EDITORIAL - Trafigura: Good the Central Authority found her pen

Correction

Today's Editorial incorrectly states that Attorney General and Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne is the central authority with respect to the Dutch law-enforcement authorities using the Mutual Legal Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act in their investigations against Trafigura. 
However, it is the director of public prosecutions who is designated as the central authority under the act.

We regret the error.

_____________________________

Happily, and unlike in the case of the Americans and the alleged crime boss, Mr. Christopher Coke, there is no claim of mishandling of intercepted communication.

So, the Central Authority, to wit, the attorney general and justice minister, Ms Dorothy Lightbourne, felt no constraint in authorising, on behalf of Dutch law enforcement, the taking of evidence on oath from key members of the Opposition People's National Party (PNP), including, apparently, its president, Mrs Portia Simpson.

The issue, it seems, relates to that 2006 scandal, when the PNP ran the government, Mrs Simpson Miller was the prime minister, and Trafigura Beheer, a Dutch commodity trading company that did business with Jamaica, ostensibly gave the PNP a cash gift of the equivalent of $31 million. The money was passed through an account operated by then PNP general secretary, Colin Campbell.

The assumption was Trafigura was greasing the path to new oil-lifting contracts with the Jamaican government, although it claimed that it was paying Mr Campbell for commercial services provided.

Illegal action

Mr Campbell lost his government and party jobs but won out-of-court compensation from the banks whose employees leaked information relevant to his accounts.

The PNP claimed it gave back the money but the Dutch, scenting graft or illegal payments, opened an investigation into Trafigura's action, but received no particular help from Mrs Simpson Miller and her team.

The authorities in The Hague, it appears, have now sought renewed and, seemingly, more structured help from their Jamaica counterparts under a mutual assistance agreement, utilising Jamaica's Mutual Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act. Such arrangements are good, providing a framework

within which to deal with transnational crime.

What has surprised and alarmed us in this matter is the approach of the Government in attempting to crassly squeeze propaganda value out of the proceedings even before the judicial mechanisms are in place and, apparently, even before the targets of the evidence-gathering have been advised that they are to be deposed.

Indeed, the announcement of the planned proceedings came neither from Central Authority Lightbourne, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, nor a clerk of the courts. Neither was there a leak in the press.

Political platform

Rather, the announcement was delivered from a political platform at the annual conference of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) by the finance minister, Mr Audley Shaw, who built a reputation in Opposition for revealing scandals.

Mr Shaw said that the court had given the go-ahead to question PNP officials, which we assume to mean with the Central Authority having given the green light, a judge of the Supreme Court or a resident magistrate is, in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, now empowered to take evidence on oath from the persons identified by the Dutch.

Like most Jamaicans, this newspaper felt a sense of disgust over the Trafigura matter. Indeed, it underlines the need for public disclosure of financial contributions to political parties and their candidates. But it would be wrong to claim Trafigura to be the equivalent of the Coke case, that egregious situation when the State seemed bent on preventing the extradition of an accused drug and gunrunner.

Hopefully, the PNP officials will come clean in this matter rather than hide behind the facade that was concocted for Mr Coke: that the information to be provided would not be admissible in a Jamaican court.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.