OCG's bitter attack on DPP unwarranted

The following statement was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in response to a statement to Parliament by the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) regarding Aubyn Hill's contracts.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries views with extreme alarm the OCG's statement of October 5, 2010 regarding the recent director of public prosecutions' (DPP) ruling on his recommendations for criminal prosecution in respect to his investigation into two contracts awarded to Mr Aubyn Hill.

Good governance and a time-honoured convention require respect for the rulings of the DPP, consistent with the constitutional authority of the DPP, which makes her answerable to nobody. It is, therefore, highly unprecedented and indeed unwarranted, in our view, for any public office to attempt to resurrect a case, after the learned director of public prosecutions has rendered a ruling on the said case.

disrepute

In our view, this is tantamount to an attack on the DPP and brings into disrepute the highly respected office of the contractor general. By rehashing the case, the OCG has again raised in the public's mind that the affected parties are still guilty, despite being exonerated by the DPP. The minister and the permanent secretary are, therefore, once again being subjected to further erosion of their reputation in the court of public opinion.

The ministry would like, once again, to clearly and unequivocally reaffirm the innocence of the minister and the permanent secretary, with respect to any intent to deceive the OCG. Characterising Mr Hill's contracts as 'employment contracts' in its first response to the OCG, and simultaneously furnishing a copy of said contracts, destroy any argument of intent to deceive. The ministry therefore reaffirms the correctness of the

ruling of the DPP in this regard.

In relation to the distinction between 'employment contracts' and 'consultancy contracts', the ministry will, in short order, address this matter in a more fulsome way.

The OCG's assertion that in other jurisdictions the officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries involved in this matter "could have easily found themselves in prison for their actions" smacks of bitterness associated with someone who did not get his way. Additionally, this assertion is unfair to the officers involved, as the spectre of guilt is again raised over their heads, even after the constituted authority established to adjudicate on these matters, on consideration of all the evidence, exonerated these individuals.

a perfect ocg?

The ministry respectfully rejects the response of the OCG in relation to its recommendation to have affected parties responding to OCG's reports before recommendations are made for charges and the matter is in the public domain. This practice, in our view, does not in any way compromise the independence of that office. To argue otherwise would be to say that not only is the OCG investigator, prosecutor and jury, but indeed incapable of making mistakes in its investigations.

In this context, the ministry is again calling for a review of the Contractor General's Act to provide public officials an opportunity to respond to allegations and clear up matters before criminal charges are contemplated.

In closing, the ministry wishes to reiterate that we share the zeal and passion of the OCG to deal with corruption in the public procurement process. However, in the pursuit to deal with corruption, innocent public servants who might make genuine mistakes must not be criminalised.