Tweet
IOP ball back in Omar's court
Claude Robinson
Sunday, May 20, 2012
CONTRACTOR General Greg Christie last week deepened the controversy over Government's appointment of an Independent Oversight Panel (IOP) to oversee three major investment contracts when he placed what appeared to be onerous demands on the panel.
In language and tone characteristic of his uncompromising approach to his job, the contractor general demanded that the panel keep him fully informed of what they are doing.
DAVIES… said the Government will not accept impotence as an option CHRISTIE… wants the IOP to tell him how it will discharge its assigned functions
DAVIES… said the Government will not accept impotence as an option CHRISTIE… wants the IOP to tell him how it will discharge its assigned functions
Among other things, Mr Christie required the IOP to "routinely submit to the OCG, formal written reports outlining the material particulars of all of its deliberations and communications"; and regularly furnish him, in arrears, with copies of all of the reports which it will submit to the Ministry of Transport, Works and Housing and the Cabinet.
The IOP must also tell him how "it will discharge its assigned functions..., how and in what manner it proposes to liaise with, and secure the required approvals of the ministry's permanent secretary who, by law and by virtue of the provisions of the Financial Administration and Audit (FAA) Act, is the accounting officer for all Government contract awards and expenditures which fall within the purview of the Ministry of Transport, Works and Housing."
My reading of this latest salvo is that Mr Christie is bracing for a legal challenge to the panel; and it also raises question about whether the three eminent gentlemen named will be able to function effectively in the way the minister intended. What, realistically, can the panel accomplish amid the present circumstances?
Dr Omar Davies, the minister of transport, works and housing, announced the IOP in Parliament on April 24 in the midst of a row with the OCG about the award of contracts and other issues relating to the three projects which are vital to Government's job creation and economic growth prospects in the context of a very tight Budget.
The minister named an impeccable team of unquestioned credentials: UWI principal Professor Gordon Shirley; business mogul and former government minister R Danny Williams; and Everton McDonald, retired senior partner of the auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. They don't come any better.
He said the panel would oversee contract negotiations, award and/or implementation processes associated with the three projects — the North-South Link of Highway 2000, the Gordon Cay Container Transshipment Hub, and the Fort Augusta Container Terminal.
"....The contractor general has his role to play, and there is no attempt to block him in doing that, but this is not simply about investigations and probing; it is a question of economic development," Dr Davies said.
According to the minister, the team would "strengthen the existing monitoring framework" of three infrastructure projects. The Administration would "not accept impotence as an option" and would not allow the OCG to be a stumbling block in the way of progress.
As I commented in a previous column on the issue, there can be no question that the Government is mandated to run the affairs of state or that the minister can name a panel of experts to help him in that task.
The contractor general interpreted the naming of the panel as an effort by the Portia Simpson Miller Administration to "deliberately circumvent" the contract monitoring authority of the OCG and "legitimise its circumvention" by picking a panel of persons of unquestioned reputation and integrity.
Fact is that Parliament has given the contractor general extraordinary powers over the award of contracts and procurement of goods and services as part of mechanisms to prevent corruption and ensure accountability. This came against a background of Jamaica's unenviable reputation of being among the most corrupt countries in the world.
Hence the issue is not Cabinet's authority to name advisers to help in handling complex investment projects and going through the nuts and bolts of contracts to ensure that taxpayers are protected and that the people of Jamaica get the best possible deal.
Rather, the issue is that the naming of a high-powered panel does not remove the oversight authority of the OCG, as Mr Christie reminded us last week. He is still The Lone Ranger. The related issue is that the country deserves and expects both development and accountability; it is not one or the other.
Mr Christie has contributed tremendously to increasing openness and accountability in the procurement process. His interpretation of his role and responsibility has often put him at odds with many politicians and other public officials, including the director of public prosecutions.
Whatever one may think about Greg Christie, there should be no disagreement that the country needs a resolution to the present impasse as well as revised arrangements for an effective anti-corruption mechanism as an integral part of our governance structure.
With respect to the future of the IOP, the ball is now in the hands of the minister. My understanding is that the Government is going ahead with the projects and their importance will become clearer when the minister of finance, Dr Peter Phillips, presents the Budget on Thursday. The country needs to be assured that the projects make economic sense; taxpayers are protected; and there will be no costly delays over turf battles.
Beyond the specific projects, there has to be informed public debate about our anti-corruption institutions, especially in light of the recent announcement of pending changes in corruption prevention mechanisms.
In the Throne Speech delivered at the ceremonial opening of Parliament last week Thursday, Governor General Sir Patrick Allen said the Government proposed "to rationalise Jamaica's institutional arrangements for fighting corruption by consolidating them under a single anti-corruption agency having strong powers. There will be explicit provisions to prevent abuse of authority."
This is a welcome announcement that should be followed up with details and then legislation. A single agency that consolidates the functions of the Integrity Commission, the Corruption Prevention Commission and the OCG would avoid duplication, reduce costs and could be more effective.
A major issue for resolution is whether the new agency should be empowered to criminally investigate and to independently prosecute all corruption and related criminal offences as the contractor general has suggested several times.
The potential for conflict with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, another vital institution enshrined in the Constitution, is obvious. I support the single anti-corruption agency and it must have real powers. It must not be neutered either in an attempt to claw back some of the powers of the OCG because of so-called 'over-reach' by Mr Christie, or by inability to find ways for the new agency and the DPP to coexist.
Civil society and the media should follow the developments closely, and the quarrels between successive JLP and PNP administrations and the current incumbent, as well as between the OCG and the DPP, should not obscure the fact that Jamaica needs more, not less, anti-corruption efforts, especially at this time. A strong dose of common sense is sorely needed.
kcr@cwjamaica.com
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...court_11494809
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1vQjLM5M7
Claude Robinson
Sunday, May 20, 2012
CONTRACTOR General Greg Christie last week deepened the controversy over Government's appointment of an Independent Oversight Panel (IOP) to oversee three major investment contracts when he placed what appeared to be onerous demands on the panel.
