EDITORIAL - A welcome apology

Largely lost in the noise and gloating over Phillip Paulwell's seeming defeat and forced retreat on the 381-megawatt power project was his manly apology to the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) over remarks which, if acted upon, could only have been construed as an effort to compromise the independence of that office.

More perplexing, however, is that there may be influential commentators who appear keen on belittling Mr Paulwell's contrition, rather than engaging in a larger discussion on how Jamaica can balance the issue of governance and the maintenance of transparent procurement procedures without losing sight of the issue that was primary to the EWI saga: substantially lowering this country's high cost of electricity. Indeed, that must remain front and centre in the approach of the enterprise team that is to take new stab at taking the project to market.

When Hong Kong-based Energy World International (EWI), at the request of the Cabinet, was allowed by the Office of Utilities Regulation to bid on the now derailed effort - although the process had begun - Contractor General Dirk Harrison ruled that the agency had no such discretion, and had, in fact, breached the Government's procurement rules. Mr Paulwell, who had championed EWI, like the OUR, disagreed.

Matters came to a head when the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) sided with Mr Harrison and declared that, in the circumstance, it could not help to finance the energy project. That was a major embarrassment to Jamaica, calling into question the governance processes.

Mr Paulwell's response was to announce that he intended to meet with Mr Harrison for him to "explain" his position to the IDB. Essentially, he wanted the OCG to concede that its initial findings were wrong. In that regard, the OCG, an independent commission of Parliament, and a key agency charged with preventing corruption in government procurement, would be admitting to being either incompetent or acting at the behest of the minister. Mr Harrison could hardly have been expected to do either.

Mr Paulwell is in his right to continue to disagree with Mr Harrison's findings, which the OUR, if it considers the matter of sufficient import, could challenge in the court. But it bodes well for our approach to the OCG and similar institutions that Mr Paulwell, from the floor of the House, stated his "profound respect" for the OCG and to express "regret ... and withdraw" anything "that I might have said ... or done (that) in any way compromised the authority or independence of that office".

Mr Paulwell's apology was sufficiently fulsome to have won the respect, rather than the carping of some quarters.

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.