the person you should come to on this occasion. Go to the police."

His factual 'revelations' about contracts received by Y.P. Seaton raised the temperature (and the eyebrows) only slightly, when compared with his earlier statements. To my mind, he was merely 'presenting some facts', though I could fully understand Mr Seaton's reactions and his request for an apology - even if it was only for the fact that (regardless of the CG's intentions), the effect of the timing of his 'revelations' was potentially damaging to Mr Seaton - at least.

Prove impropriety

I reluctantly began questioning Mr Christie's motives, however, when he not only refused to apologise, or even empathise with Mr Seaton, but 'revealed' even more about the value of contracts/subcontracts obtained under the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme to Mr Seaton - presumably unfairly and/or illegally, and in comparison with other named contractors.

The only thing that can erase the smell of malice, at worst, and self-service, at best, after Mr Christie's latest statements and attitude on this issue, would be for him to show evidence that Mr Seaton obtained these contracts illegally/unfairly, outside the standard bidding process and, somehow, without lawful approval from Office of the Contractor General representatives and others on various contract committees.

C. ANTHONY

carltongor@gmail.com