THE Azan saga has now been before the nation for…wait for it…more than 19 days! Although it is unfortunate that we are again exposed to the creaks and groans of a system that has not delivered all that it could have for our country, it has again provided an opportunity for us to attack an aspect of our politics which is undesirable and unprogressive. I speak of the thinking that toughing it out for nine days is all you really need to do; that accountability is no more than an academic concept.

Among other things, I note (i) the silence of the prime minister and the PNP on the Milk River councillor’s public advice to “Richard”, (ii) the prime minister’s silent but certain 180-degree turnaround on governance since her inauguration speech, and (iii) the sophistry employed in the response of the Cabinet to calls for Minister Azan’s resignation.

Lying Low until it Blows Over

The statements made on national TV by the PNP councillor for the Milk River Division — not in defence of Mr Azan, but just exhorting him to “gwaan cool” as (they were) comrades who had been through the struggles and can’t be turned around — were really offensive. His advice, aired widely in the electronic media, if left untended by the prime minister, risks encouraging and embedding this political philosophy. This would be, I suggest, the exact opposite of the transformative leadership which Jamaica needs so badly.

With all the talk about the PNP’s 75th anniversary, and senior members’ concern about perception of politicians as corrupt; after the millions (over)spent on Jamaica 50 and all the speeches about doing things differently for the next 50 years, it is incredible to me that the prime minister has not sought to distance herself or her party from the statements, nor has the leadership of the PNP seen fit to do the same. What conclusions are we forced to draw?

Calling on a Higher Power

Is this where I join Minister Bunting in calling for divine intervention? Is it only the Good Lord’s help that can get us off this slippery slope of bad governance? Well, I’m not there yet, as there is more mankind can do. However, it would help, and it does appear that the prime minister is not minded to take on that task. For even if the prime minister or Minister Azan were to act now, their true colours have already been shown.

The Cabinet’s thinking has been exposed. The prime minister’s speeches on January 5, 2012 and on January 6, 2012, have been demonstrated as just talk. So much for the pledges regarding her Administration’s “zero-tolerance on corruption”, her unmitigated support for transparency and accountability, and the laudable and astute recognition that “corruption builds cynicism and undermines the trust between leadership and the people…” clearly no more than words written on paper and repeated.

Cabinet’s Collective Thinking

The reasoning set out in the drafting of the Cabinet statement was (my apologies for any perceived rudeness) absolute nonsense. In this regard I refer to the Cabinet’s view that Mr Azan shouldn’t be asked to resign from the ministry as “the issues are not directly related to the duties of Mr Richard Azan in his capacity as minister of state in the Ministry of Transport, Works and Housing”. *Sigh* By their reasoning, if he committed murder (of someone not employed to the ministry?) in plain sight of the minister of local government, who gave witness, he would still be cool.

I heard an even better one watching CVM TV’s Direct one Wednesday night. It was argued that because the issues surround Azan’s constituency, any penalty for his wrongs could only properly come from his electors in the constituency, therefore the prime minister cannot act. REALLY? I mean, SERIOUSLY? If this is the thinking of the current leadership of our country, then the Simpson Miller Administration’s moral compass needs recalibration.

I’ve also heard commentators in gentle disagreement with the Cabinet’s position reasoning that the admitted actions show at least an error of judgement and would accordingly affect the minister’s conduct of his duties as minister of state. I agree with that viewpoint, save that I also believe the situation is far worse than that!

Mr Azan publicly admitted to the unlawful act of authorising illegal construction on Government property. The minister of local government subsequently acknowledged this in the Parliament. It has also been admitted that the rental for the property was collected at Azan’s constituency office, depriving the Parish Council of its lawful revenue, and that it was paid over to the contractor who had been asked by Azan to build the shops, through Mr Azan’s constituency office. Wait — doesn’t Parliament pay thousands of dollars towards the maintenance of constituency offices and staff? Who paid the person in Mr Azan’s office? I really hope it wasn’t you and me!

In what universe does all of this allow a minister of Government to say that “we” don’t know enough to ask him to step down? Madam Prime Minister, I know you said that everyone understands, but I certainly don’t. Please help me.

To my mind, the findings of the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) are only likely to be worse than what we know. Enough has been admitted, enough stands unrefuted for action. Perhaps the OCG or the “team from the Ministry of Local Government” can find that more persons are implicated, more persons had knowledge, and, of course, additional details of relationships and timing between Azan, the contractor and the council… but it certainly baffles logic to say they will find less than what we already know, such that waiting for the results of the investigations would be appropriate.

Similarly, the fact that the Parish Council claims to have taken control of receipt books and retrieved the rental monies unlawfully collected doesn’t mean the problem has been solved. How so? If someone steals my goods and I am able to recover them, that’s good news, but does it mean that a crime wasn’t committed? The answer is NO.

Where are we now?

Despite the best efforts of the Cabinet to turn back the clock and change the public conversation, there are two fundamental points of which we should be reminded: (i) unlike all other cases before, this is not a matter of allegations publicly denied, the counsel that “we shouldn’t rush to judgement” seems out of touch with the admissions that have been made; and (ii) what kind of precedent does this create within the Executive? If a minister publicly admits to wrongdoing and the Cabinet is still willing to say they don’t think he has to resign unless they see more (and unless the wrongdoing was specifically within his assigned ministry, by the way), how will the prime minister ever ask for the resignation for any wrongdoing which hasn’t been publicly admitted?

Going forward, what will be the yardstick used to demand a resignation? Vendors will always need shops. People will always need houses. Needs, therefore, cannot be the issue. If the Cabinet doesn’t expect laws to be followed about “small” matters like government property and Parish Council approvals, we are in for a rough ride.

The Coalition

Even though I am a part of the JLP, my objection to these positions is not a partisan position. My outrage is not shared only by JLP supporters. I have spoken to several comrades who have said in no uncertain terms that they cannot believe the stance that their party has taken. They are embarrassed by it. Unsurprisingly, political independents and non-voters feel renewed vindication in their disenchantment with the system as it is.

In this context, I want to congratulate all Jamaicans who have continued to write letters and call in to programmes as well as the journalists, commentators and members of civil society who have rebelled against the concept that the matter will be eclipsed by time. I presume these are all people — who, like me — don’t plan to live in any other country. I am calling us the “Anti-Nine-Day-Talk Coalition”. Jamaica has asked for more before and got it! So why should we lose stride now?

We need to make it clear that it is not good enough for the prime minister and her Cabinet to take the stance they have. It is not good enough for them to hope that the budget debate or some other important issue will sweep this similarly important issue out of our minds.

As the Bunting debate reminded us, the Lord helps those who help themselves. So Lord, please help us get off this slippery slope of bad governance, and we promise to help by being vigilant, voting and holding government accountable.

One of the things which we should also promise, is to push harder for the tabling of the Impeachment Bill, a draft of which was settled by the former minister of justice in 2011, to institutionalise reform of our system. It seems Westminster values apply only when it suits, so maybe we need laws that tell us what to do when a member of parliament does something wrong.

I am a member of the Anti Nine-Day-Talk Coalition. Are you? Like trees that fall in the forest, we will only truly exist if we are heard.

— Kamina Johnson Smith is an attorney and Opposition senator