Former General Manager of Petrojam Limited, Floyd Grindley and the company’s former Procurement Manager, Ronique Budram-Ford, have been referred to the Director of Corruption Prosecution at the Integrity Commission (IC) in relation to a litany of breaches at the refinery dating back to 2017.

These include the common law offence of misconduct in public office; breaches of the Government of Jamaica Handbook of Public Sector Procurement; breaches of the Contractor General Act-Public Sector Procurement Regulations 2008; and breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act.

The referral was made by the IC’s Director of Investigation (DI), Kevon Stephenson, and is contained in a damning 195-page report on the IC’s Special Investigation into allegations of acts of irregularity, impropriety, conflict of interest and corruption in the award of certain contracts by the state-owned oil refinery.

A copy of the draft report was tabled in the Parliament on Tuesday.

The investigation which started in January, 2018 at the time when Petrojam was embroiled in scandal, leading to the resignation of then Energy Minister, Dr Andrew Wheatley, was initiated by the then Office of the Contractor General.

Specifically, the probe looked at the questionable award of millions of dollars in contracts to several entities in clear breach of government’s procurement guidelines.

The entities included Construction Solutions Limited which was paid $97.7 million to construct a security fence at the Marcus Garvey Drive–based refinery but which the National Works Agency had estimated would cost $27.7 million; Asha Corporation which was paid $27.5 million between January 2017 and December 2018 for financial consulting services which Petrojam said could have been provided by its own staff; and Main Event Entertainment Group Limited which was paid a $13.9 million retainer.

They also include Shalk Electronic Security Limited which was paid nearly $4 million to provide security services for then chairman, Dr Perceval Bahado-Singh, and ASC Business Services, a company with which the sister of Mrs Budram-Ford and her sister’s child father were affiliated.

The commission’s director of investigation concluded that “a more than platonic relationship” existed between Grindley and Budram-Ford for the period 2017 to 2018, as evidenced by the contents of certain WhatsApp communiqué between the parties.

“The mere existence of such a relationship between the former general manager and the former procurement unit head is cause for concern, especially given the apparent irregular award of several contracts to ASC Business Services, the company with which Mrs. Ronique Budram-Ford‘s sister, Ms. Rishka Budram, is affiliated,” the report said.

“These contracts were awarded by Petrojam Limited on the apparent instructions of Mrs Ronique Budram-Ford …and the subsequent approval by Mr Floyd Grindley in his capacity as then general manager,” the report added.

It said the DI has reasonable grounds to conclude that the award of contracts to ASC Business Services by Petrojam Limited may have been as a direct result of the involvement of Budram-Ford in the procurement process.

The report also stated that the DI found no evidence which suggests that Budram-Ford recused herself from the procurement process involving the award of contracts to ASC Business Services. This, it said may have amounted to favouritism and is a contravention of Section 36 of the Contractor General Act-Public Sector Procurement Regulations, 2008, which was applicable at the time.

The report said further that Budram-Ford’s involvement in the award of contracts to ASC Business Services was “probative of a conflict of interest and may amount to the common law offence of misconduct in public office and a breach of public trust”.

“The DI is satisfied, for the purpose of Section 2 of the Integrity Commission Act that, if the facts as found were to be proved on admissible evidence to the requisite criminal standard, an appropriate tribunal would find that Mrs Ronique Budram-Ford had committed the offence of misconduct in public office. Accordingly, the DI is satisfied that the jurisdictional requirements of Sections 6 (1) (a) and 33 (1) (a) and (b) of the Integrity Commission Act are satisfied”.

The damning report stated that as a public servant in the execution of her public function, Budram-Ford seemingly advanced a private interest which resulted in a monetary benefit to her sister and/or her sister‘s child‘s father.

“In this respect, her actions may have contravened the principles of integrity and good governance. Consideration must be given as to whether Mrs. Budram-Ford, in this regard, breached Section 14 (1) (b) of the Corruption (Prevention) Act and whether she obtained an illicit benefit for her sister and/or her sister‘s child‘s father or herself, in her capacity as a public servant”.

In recommending that Grindley be referred to the Director of Corruption Prosecution, the report cited that he “may have acted negligently in the discharge of his fiduciary obligations and responsibilities as then general manager …by his apparent disregard of the former procurement unit head‘s advice and caution, concerning the aberrance from the procurement guidelines and his subsequent approval and insistence in the award of contracts to Main Event Entertainment Group Limited utilising the direct contracting procurement methodology”.

The report also listed the following reasons for making the recommendation:

-by his own admission, Grindley acted on the alleged improper instructions of then chairman, Bahado-Singh, to approve what appears to be the irregular award of contracts to Construction Solutions Limited, Main Event Entertainment Limited and Asha Corporation.

– The apparent more than platonic relationship between Grindley, and Budram-Ford, during the period in which several contracts were awarded in an apparent irregular manner to ASC Business Services. It said nepotism may have been involved.

Meanwhile, the director of investigation also recommended that the report be referred to the Director of Corruption Prosecution, pursuant to Section 48 (3) of the Integrity Commission Act, Section 11E of the Commission of Enquiry Act and Section 4 of the Perjury Act, in relation to whether Budram-Ford misled the DI in her representations concerning her affiliation with Grindley.

It recommended that Grindley be similarly referred, to determine whether he misled the DI in his representations concerning his affiliation with Budram-Ford.

It said the report should be referred to the Director of Corruption Prosecution pursuant to Section 54 (3) (b) of the Integrity Commission Act and Section 14 of the Corruption Prevention Act, in relation to whether Budram-Ford committed acts of corruption by her involvement in the award of contracts to ASC Business Services.

A copy of the report has also been referred to the Auditor General and the Financial Secretary for the consideration of a surcharge pursuant to Section 20 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act against Grindley, for the reimbursement to Petrojam of a total of $3,960,000 which was made payable to Shalk Electronic Security Limited for the provision of security services for the period 2017 to 2018.