Mr Christie's and Mrs Llewellyn's unenviable task

RAULSTON NEMBHARD

Saturday, October 09, 2010

The work of Contractor General Greg Christie is an unenviable one. It is made even more so in a country that is sweltering with corruption; in a country that relies on political clientelism and the "bligh" as tools of social and economic advancement. When someone with the bull-dog tenacity of a Greg Christie seeks to hold people accountable for implied or perceived acts of corruption and recommends ways to curb such proclivities, he is likely to be ridiculed and derided for the work he does. Often he walks a lonely path, yet, he approaches his work with missionary zeal knowing the territory he has to cover.

In my recent article, "Barring Mr Aubyn Hill from State Boards" I raised a number of questions regarding the OCG's findings and rulings concerning the divestment of the sugar industry. I was concerned mainly about two things:

(1) Whether the findings of the CG's office rose to the level of Mr Hill being completely barred from all state boards.

(2) The contention as to whether Mr Hill was an employee of the Ministry of Agriculture or a consultant with the ministry in the matter of the divestment of the sugar industry.

In a long-ranging discussion with the CG and members of his office I am now persuaded that the CG, by virtue of the office he holds, and with respect to the quasi-judicial nature of this office, acted within the purview of the mandates of his office and with respect to the judgements he concluded, based on the evidence tendered. Although one may disagree with his conclusions, it would be difficult for anyone who has listened to the explanations given in arriving at those conclusions, to assert any interpretation that is incompatible with the integrity with which the CG and his office pursued their tasks in this matter.

There is a perception that the public may have regarding the judgements arrived at by the CG's office, but there are specific mandates given by the Act which created this office which detail is function. Indeed, he is not a prosecutor as the Act does not give him prosecutorial powers. Such powers belong to the director of public prosecutions, and all that the CG can do is recommend persons for prosecution. This brings into sharp relief the CG's frustration over the delay in the DPP's office acting on recommendations that he makes to that office.

The CG's office has the reputation of handling matters with dispatch, expedition and a certain level of professionalism. I believe this is consistent with the belief that people's reputation, if not their livelihood is at stake. Once recommendations are made to the relevant bodies, they too must act with dispatch so that persons addressed in these reports are not left hanging or worried about an uncertain future. Bear in mind that these persons have friends and families that are as similarly burdened as the subjects of these reports. One is not saying that the DPP's office should hastily prosecute, but there should be no inordinate delay in acting. Persons must, at a very early date, know where they stand, have their day in court if that is what is ruled, and get on with their lives, whether in prison or out.

The single most important preoccupation that should confront both the offices of the CG and DPP is the pursuit of truth based on evidence and the just and proper dispensation of justice. While they are bound to these principles, both offices enjoy legitimate spheres of authority and act independently in the judgements and rulings they proffer. There need not be any difficulty when one of these bodies rules the way it does, for the burden that the DPP bears is in no way lighter than that which is borne by the CG. People's lives and reputations are at stake, and the DPP has to ensure that when she rules on the evidence before her, truth and justice will be properly served, even if others may not agree with her conclusions.

Finally, there is no one with divine qualities in the Office of the Contractor General, that of the DPP, or even in the courts of our land. In the end we are dealing with fallible human beings who are given the power under our justice system to make certain determinations about people's lives. In doing so, mistakes can be made. I believe that both the CG and the DPP are similarly seized with the necessary dispassion to ensure that justice is served in a timely manner. There need not be any contention between both offices when they act judiciously on matters before them.

stead6655@aol.com

www.drraulston.com

Do you feel buying into Facebook now is a good investment for the long-run?
	Yes
	No

View Results
Results published weekly in Sunday Finance

Username:
Password:

GCT to go down, white rum prices going up

Mr Christie's and Mrs Llewellyn's unenviable task