Tweet
We need the full truth, Mr Golding
RAULSTON NEMBHARD
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The Manatt, Phelps and Phillips saga continues to hobble the JLP administration with the recent publication of e-mails by the Sunday Gleaner. According to high-ranking members of the administration, the e-mails do not reveal anything new or anything that has not been addressed by the prime minister in his recent apology over the issue. This might be so, but what they do reveal is a sequence of events that quite clearly demonstrate that important functionaries of the government were working closely with the law firm.
It is now quite clear that this was not just a party matter sanctioned by the president of the party himself. And if this was something sanctioned by the party and for the party, were important resources of government (especially human resources as in the offices of the solicitor general and the attorney-general) being used to do what would then be essentially party business? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, would not this be corruption to be addressed under the corruption act?
The administration finds itself in a quandary because it failed to tell the full truth in the first instance. The adage comes back to haunt it: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive." Because of its close proximity with the Dudus matter, the government would have received some flak if it had been revealed from the beginning that it was lobbying the US government on matters of extradition.
But it would have been in a more tenable position if it had engaged the law firm and come clean to the people of Jamaica that it was doing so, not only in the interest of Dudus, but to get more enlightenment on these matters and to clarify the extradition treaty arrangements with our big neighbour to the north. There would have been a howl of protest, especially from the Opposition party, but there would be nothing resembling the mess that the country now finds itself in by the government's apparent deception in the matter.
The government, through its spokesperson Mr Daryl Vaz, has admitted that the situation was badly handled, to put it mildly. But it is still being badly handled by the seeming reluctance of the government to come clean on the matter. As the prime minister goes around the country to explain the government's position, what new will he be telling people? Will he answer the question which he surely will be asked as to who paid the fees to Manatt? Will he continue the spin that this was purely a party matter, undertaken by the party and not a government undertaking with the law firm? The e-mails have revealed that this position will no longer hold, if it ever did, for those following this saga closely. If he continues to hold to this position, then he must be prepared to explain why important agents and agencies of the state were used to carry out party work, and whether they were paid from the public treasury during the period this work was carried out. The prime minister needs to go before the nation in the people's Parliament and explain everything and let the chips fall where they may. Enough damage has already been done; there is no more space for damage control as all options have been exhausted. We need nothing but the truth, the whole truth, so help me God.
Any explanation of the truth must encapsulate some of the concerns raised in the questions above. As I have written before, the truth is not always palatable to receive, believe in and digest. But there are basically two options that one has where the truth is concerned: to accept it or reject it. If you accept it, then you can do something worthwhile about the matter to which it speaks. If you reject it, your rejection does not remove the inevitable consequences (sometimes unintended) of its outcome. No one knows what may be the inevitable consequences of the JLP administration stating and accepting the full truth of its involvement in "Manattgate". What is obvious is that this is more than a mere mishandling of the matter. Fundamental issues of trust and good governance are at stake. If it is finally concluded that the government has lied to the people in the matter, then there would have been a very serious breach of trust between the government and the people who elected it. At that point it would become quite obvious what decent men and women should do because that government would have lost all moral authority to continue to have jurisdiction over the people's affairs.
I do not know what precisely Mr Brady's involvement is. From the e-mails it is obvious that he was deeply involved and that he was the JLP's point man in dealing with the matter between the government agents and those of Manatt. My impression is that he is being used as a pawn in the whole matter. The JLP seems set to throw him under the bus, even raising the spectre of possibly reporting him to the General Legal Council. We will see how this plays out, but on the face of it and in terms of what we have heard so far, the party seems set to do him an injustice.
In the meantime, it would behove the PNP to behave with more restraint in the difficulty facing the government. It has come as a boon to the JLP that "Trafiguragate" should have come back into prominence at this time. This reminds the people of Jamaica that the ghosts of Christmas past are still with us and that corruption and immorality, Mr Bunting, are not the preserves of any one party
RAULSTON NEMBHARD
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The Manatt, Phelps and Phillips saga continues to hobble the JLP administration with the recent publication of e-mails by the Sunday Gleaner. According to high-ranking members of the administration, the e-mails do not reveal anything new or anything that has not been addressed by the prime minister in his recent apology over the issue. This might be so, but what they do reveal is a sequence of events that quite clearly demonstrate that important functionaries of the government were working closely with the law firm.
It is now quite clear that this was not just a party matter sanctioned by the president of the party himself. And if this was something sanctioned by the party and for the party, were important resources of government (especially human resources as in the offices of the solicitor general and the attorney-general) being used to do what would then be essentially party business? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, would not this be corruption to be addressed under the corruption act?
The administration finds itself in a quandary because it failed to tell the full truth in the first instance. The adage comes back to haunt it: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive." Because of its close proximity with the Dudus matter, the government would have received some flak if it had been revealed from the beginning that it was lobbying the US government on matters of extradition.
But it would have been in a more tenable position if it had engaged the law firm and come clean to the people of Jamaica that it was doing so, not only in the interest of Dudus, but to get more enlightenment on these matters and to clarify the extradition treaty arrangements with our big neighbour to the north. There would have been a howl of protest, especially from the Opposition party, but there would be nothing resembling the mess that the country now finds itself in by the government's apparent deception in the matter.
The government, through its spokesperson Mr Daryl Vaz, has admitted that the situation was badly handled, to put it mildly. But it is still being badly handled by the seeming reluctance of the government to come clean on the matter. As the prime minister goes around the country to explain the government's position, what new will he be telling people? Will he answer the question which he surely will be asked as to who paid the fees to Manatt? Will he continue the spin that this was purely a party matter, undertaken by the party and not a government undertaking with the law firm? The e-mails have revealed that this position will no longer hold, if it ever did, for those following this saga closely. If he continues to hold to this position, then he must be prepared to explain why important agents and agencies of the state were used to carry out party work, and whether they were paid from the public treasury during the period this work was carried out. The prime minister needs to go before the nation in the people's Parliament and explain everything and let the chips fall where they may. Enough damage has already been done; there is no more space for damage control as all options have been exhausted. We need nothing but the truth, the whole truth, so help me God.
Any explanation of the truth must encapsulate some of the concerns raised in the questions above. As I have written before, the truth is not always palatable to receive, believe in and digest. But there are basically two options that one has where the truth is concerned: to accept it or reject it. If you accept it, then you can do something worthwhile about the matter to which it speaks. If you reject it, your rejection does not remove the inevitable consequences (sometimes unintended) of its outcome. No one knows what may be the inevitable consequences of the JLP administration stating and accepting the full truth of its involvement in "Manattgate". What is obvious is that this is more than a mere mishandling of the matter. Fundamental issues of trust and good governance are at stake. If it is finally concluded that the government has lied to the people in the matter, then there would have been a very serious breach of trust between the government and the people who elected it. At that point it would become quite obvious what decent men and women should do because that government would have lost all moral authority to continue to have jurisdiction over the people's affairs.
I do not know what precisely Mr Brady's involvement is. From the e-mails it is obvious that he was deeply involved and that he was the JLP's point man in dealing with the matter between the government agents and those of Manatt. My impression is that he is being used as a pawn in the whole matter. The JLP seems set to throw him under the bus, even raising the spectre of possibly reporting him to the General Legal Council. We will see how this plays out, but on the face of it and in terms of what we have heard so far, the party seems set to do him an injustice.
In the meantime, it would behove the PNP to behave with more restraint in the difficulty facing the government. It has come as a boon to the JLP that "Trafiguragate" should have come back into prominence at this time. This reminds the people of Jamaica that the ghosts of Christmas past are still with us and that corruption and immorality, Mr Bunting, are not the preserves of any one party
Comment