The Governor’s action in appointing this Commission of Enquiry was, in my view, an over-reaction. By doing this, he has placed himself where no Governor should ever be, at the centre of a political clash between opposing politicians.
The Governor’s comments on the Commission’s report is of even greater concern because he reinforces the inference from his appointment of the Commission that it is wrong to expose what one considers to be corruption and irregularities.
If there is something to regret it is that our Governor would send such a message to civil servants. I want to assure all civil servants, should they come across any irregularities or corruption in the course of their duties, they have the PPM Government’s full support in exposing it. It simply cannot be wrong to expose it and that has always been my position.
Having said that, the Governor’s comments were predictable since he must now justify spending $250,000 of our taxpayers money on this report. There were other much less expensive options for bringing closure to this matter.
I accept there needs to be proper protocols in place for document handling and to accommodate whistle-blowing but there were none at the time of my resignation. We have since fixed those voids with the passage of the Freedom of Information Law.
I had two options when Governor Dinwiddy chose to take no action following my complaints to him. I could have ignored it and done nothing or I could look at alternative options. I chose the latter and I do not regret that.
I should note this was at significant personal sacrifice since I put my ability to support my family at risk as I had not secured employment in a law firm at the time of my resignation and the fact that I subsequently declared my candidacy certainly was no guarantee I would be elected. But I did what I felt I had to do.
The fact is I would probably still be a civil servant today had Governor Dinwiddy taken action when I brought these matters to his attention in 2003/2004. Governor Dinwiddy, having taken no action on my concerns, would have taken a very dim view if I had then gone to agencies below him, such as the Auditor General’s office or the police.
The Commission has tried to defend Governor Dinwiddy’s inaction by criticising me, but Governor Dinwiddy was not prepared to subject himself to public examination and face the same level of scrutiny that I did. That is because his inaction is indefensible and it would have been embarrassing for him.
The Commission’s view that my motive was simply political because at the time of disclosure I was involved in an active political campaign appears to have completely disregarded the fact that Hurricane Ivan struck shortly after my resignation and the disruption which that caused. The Commission also appears to have disregarded the evidence where I reported these matters again to Governor Dinwiddy after the elections when I was then a Minister and he still took no action and did not even acknowledge the memorandum.
I maintain what I said in 2004/2005 and that is that I didn’t believe it was in the best interest of our country for the people to go to the polls in a general election in 2005 without knowing of the actions of the UDP and in particular its leader, Mr. Bush, and so I told our people from the public platform. I make no apologies for that. The majority, if not all, of my concerns have since been validated in a series of Auditor General’s reports on the UDP administration.
So the question is simple: would the Cayman Islands be better off today having gone into a general election in 2005 without knowing of the activities of the UDP? The answer to that question has to be an unqualified NO.
If I had really done something wrong, the Commissioner would have certainly recommended further action.
The Commission’s finding that I was in prima facie breach of the General Orders by presenting the documents to the press is, in my view, questionable because I was no longer a civil servant at that point and my position is that General Orders no longer had any application to me. But even if General Orders did apply to me at that time, this prima facie breach was clearly neutralised, as the Commissioner indicated, by the public right to have the information that was disclosed.
The Commission’s findings that I had no right at the time to take my personal files with copies of minutes of board meetings which I participated in as a director are also questionable. These were not Ministry files. The Ministry has its own official files. I could have just as easily kept these files at home as most Directors do and then there would have been no issue. It was not the practice for former Directors of government boards, whether they are civil servants or not, to be asked to return their personal copies of minutes. I have never been asked to do so up until today and I have still have mine. Governor Dinwiddy accepted this.
In conclusion I believe it is time now for the Governor to turn his attention to the more serious police investigations into the two UDP projects: the financing of the Boatswain’s Beach attraction and the affordable housing project.
Given the recent developments with the high command of the police service and the high profile nature of these investigations, I strongly recommend that an independent Scotland Yard team review and take over these investigations so we can have some conclusion to these matters as soon as possible.
Honourable Charles E. Clifford, JP – Minister of Tourism, Environment, Investment and Commerce
Related Videos
