WE thought everyone had come to realise by now that there is no such thing as being almost pregnant.

But the statements made by Mr Karl Samuda, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) general secretary, and subsequently by Dr Ronald Robinson, the junior foreign minister, in Wednesday’s and yesterday’s editions of this newspaper have proved us wrong.

From what we can make of both statements, Dr Robinson didn’t meet with officials from the US State Department and the American law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

In fact, Dr Robinson, Mr Samuda told us, declined an invitation to attend a meeting with US State Department officials from Mr Harold Brady, the attorney-at-law who, if the Government is to be believed, has been the driving force behind the effort to keep Mr Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke here.

Further, Dr Robinson had but a 30-minute social with a representative of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips which, according to the Government, was retained by Mr Brady’s firm on its behalf, behind its back, presumably to protect Mr Coke’s interest.

Are we to understand that Dr Robinson was in Washington on his personal business?

Are we to understand that he was not up there in his capacity as minister of state in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, on Government business?

Or are we to understand that he was up there on the business of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP)?

Why didn’t he accept Mr Brady’s invitation to meet with the US State Department officials?

How did he come to have a social encounter with the Manatt representative?

Dr Peter Phillips of the Opposition People’s National Party has raised some pertinent questions in relation to Mr Samuda’s statement — questions that, we believe, the Government would best answer.

For we, too, are puzzled as to the interest of the JLP in a treaty matter between two governments.

We would also be extremely surprised to learn that this decision to retain Manatt, Phelps & Phillips was taken and executed without the knowledge of the JLP leader and prime minister, Mr Bruce Golding. For if that was what really happened, it would say a lot about his leadership.

Dr Phillips appears to be correct in his analysis that the whole saga suggests that, from the outset there was a determined attempt to confuse the people of Jamaica and to deny them access to the facts.

For that strategy is quite clear in the prime minister’s lawsuit which purports to be seeking clarification on the authority of the attorney general, but really deserves to be tossed out as a blatant abuse of the court’s process.

It seems clear to us that cleanliness and the truth are not government priorities just now.

The question we are left with, given the current events, is: Were they ever?