It is very easy in this fair land of ours to get caught up with the hubris, hype and detritus of matters while losing sight and focus of the core issues. We are a nation driven by rumour, humour, suspicion and supposition and we often prefer the spicy, salacious, juicy gossip and stories, as compared to the cold, hard sterile truth, which may be much more boring and unpalatable in its presentation. It thus becomes more important for us from time to time, to engage in a clinical analysis, examination and separation of the issues. The recent challenge by a company to the process by which it appeared that a State company deemed, or appeared to have deemed a rival company to have won a bid for an alleged $40 million contract, has spawned a myriad of side issues and ancillary matters which have now loomed larger than life on the national stage and threaten to overtake or consume the initial query which sparked them all.
Procurement rules, regulations
There arose out of the initial query, questions of who is friends with whom and who is a family friend and who is not and who stayed by whose home and how and why? Now all of these are ancillary matters and spin-offs from the core and central issues which were raised, which all relate to the procurement and tender process of a State owned company, and which then brought up the issue of proper procurement rules and regulations for State companies generally. This is the important issue at the heart of the entire matter and is not to be confused with the heated politicking which has taken place on both sides of the House of Parliament on the spin-off issues.
A need for checks and balances
No right minded citizen, nor any proper representative of the people sitting in the Parliament, would get up and say that we should not have proper rules, regulations and guidelines for monitoring, managing and securing our procurement processes at State companies, to make them free from the sphere of political, benevolent or corrupt influence. As we grow, mature and develop as a nation, these safety checks and balances are things which must of necessity, be shaped, fashioned, developed, implemented and enforced, as we try to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and develop fair, impartial, transparent and sustainable systems of governance and management of our nation's resources.
We must be able to disagree with respect
There has been, over the past few weeks much political hectoring and barbs being thrown back and forth by our politicians as they each try to score political points on this issue. Persons were referred to the Integrity Commission, the Commission Chairman then made public statements on the issue and then things spun in a whole new direction with persons then calling for his removal as Chairman of the Integrity Commission and the President being drawn into the fray. When the President declined to accede to calls for Dr St Cyr's removal, there were comments flying fast and furious over the internet, with persons then calling for the removal of the President himself!!! Can you believe that this is what we have reached to in this nation? Of course everyone is entitled to express their views and opinions but it can't be that every time a public official gives a view contrary to our expectations, that we must feel justified to then call for his removal. We must be able to separate the issues and separate the emotion from the facts and this here relates to those who were calling for the removal of the President, it has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of Dr St Cyr in his current post.
Elucidation not obfuscation
We need to grow up as a nation and to be able to objectively separate the heat from the light in matters and must be guided by elucidation and not obfuscation. In diligently and vigorously pursuing the matter with regards to NP's procurement and bid and tender process, it has been made clear that there is no interest in the political confetti which is raining all around the core issues of the procurement and tender process at NP as this will always remain the bigger issue for the nation. Thus when asked about the issue which arose concerning whether the Prime Minister's stay at the residence of a friend could be considered a "gift" it was quite possible to separate the issues and give a personal opinion was that it was not. This is a position which the Newsday carried publicly in a report more than a week ago and it was also supported by similar comments from Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal. We now see four other high profile silks sharing a similar view, as has been publicly announced by the Attorney General at the post Cabinet briefing this week. So it is quite possible to pursue the issue of regulating the issue of public procurement for State enterprises while giving an opinion favourable to the Prime Minister on an ancillary matter, because the two are separate and distinct issues.
A course of prudence
Of course with the Attorney General's very public and extensive brandishing of the four legal opinions and waving them in the face of the Integrity Commission in his typical belligerent style, it may make their job just that more difficult or uncomfortable, trying to divorce themselves from the force (or threat) of these very high profile legal opinions, when they sit down to deliberate on the matter. One does not presuppose to advise the Attorney General, but maybe as a course of prudence, the Attorney General could have simply said that he had gotten legal advice which fortifies his view in certain things, but that he would not publicise these high profile legal opinions in such a manner, so as to ensure that one does not influence or prejudice the deliberations of the Integrity Commission on the very issues. One assumes however, that notwithstanding this, the Integrity Commission will be able to proceed to discharge its duties with fairness, transparency and equity, and that as a nation we would be able to proceed from here, with a clear separation of the issues.