Tweet
The case of the missing money
published: Sunday | November 11, 2007
It is a matter of deep concern that the Financial Investigation Division of the Ministry of Finance should now be the subject of a criminal investigation.
For, as reported three days ago by Finance Minister Audley Shaw and Minister without Portfolio in the ministry, Don Wehby, millions of dollars being held by the division as evidence as part of a criminal investigation cannot now be accounted for.
Notwithstanding the investigations, we would have expected that on the very next day following the allegations being made, that senior officers from the ministry, or specifically the FID, would be able to give a clear explanation of the systems governing the custody of money and other evidence.
To date, the public has not been provided with any explanation of the day-to-day arrangements governing the FID and by extension, who specifically had custody of the keys to where the money was being kept. It simply boggles the mind to think that such a large sum of money was being kept in a place to which "several" people might have had access.
Essentially, the public is left to conclude that the arrangements were so loose that any number of persons had individual or sole access at different times. The arrangements would make it almost impossible to determine exactly when the funds started dwindling.
Was that an accidental arrangement, and did not any senior officer in the ministry question this policy?
In many of Jamaica's financial institutions, even the retrieval of cheques deposited in a bank requires the intervention of several persons working together. So, why did the ministry people feel comfortable with the system they had in place?
By implication, the allegations of the disappearance of the funds raises questions about the integrity of public servants and focuses the spotlight on the corruption plaguing the society.
Beyond the ministers of government making their statements, and former Finance Minister Dr. Omar Davies explaining that politicians had no access to the money, we have yet to hear from the civil administration of the ministry. If there is political mischief in the allegations being made, then the public servants have a duty to the rest of the society and to themselves to lay out the procedures and chain of command governing the custody of the evidence.
In the disappearance of the money lies the possibility of the disappearance of evidence that might be critical to the outcome of particular cases. Of course, it is not unusual for case files to disappear from police stations or to go up in smoke. And court documents have been known to vanish into thin air - but $17 million?
Good administration requires that not only should we be able to trust people, but that systems are in place to allow for the proper monitoring of institutions. The public needs more information than has been provided so far.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
published: Sunday | November 11, 2007
It is a matter of deep concern that the Financial Investigation Division of the Ministry of Finance should now be the subject of a criminal investigation.
For, as reported three days ago by Finance Minister Audley Shaw and Minister without Portfolio in the ministry, Don Wehby, millions of dollars being held by the division as evidence as part of a criminal investigation cannot now be accounted for.
Notwithstanding the investigations, we would have expected that on the very next day following the allegations being made, that senior officers from the ministry, or specifically the FID, would be able to give a clear explanation of the systems governing the custody of money and other evidence.
To date, the public has not been provided with any explanation of the day-to-day arrangements governing the FID and by extension, who specifically had custody of the keys to where the money was being kept. It simply boggles the mind to think that such a large sum of money was being kept in a place to which "several" people might have had access.
Essentially, the public is left to conclude that the arrangements were so loose that any number of persons had individual or sole access at different times. The arrangements would make it almost impossible to determine exactly when the funds started dwindling.
Was that an accidental arrangement, and did not any senior officer in the ministry question this policy?
In many of Jamaica's financial institutions, even the retrieval of cheques deposited in a bank requires the intervention of several persons working together. So, why did the ministry people feel comfortable with the system they had in place?
By implication, the allegations of the disappearance of the funds raises questions about the integrity of public servants and focuses the spotlight on the corruption plaguing the society.
Beyond the ministers of government making their statements, and former Finance Minister Dr. Omar Davies explaining that politicians had no access to the money, we have yet to hear from the civil administration of the ministry. If there is political mischief in the allegations being made, then the public servants have a duty to the rest of the society and to themselves to lay out the procedures and chain of command governing the custody of the evidence.
In the disappearance of the money lies the possibility of the disappearance of evidence that might be critical to the outcome of particular cases. Of course, it is not unusual for case files to disappear from police stations or to go up in smoke. And court documents have been known to vanish into thin air - but $17 million?
Good administration requires that not only should we be able to trust people, but that systems are in place to allow for the proper monitoring of institutions. The public needs more information than has been provided so far.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.