Dear Editor,

This letter was intended to be a response to an article published by D. Gisele Isaacs under the heading, “Ask what your country can do for you”. However, in light of the fact that much of what I intended to say has already been dealt with in Part 1, in response to Harold Lovell’s piece, and while I intend to respond to Isaacs, the main thrust here will deal with the frenzied call by the UPP and its supporters for an Independent Inquiry, into what they refer to as “vehicle gate”.

Gisele Isaacs’ piece, as a whole, is based on hearsay. She admits that her source was, as she admits, a “so called un-letter-headed report, which is unsigned, unvalidated and intended only to fool the public into believing that the matter is being impartially investigated and justice is being served.” She relies on the fake document to support her unwarranted and dishonest attack on Minister Maria Browne.

The undeniable facts as they pertain to Minister Browne is that upon assuming the office of Minister of Works, she observed certain irregularities with regards to the purchase of government vehicles and certain illicit duty-free concessions. As a result, she brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which resulted in a decision that only the Cabinet could approve any and all vehicles purchased for the government and approve waivers of duty on these transactions.

Recently and approximately 2 years after those decisions, the same Minister Browne observed a high-end, high-priced Ford Bronco and 2 other heavy-duty pieces of equipment parked in the yard at the Longford Police Station. She immediately reported her sightings to the Prime Minister which led to the actions currently being undertaken by the Executive and the Ministry of Finance.

In these circumstances it is beyond belief that the Chair of the UPP, Harold Lovell, the opposition leader and the party’s Facebook supporters, have sought to make the Minister, the villain of the piece, which make no sense. But common sense is so lacking in the UPP. This would mean that the same Minister who raised the alarm and drew attention to corruption and perhaps criminality, would be doing so to implicate herself. Make this, make sense.

No person of sane and sober mind could possibly come to that conclusion. Then there are those who assert that the buck stops with the Minister. To those I say – Ministers deal with policy; administration is dealt with by civil servants. The idea that the Minister would be signing these documents or would give a Junior Minister instructions to sign, is beyond farfetched.

**_The Call for an Independent Inquiry_**

There have been loud and vociferous calls for an Independent Inquiry but most persons have not indicated the type of Inquiry to which they refer. However, the Leader of the Opposition has clearly stated that his call is for “A Commission of Inquiry” and “the criminal charging, conviction and incarceration of those found to be guilty”.

First, there must be a formal request to the Governor General to establish the Inquiry. This must be done with the consent of the Executive. The government must determine whether a Commission of Inquiry is necessary or desirable, bearing in mind the tremendous expense involved. This consists but not limited to: the appointment of a highly qualified Commissioner and a highly qualified lawyer to advise the Commissioner, which is usually a very senior lawyer.

Then an administrative team of lawyers to prepare and issue Salmon letters (summons) to every person involved in the matter, in one way or the other. Each of those persons will then retain lawyers. Each person will be examined and cross examined. Once established the Commission will sit for about 2 weeks, then adjourn and reconvene in a few weeks and so on. And this could last for about 6 months. The cost will be several millions of dollars.

Then there is the question of Raison d’etre for the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry. Is it to seek evidence and facts on the matter at hand? At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Commissions publishes its findings. It cannot pursue offenders or make orders for restitution. It can only publish its findings and name and shame.

I note that those persons who are calling for an Inquiry are also demanding that those found culpable be charged, tried and convicted. UNFORTUNATELY, this is a legal impossibility. As once the offenders are brought before a Commission of Inquiry and evidence taken, they CANNOT then be brought before and tried in a Court of Law. It is either a Commission of Inquiry or the Court. Make up your collective minds.

In light of these facts, NOMAD’s advice is to ignore the strident calls for a Commission of Inquiry and continue with the wide-ranging Audit being undertaken by the Ministry of Finance and the policy of restitution which has been successful. This is nothing new. Between 2006 and 2009 This is how the same UPP government at the time dealt with the IHI matter.

P.S. For weeks Harold Lovell has been calling for an Independent Inquiry, NOMAD just happened to observe and note a political advertisement on Facebook by Lovell, now asking for an Independent Forensic Audit. Someone must have advised him that his call for an Independent Inquiry was inappropriate in the circumstances. Or maybe he is trying to upstage his Political Leader.