In language and tone characteristic of his uncompromising approach to his job, the contractor general demanded that the panel keep him fully informed of what they are doing.
DAVIES… said the Government will not accept impotence as an option CHRISTIE… wants the IOP to tell him how it will discharge its assigned functions
DAVIES… said the Government will not accept impotence as an option CHRISTIE… wants the IOP to tell him how it will discharge its assigned functions
Among other things, Mr Christie required the IOP to "routinely submit to the OCG, formal written reports outlining the material particulars of all of its deliberations and communications"; and regularly furnish him, in arrears, with copies of all of the reports which it will submit to the Ministry of Transport, Works and Housing and the Cabinet.
The IOP must also tell him how "it will discharge its assigned functions..., how and in what manner it proposes to liaise with, and secure the required approvals of the ministry's permanent secretary who, by law and by virtue of the provisions of the Financial Administration and Audit (FAA) Act, is the accounting officer for all Government contract awards and expenditures which fall within the purview of the Ministry of Transport, Works and Housing."
My reading of this latest salvo is that Mr Christie is bracing for a legal challenge to the panel; and it also raises question about whether the three eminent gentlemen named will be able to function effectively in the way the minister intended. What, realistically, can the panel accomplish amid the present circumstances?
Dr Omar Davies, the minister of transport, works and housing, announced the IOP in Parliament on April 24 in the midst of a row with the OCG about the award of contracts and other issues relating to the three projects which are vital to Government's job creation and economic growth prospects in the context of a very tight Budget.
The minister named an impeccable team of unquestioned credentials: UWI principal Professor Gordon Shirley; business mogul and former government minister R Danny Williams; and Everton McDonald, retired senior partner of the auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. They don't come any better.
He said the panel would oversee contract negotiations, award and/or implementation processes associated with the three projects — the North-South Link of Highway 2000, the Gordon Cay Container Transshipment Hub, and the Fort Augusta Container Terminal.
"....The contractor general has his role to play, and there is no attempt to block him in doing that, but this is not simply about investigations and probing; it is a question of economic development," Dr Davies said.
According to the minister, the team would "strengthen the existing monitoring framework" of three infrastructure projects. The Administration would "not accept impotence as an option" and would not allow the OCG to be a stumbling block in the way of progress.
As I commented in a previous column on the issue, there can be no question that the Government is mandated to run the affairs of state or that the minister can name a panel of experts to help him in that task.
The contractor general interpreted the naming of the panel as an effort by the Portia Simpson Miller Administration to "deliberately circumvent" the contract monitoring authority of the OCG and "legitimise its circumvention" by picking a panel of persons of unquestioned reputation and integrity.
Fact is that Parliament has given the contractor general extraordinary powers over the award of contracts and procurement of goods and services as part of mechanisms to prevent corruption and ensure accountability. This came against a background of Jamaica's unenviable reputation of being among the most corrupt countries in the world.
Hence the issue is not Cabinet's authority to name advisers to help in handling complex investment projects and going through the nuts and bolts of contracts to ensure that taxpayers are protected and that the people of Jamaica get the best possible deal.
Rather, the issue is that the naming of a high-powered panel does not remove the oversight authority of the OCG, as Mr Christie reminded us last week. He is still The Lone Ranger. The related issue is that the country deserves and expects both development and accountability; it is not one or the other.
Mr Christie has contributed tremendously to increasing openness and accountability in the procurement process. His interpretation of his role and responsibility has often put him at odds with many politicians and other public officials, including the director of public prosecutions.
Whatever one may think about Greg Christie, there should be no disagreement that the country needs a resolution to the present impasse as well as revised arrangements for an effective anti-corruption mechanism as an integral part of our governance structure.
With respect to the future of the IOP, the ball is now in the hands of the minister. My understanding is that the Government is going ahead with the projects and their importance will become clearer when the minister of finance, Dr Peter Phillips, presents the Budget on Thursday. The country needs to be assured that the projects make economic sense; taxpayers are protected; and there will be no costly delays over turf battles.
Beyond the specific projects, there has to be informed public debate about our anti-corruption institutions, especially in light of the recent announcement of pending changes in corruption prevention mechanisms.
In the Throne Speech delivered at the ceremonial opening of Parliament last week Thursday, Governor General Sir Patrick Allen said the Government proposed "to rationalise Jamaica's institutional arrangements for fighting corruption by consolidating them under a single anti-corruption agency having strong powers. There will be explicit provisions to prevent abuse of authority."
This is a welcome announcement that should be followed up with details and then legislation. A single agency that consolidates the functions of the Integrity Commission, the Corruption Prevention Commission and the OCG would avoid duplication, reduce costs and could be more effective.
A major issue for resolution is whether the new agency should be empowered to criminally investigate and to independently prosecute all corruption and related criminal offences as the contractor general has suggested several times.
The potential for conflict with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, another vital institution enshrined in the Constitution, is obvious. I support the single anti-corruption agency and it must have real powers. It must not be neutered either in an attempt to claw back some of the powers of the OCG because of so-called 'over-reach' by Mr Christie, or by inability to find ways for the new agency and the DPP to coexist.
Civil society and the media should follow the developments closely, and the quarrels between successive JLP and PNP administrations and the current incumbent, as well as between the OCG and the DPP, should not obscure the fact that Jamaica needs more, not less, anti-corruption efforts, especially at this time. A strong dose of common sense is sorely needed.
kcr@cwjamaica.com
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...court_11494809
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1vQjLM5M7