While our editorial yesterday stood firm on the position that in her role as minister, Mary King acted improperly in not declaring her interest and recusing herself from the entire bidding process, the matter is far from being closed. As stated by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, information on the process adopted by King in the award of the Web site contract was passed to the Prime Minister on November 25, 2010. Subsequent to his release on the investigation, the AG told reporters Tuesday that the information supplied by then Minister King was passed to him in December. He said he reviewed the documents and found the minister had acted appropriately in putting distance between herself and the award of the contract.
However, he said over the Easter period he had cause to revisit the file sent by Mrs King, but again did not find anything to warrant concern. Here, therefore, was an experienced attorney who frequently sounds his trumpet on his capability having two shots at examining the documents but found nothing questionable. Is it that he was not supplied with all of the documents? If that be the case, did he not find the documentation incomplete? And why did he not seek out further information? How come a reporter without legal training but with an inquiring mind could have found in the documents sufficiently questionable practices to publish a story out of what was in her possession? Too many questions!
But not only does the AG have questions to answer, so too does Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
When the matter was first raised in the newspapers, Mary King said she had given the information to the Prime Minister and her boss was satisfied with her conduct in the matter. When that was raised with the Prime Minister by reporters, she said she knew nothing of it, but within hours she doubled back and in a press release condemned the action of her minister. In her most recent comment on the matter, the Prime Minister said she was not aware of the details of what was involved. It is clearly unacceptable for the head of government to plead ignorance in such a sensitive issue. Here is Minister King bringing to the attention of the Prime Minister that her (King's) actions could raise questions for the Government, and she (the Prime Minister) thinking the matter serious enough to refer it to her Attorney General and then months later saying she was not aware of the details.
The buck on this issue stops with the head of Government. But there are even more questions which need to be probed and answers given to the public. Why was information on the contract leaked to the journalist and by whom and with what intention? The cynics would want to know if the leak took place to allow the Government the opportunity to re-enter the award of the contract as if it were hearing of it for the first time. Or perhaps it was leaked by someone who saw Government doing nothing on this very visible breach of ethical practice and so wanted the nation to know.
There must also be questions about the seeming eagerness of Minister Anil Roberts to slam his ministerial colleague, and this at the moment that his Prime Minister had asked the Attorney General to investigate the matter. Was he not pre-empting the investigations and setting Mary King up for the kill?
The PP campaigned on the basis of integrity and transparency in public office and therefore those principles need now to be exemplified in the operations of the Government. Nothing short of the whole truth is needed.