CONTRACTOR-GENERAL Greg Christie has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking his advice on how to go about bringing criminal charges against public bodies which fail to comply with requisitions from the Office of the Contractor General for information.

He was appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) at Parliament yesterday, as he wrapped up his appearance before the House committee which is examining the contractor-general’s report on the controversial Whitehouse hotel project and a forensic report on the project, which was ordered by then Prime Minister P J Patterson.

Christie’s letter to Kent Pantry, the DPP, dated September 28, 2006, and which was entered into the record of the PAC, read in part:

“One of the matters in respect of which I would like to seek your formal advice relates to the circumstances which would give rise to the commission of a criminal offence under Section 29 (a) & (b) of the Contractor-General’s Act as well as the procedure which should be utilised by the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) to initiate formal proceedings under that section.

The letter said the OCG would also like to secure the DPP’s “formal and specific advice as to how it should proceed against a public body which fails to comply with an OCG requisition, dated July 11, 2006, requiring the submission, on a quarterly basis, of certain public body contract award information by specified dates”.

He included related documents for the DPP’s perusal.

Asked by PAC member Dr Patrick Harris (government member, Trelawny Northern) if the liaison officer the UDC provided to handle requests from the Contractor General’s Office was co-operative, Christie said he couldn’t answer that. He could only state that his office had made requests and had got no response. He said, however, that he was proud of his officers who had a difficult job to do and interfaced with senior public officials.

“A lot of them fear for their circumstance. They are faced with insurmountable obstacles and I can tell you, Mr Chairman, I feel very badly about the attacks the Office of the Contractor General has been subjected to, not so much for myself, but for these hard-working men and women. And I want to put that on the record.”

PAC chairman Audley Shaw acknowledged the work the contractor-general was doing but, K D Knight (government member, East Central St Catherine), said that to be questioned was not the same as to be attacked.

Clive Mullings (opposition, St James West Central), pointed out that the contractor-general has the powers of a judge of the Supreme Court in respect of attendance and examination of witnesses and production of

documents.

“I believe,” he added, “that this committee ought to be cognisant of the role and position of the contractor-general and not at this time attack him and be pejorative”.

It was then that Christie said that he had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions, seeking his advice on how he could invoke the provisions of Section 29 with respect to offending public bodies and offending public officers who fail to comply with the directives of the Office of the Contractor General and requisitions for information.