Tweet
EDITORIAL - The spectre of Trafigura
published: Thursday | March 13, 2008
Dutch police investigators are, or were, here for a second time this past week, hoping, apparently, to find evidence that officials of the People's National Party (PNP) were bribed by Trafigura Beheer, the Netherlands firm that used to trade Nigerian crude on behalf of Jamaica.
They interviewed no less a personage than former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, the PNP's chairman Robert Pickersgill, its former general secretary Colin Campbell, and other officials, including party operative, Norton Hinds. The Dutch police, this newspaper reported, were unhappy with the answers they received, although the basis of their discontent is not clear.
But whatever the attitude of the Dutch police, this is a matter in which Jamaicans should have more than a passing, or partisan, interest. For, as we have argued in these columns before, the Trafigura affair is not a matter only about whether the firm channelled money to the PNP as a legitimate political contribution, or whether they expected specific benefit from the deal, or whether some PNP officials had beneficial gains from the transaction.
It goes to a fundamental issue of governance and the quality assurance that Jamaica needs to put in place to ensure that it gets the best. In other words, this is not specifically a PNP issue, but one that concerns all parties - and about bringing transparency to the financing of political organisations.
The Trafigura issue blew up late in 2006 when Prime Minister Golding, then the opposition leader, revealed that the Dutch firm had transferred the equivalent of J$31 million to a bank account under the control of Mr Campbell and an address of a business owned by Mr Hinds. Cheques Mr Campbell drew on the account were publicised.
Mr Campbell said that it was a political contribution to the PNP that was passed through his old campaign account - the way, apparently, political contributions are handled to maintain donor anonymity. Trafigura initially appeared to endorse that position, but then said the money was payment to a consultancy firm for services rendered.
The PNP managed that affair clumsily and messily. In the process, Mr Campbell was forced to resign his party post, and the party image took a further hit as a corrupt organisation.
The suggestion of kickbacks aside, the manner of Trafigura's contribution to the PNP - assuming that was what it was - is not unique, except for the fact that Trafigura is a foreign company. In the past election alone, companies and individuals contributed many millions of dollars to political parties and candidates, with neither donors nor recipients having to account for the gifts.
In the absence of such information, the public has no way of determining whether policy decisions may have been influenced by political financiers. And without the need to disclose finance contributions, we may suspect, but cannot know if criminals are attempting to buy their way to control of the State.
It is urgent that there is legislation on the limits to and transparency in political contributions, and perhaps public financing of parties. It is unfortunate that the election authorities and the Parliament have been slow in even getting the debate started. The discussion should begin soon. 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: Thursday | March 13, 2008
Dutch police investigators are, or were, here for a second time this past week, hoping, apparently, to find evidence that officials of the People's National Party (PNP) were bribed by Trafigura Beheer, the Netherlands firm that used to trade Nigerian crude on behalf of Jamaica.
They interviewed no less a personage than former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, the PNP's chairman Robert Pickersgill, its former general secretary Colin Campbell, and other officials, including party operative, Norton Hinds. The Dutch police, this newspaper reported, were unhappy with the answers they received, although the basis of their discontent is not clear.
But whatever the attitude of the Dutch police, this is a matter in which Jamaicans should have more than a passing, or partisan, interest. For, as we have argued in these columns before, the Trafigura affair is not a matter only about whether the firm channelled money to the PNP as a legitimate political contribution, or whether they expected specific benefit from the deal, or whether some PNP officials had beneficial gains from the transaction.
It goes to a fundamental issue of governance and the quality assurance that Jamaica needs to put in place to ensure that it gets the best. In other words, this is not specifically a PNP issue, but one that concerns all parties - and about bringing transparency to the financing of political organisations.
The Trafigura issue blew up late in 2006 when Prime Minister Golding, then the opposition leader, revealed that the Dutch firm had transferred the equivalent of J$31 million to a bank account under the control of Mr Campbell and an address of a business owned by Mr Hinds. Cheques Mr Campbell drew on the account were publicised.
Mr Campbell said that it was a political contribution to the PNP that was passed through his old campaign account - the way, apparently, political contributions are handled to maintain donor anonymity. Trafigura initially appeared to endorse that position, but then said the money was payment to a consultancy firm for services rendered.
The PNP managed that affair clumsily and messily. In the process, Mr Campbell was forced to resign his party post, and the party image took a further hit as a corrupt organisation.
The suggestion of kickbacks aside, the manner of Trafigura's contribution to the PNP - assuming that was what it was - is not unique, except for the fact that Trafigura is a foreign company. In the past election alone, companies and individuals contributed many millions of dollars to political parties and candidates, with neither donors nor recipients having to account for the gifts.
In the absence of such information, the public has no way of determining whether policy decisions may have been influenced by political financiers. And without the need to disclose finance contributions, we may suspect, but cannot know if criminals are attempting to buy their way to control of the State.
It is urgent that there is legislation on the limits to and transparency in political contributions, and perhaps public financing of parties. It is unfortunate that the election authorities and the Parliament have been slow in even getting the debate started. The discussion should begin soon. 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.
Comment