AGRICULTURE Minister Dr Christopher Tufton has retained the services of veteran attorney Frank Phipps in an effort to clear his name of an allegation of perjury made against him by Contractor General Greg Christie last week.

“I have secured the professional services of Frank Phipps QC, to explore all legal channels to clear my name and preserve my reputation and to bring to a quick conclusion this matter involving an allegation of perjury and wilfully misleading the OCG,” Tufton said in a statement in response to a Sunday Observer query on the matter.

Obviously offended by Christie’s accusation that he committed perjury in probe by the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) into the award of a $27-m contract to Aubyn Hill, Dr Tufton said that his legal counsel wrote to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula LLewellyn on Friday, “requesting an opportunity to make submissions on my behalf before her decision on the OCG report”.

“The letter has also requested of the DPP a speedy ruling on the matter as this would be in the public interest,” Tufton added.

Christie accused Tufton, Hill and Donovan Stanberry, the permanent secretary in the agriculture ministry, of committing perjury and had referred his report to the DPP for further action “as she may deem appropriate”.

Christie had based his accusation on a response Stanberry gave to the OCG’s query about the nature of Hill’s contract with the Government.

Stanberry had first described Hill’s contract as an employment contract. However, the copies of the contract Stanberry provided to the OCG made reference to Hill being a consultant.

In his report, Christie actually highlighted Stanberry’s admission that he made an error in his characterisation of Hill’s contract.

Said Stanberry: “I did, in fact, characterise Mr Hill’s contract as an employment contract. This was a mistake on my part, as in my mind the nature of Mr Hill’s assignment was consistent with the role of a contract employee of the ministry. In actuality, however, Mr Hill’s contract was formatted as a contract for a consultant, providing shortterm consultancy service, as against an employment contract in the classic sense. This was a genuine mistake on my part and I, therefore, withdraw all reference to ‘Employment Contract’ in my previous letter of November 19, 2009, to be substituted with ‘Contract for Short Term Consultancy Services’.”

However, Christie said that the documentary evidence and the subsequent sworn statements which were provided to the OCG by Stanberry, Tufton and Hill “have, comprehensively and unequivocally contradicted the initial responses to the OCG’s requisitions”.

Christie said it was for this reason, as well as having regard to the numerous other considerations which are outlined in the findings of his report that has led him to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence which has been presented to suggest that all three men have acted in contravention of Section 29 (a) of the Contractor General Act and Section 8 of the Perjury Act.

Last week, in a response to Christie, the Ministry of Agriculture pointed to the fact that it was the ministry that provided the documents that highlighted the error, therefore the seeming contradiction “was not something that the contractor general had to discover by coercion or by subsequent requisition because the ministry deliberately withheld the information”.

“Charges of perjury and deliberate falsification speak to intent, and this was clearly not the case, as the permanent secretary, having willingly submitted the contracts which contradict his designation of the said contracts as ‘employment contracts’, would have willingly incriminated himself,” said the agriculture ministry.

“What the contractor general is suggesting is that the minister, the permanent secretary and Mr Hill contrived together to deliberately deceive him. The ministry completely and unequivocally repudiates this suggestion,” the ministry said further.

Yesterday, in his statement, Tufton said: “While I fully support the objectives and functions of the Office of the Contractor General I also subscribe to the view that every Jamaican citizen should be guaranteed the protection under our constitution to seek restitution when they believe they have been wronged, irrespective of the individual or entity that has caused the injury.”

He said he had to take this approach as the allegations made against him in the OCG report and the publicity surrounding this issue “have caused my wife and children great distress and raise doubts about my credibility with my friends, constituents, professional colleagues and the wider society”.

Added Tufton: “For me, this is an untenable situation for both my public and private life and as such I am compelled to do whatever is necessary within our legal framework and in the court of public opinion to remedy this situation.

“I await the speedy ruling of the DPP and will comment further at that time.”