Ken Gor­don's name has come un­der much scruti­ny and at­tacks these days in the wake of his high­ly pub­li­cised meet­ing with Kei­th Row­ley. The Chair­man of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion has an of­fice that is al­ways re­spect­ed and en­shrined in the con­sti­tu­tion as a neu­tral arm of our coun­try.

When the meet­ing was first brought to the pub­lic do­main, I was shocked yet re­served in my opin­ion un­til we heard the ex­pla­na­tions giv­en by both par­ties. Till now, no such ex­pla­na­tions have been pro­duced in or­der to quell any fears that may have now arisen in the minds of peo­ple.Row­ley came to say that both men live very close to each oth­er and that he sim­ply re­quest­ed to meet with him ur­gent­ly (a re­quest which was warm­ly re­ceived by Gor­don).

Now any­one can tell that when they read Row­ley's ver­sion of this sto­ry, that the ex­change did not seem as though it was from one pro­fes­sion­al to the oth­er, but rather sim­i­lar to that of two fa­mil­iar ac­quain­tances or good friends.I won­der now that I think of it, if the same sort of in­ter­ac­tion could have ex­ist­ed be­tween Gor­don and any­one else who is be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, as Row­ley is in fact un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

Then I go on to won­der what the im­pli­ca­tions of such a meet­ing are and what would have hap­pened if the truth did not come out. The an­swers do not look good.

Mervin De Fre­itas

Mar­aval