THE latest imbroglio between the contractor general and the Government, regrettable though it is, provides an opportunity for a sober, dispassionate discussion of the role of that office, how its functions are carried out and how it interfaces with the executive and legislative arms of Government.

Since its inception in 1983, we have had some dedicated and distinguished contractors general — the late Ashton Wright, Gordon Wells, Derrick McKoy and now Greg Christie. None has tackled the job with more vigour and tenacity than Greg Christie.

I recall that shortly after his appointment in November 2005, he paid a courtesy call on me in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. We had a pleasant and constructive discussion but I felt obliged to tell him that, based on the information I had received about him which caused me to doubt his impartiality, I had objected to his appointment and had so advised the governor general who, as is required by law, had consulted with me on the matter.

Mr Christie responded calmly that he would seek an appointment with me in a year’s time and was absolutely sure that my opinion would be different. That appointment was never sought but he was right, because I came to the view that Greg Christie is nobody’s stooge and that he is a model of incorruptibility.

As prime minister, I expressed publicly, more than once, my confidence in him and my profound belief that in the effort to eliminate corruption, Jamaica needs more people with the fearlessness and even feistiness that he has displayed.

Much of the controversy in which the contractor general has been embroiled has to do with, firstly, a misunderstanding, even on the his own part sometimes, of the role and function of the contractor general and, secondly, his style of operation.

I had the honour to chair the Joint Select Committee of Parliament in 1982 that reviewed the draft Contractor General Bill before its enactment. It was made clear from the very outset that the role of the contractor general is to (a) monitor and, where necessary, investigate the award of contracts with a view to ensuring that they are awarded impartially and without impropriety or irregularity and are implemented as specified in the award; and (b) report the findings of any such investigation to Parliament.

In order to carry out these functions effectively, the contractor general is given wide statutory powers, including the right of access to all relevant records or property of any public entity, the power to enter any premises without warrant and seize such records or property as well as the power to command persons to provide information or to appear before him to be examined.

So wide are his investigative powers that, unlike some other oversight authorities that must first seek an order of a judge in chambers, the contractor general, for these purposes, has himself been vested with the powers of a judge of the Supreme Court.

However, in the final analysis, the contractor general can only expose by reporting to Parliament his findings and tender his recommendations. In that sense, he is a statutory “whistleblower”. He cannot prevent, interfere with or abort the award of a contract or its implementation. That authority remains within the province of the Government.

The contractor general’s functions are similar in many respects to that of the auditor general, who reviews and investigates Government expenditure and submits her report to Parliament, the important differences being that the auditor general’s investigations are done post-facto and she does not have the wide investigative power that the contractor general has.

It has frequently been argued that this is not sufficient, that he should have the power to prevent the award of a contract and even to halt it after it has been awarded. There is good reason why this is not so. The award of a contract is an executive function for which the Government, elected by and answerable to the people, is the ultimate authority.

This does not mean that the effectiveness of the contractor general is neutered. While the Government is not obliged to heed his advice or recommendations, it must be prepared, in deciding not to do so, to justify its decision to an increasingly alert and informed public and it cannot be unmindful of the fact that the public, through the ballot box, is the ultimate arbiter.

It was to ensure that the public is firmly seated in the jury box that the law stipulates that all reports submitted to Parliament by the contractor general must be made public.

During my time in office, we sought consciously to abide by the contractor general’s advice and recommendations. In some instances, as he can confirm, we sought his guidance long before a contract was awarded or even put to tender.

Invariably, we found his advice useful. But there were occasions on which we disagreed with the position he took and the recommendations he offered. The sale of the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel and the exemption from procurement rules of certain market-sensitive transactions affecting Air Jamaica, the Jamaica Tourist Board and the Port Authority come readily to mind. In all those instances, we explained in Parliament the circumstances and provided the justification for our decision.

That, essentially, is what Dr Omar Davies did in Parliament on April 24. In deciding to proceed with the North-South leg of Highway 2000, the minister is asserting the ultimate responsibility and authority of the Cabinet for the management of the affairs of Jamaica as mandated in the Constitution.

