Dear Editor,

Having studied the Contractor General Act, I see nothing wrong with the conduct of Parliament, through Minister Omar Davies, appointing persons other than the contractor general to perform some of the duties of the CG under the Contractor General Act.

In this context, the contractor general is a servant of Parliament, See section 4(1) of the Act, which says:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the function of a contractor general, on behalf of Parliament

(a) to monitor the award and the implementation of government contracts…

And further, the contractor general is on contract, and as such, his relation to Parliament is governed by the law of contract of services, which does not preclude the principal by himself or through other people performing duties delegated to the contractor general under his contract, unless the contract specifically shows that the contractor general is to operate to the exclusion of all others, which is not the case here. This opinion is buttressed by, for example, section 4(2) (a), which says, inter alia:

For the purpose of the discharge of his functions under this Act a contractor general shall be entitled:

(a) To be advised of the award, and, where applicable, the variation of any government contract by the pubic body responsible for such contract, clearly stating that awards can be done without the prior involvement of or consultation with the contractor general.

The well-intentioned contractor general should need no reminder that he should respect the action of Parliament which, as in this case, is patently in the public interest as demonstrated by the minister and has not been contradicted by anyone. As a trained attorney, he needs no reminder that the action of Parliament should always be in the best interest of the public that Parliament is supposed to represent in a representative democracy such as ours. In other words, the duties of Parliament to the public is paramount.

Owen S Crosbie

Mandeville, Manchester

oss@cwjamaica.com