AUDLEY Shaw yesterday vowed to continue as chairman of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) despite the public controversy over his financial affairs, including the fact that a service station managed by he and his wife last year issued 15 dishonoured cheques to its petroleum supplier.

“The public can be assured that I will continue to discharge my duties without fear or favour, as I will not allow the affairs of my family’s business to affect my responsibilities and obligations to the nation,” Shaw, reading a prepared statement, told yesterday’s meeting of the PAC after his continued leadership of the body was questioned by Dr Morais Guy (PNP, Central St Mary).

In fact, Shaw told ruling People’s National Party members of the PAC that they should take their disquiet over his continued leadership of the committee to the House of Representatives, which appoints its members.

However, when the House met later in the day the matter was not raised by ruling party members.

The PAC, which is chaired by an Opposition member of Parliament, reviews government expenditure and has the power to call in public sector officials to explain their actions in the management of state resources.

Shaw, who has headed the committee since the mid-1990s, has been considered an effective chairman and has used the committee as a platform to further hone his reputation as tormentor of the government revealing official corruption and government waste.

But his own financial affairs came under a glaring spotlight on Sunday when the Observer’s writer-at-large, Mark Wignall, in the Wignall’s World column, highlighted aspects of the financial relationship involving Shaw’s ownership of the service station in Christiana, Manchester.

“A total of some 15 cheques amounting to approximately $6,885,441 bounced,” Wignall wrote. “What made the cheque episode so terrible was that quite a few of them were replacement cheques for bad ones. The replacement cheques also bounced.”

The matter had earlier become public when the Shaws – Audley Shaw and his wife Maureen – went to court for an injunction to stop Joey Issa’s Cool Oasis from taking over the management of the service station. Cool Oasis said it was invoking the terms of an agreement it signed with the Shaws in 2003.

The court rejected the Shaws’ application for an injunction, but yesterday they were granted leave to appeal and received a 14-day extension on the February 28 date which Cool Oasis was given for the take-over of the service station’s management.

At the start of yesterday’s PAC meeting, the final one for the current session of Parliament, Guy raised the issue of “certain revelations” recently in the press regarding Shaw’s financial stewardship.

“It is the feeling of myself, and some members of this committee, that your continued chairmanship of this particularly sensitive committee of Parliament has the potential to bring into disrepute the working of this particular committee,” Guy said. “We are placing on record our objection to your continued chairmanship of this particular committee.”

He also asked Shaw to indicate to the leader of the Opposition that, “in view of what we perceive to be the present situation” he appoint another chairman of the PAC.

Jamaica Labour Party MP Joseph Hibbert (East Rural St. Andrew), the only other Opposition member present at the time, objected on the grounds that the committee was not the proper forum to deal with the matter. It was the full Parliament that appointed the PAC and should deal with the issue, he argued.

Shaw agreed. He said that the matter was outside of the competence of the committee and that the matter should go to the Leader of Government Business in the House.

Shaw also accused Guy of seeking to score “political points”.

Guy denied this.

Shaw, calling for “equity and natural justice” asked for permission to give his explanation of the matter.

However, when Shaw disclosed that he had a written statement, Guy said he must have anticipated the reaction of the committee.

He was supported by Sharon Hay-Webster (PNP, South Central St Catherine).

Dr Patrick Harris (PNP, North Trelawny) suggested that Shaw should withdraw from the committee on a point of “decency” if it is felt that his “baggage” would compromise the committee. Shaw then proceeded with his statement.

With Shaw having read his statement, Hay-Webster suggested that he allow someone else to chair the committee while the matter is being pursued. But, Shaw refused.

“I don’t intend to do that because that would be an admission of guilt and I don’t intend to do that,” Shaw said.

“. I will ask you, if you feel that strongly about it to let us take it up as a matter in the House. I think that’s the appropriate thing to do.”

Shaw’s statement to the committee read:

“For several days now there have been reports in the press about a dispute that exists between Mr Joseph Issa and Cool Oasis and my wife and I concerning the operation of Cool Oasis Christiana Limited.

In 2003, we entered into a joint venture with Mr Joseph Issa of Cool Oasis Limited, in relation to the ownership/management of our service station in Christiana.

A memorandum of understanding was developed by Mr Harold Brady, my then attorney-at-law, based on discussions and agreements between Mr Issa and myself.

The essential features of the memorandum of understanding are:

1. 50/50 per cent ownership.

2. Mrs Shaw to manage the operation.

3. Distribution of the proceeds of gas sales.

On the basis of this agreement, a new company, Cool Oasis Christiana Limited, was established and my wife and I signed a transfer of our property to the ownership of the new company, of which we are 50 per cent owners.

A problem, which Mrs Shaw explained, developed in part due to the lack of calibration of the fuel tanks, led to problems in an inventory measurement and control resulting in substantial losses. As a result, cheques were returned on our company’s account but were promptly made good at great sacrifice.

Whilst we regret that this occurred, we find it quite reprehensible that despite several requests to Cool Oasis last year to return the cheques to us since they were honoured, they refused to do so and have now circulated them to the Press for unscrupulous purposes to which they are now being directed, as a political weapon against me.

The matter has unfortunately now been brought to the courts, as Cool Oasis now seeks to take over management on the false premise that my wife and I have no ownership in the business.

The dispute involving Cool Oasis Christiana Limited, which concerns ownership as well as management, will be resolved in the courts in due course.

However, I remain fully supportive of my wife who, as manager has tried her best under an extremely hostile environment to operate successfully. We continue as a family to seek to protect our investment.

The public can be assured that I will continue to discharge my duties without fear or favour, as I will not allow the affairs of my family’s business to affect my responsibilities and obligations in my public duty to the nation.”