Good sense required that he justify that decision in the face of the OCG’s objections. He did so, perhaps not quite as elegantly as he could have and certainly not as thoroughly as he should have. It would have been better if he had addressed, point by point, the concerns raised by the OCG indicating the basis for the Government’s disagreement and decision. But it is ultimately the Government’s call, and it is the public that will ultimately determine whether the Government or the contractor general was right.

The appointment of the committee chaired by Professor Gordon Shirley does not in any way undermine or compromise the role of the contractor general any more than the Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Cabinet that would normally review recommended contract awards before their presentation to Cabinet.

Aside from the fact that all three members are persons of unquestioned integrity and competence, they cannot impede or interfere with the work of the contractor general. Indeed, their deliberations, actions and recommendations will, themselves, be subject to his purview and investigation.

I was more than a little perplexed at Mr Christie’s objection to the North-South leg of Highway 2000 on the basis of its non-viability while insisting that it be put to public tender — a virtual contradiction in terms. As I understand it, China Harbour is sourcing funds in China to finance the project. It will bear all liabilities without any guarantee from the Jamaican Government in return for a 50-year concession agreement.

When Mike Henry first discussed the project with me almost three years ago, I made it clear that although there were billions of dollars of loan financing that we could access in China, our financial situation would not allow us to take on additional debt for that purpose and that he had to find a way to structure the project in a way that would not involve any Government exposure.

He worked hard at it and, to his credit, that is how the project was eventually submitted, except for the issue as to whether the Government would be required to provide the land, some of which would have had to be acquired at public expense from private owners. I don’t know how this was finally resolved, but this is the only basis on which the feasibility of the project would have any financial implications for Jamaica.

If China Harbour is undertaking this investment at its own risk, I cannot see why it should be a major concern to the contractor general whether the company makes or loses money any more than would obtain where the Government grants approval and a licence to a private entity to build a hotel or racetrack.

It is unfortunate and unnecessary that the exchanges between the contractor general and the Government, present and past, invariably take on an acerbic tone. Given the statutory duties and functions of the contractor general, some friction is inevitable but that friction can be constructive; it does not have to be fractious and dysfunctional.

Some of this can be attributed to Mr Christie’s particular style. His communications and requisitions are worded in a manner that many recipients interpret to be hostile and aggressive. I do not doubt the goodness of his intentions but I have, in the past, suggested to him that while this approach may invoke fear and even secure compliance, it does not necessarily engender from the honest public servants to whom they are often addressed the co-operation and assistance his office needs in order to succeed.

His practice, for example, of publicly announcing at the start of an investigation the persons from whom he has demanded information leaves them in a cloud of suspicion even though he might not himself suspect them of wrongdoing but needs information from them in pursuing his investigations.

At the same time, too many public officials are instinctively resentful of the role of the contractor general, not just Mr Christie’s personal style. To many he is a troublemaker, not the essential check and balance that his office must be. It is not good when many elected officials as well as civil servants feel this way.

What is clear to me is that the increasing polarisation that is taking place is not in the best interest of the country. From my own experience, even when we had sharp differences, Mr Christie was open to dialogue. He will not yield or compromise on what he believes to be right, but it is important that differences, where they arise, be properly ventilated, understood and respected. It needs an intervention at the highest level.

We ourselves have not done justice to the Office of Contractor General. His reports are normally tabled in Parliament without any parliamentary or executive response and it is then left to the media to treat them as they see fit. Every report of the contractor general should be examined by Parliament as a matter of urgency and a determination made as to what action, if any, is to be taken, particularly with regard to the recommendations he tenders.

We need to secure agreement on the amendments the previous administration had proposed to the Contractor-General’s Act, including provisions to establish a Special Prosecutor for corruption, criminalise pernicious breaches of the contract award procedures, invalidate contracts entered into where the recipients of contracts know of or participated in such breaches and provide for fit and proper tests to be applied in registering contractors.

Mr Christie has decided to leave at the end of his current term of office. The controversies that have attended that tenure must not obscure the significant contribution he has made to improving transparency, accountability and our quality of governance. His successor will, no doubt, bring a different style but must be no less vigilant, assertive, fearless and incorruptible.