Don't ask 'who'; ask 'why'

Once again, the lazy, linear, lame-brained local media seem determined to miss the national point.

And the Madantz commission is only too happy to accommodate this national refusal to focus on the fundamental issue. Were Bill Clinton a Jamaican, he might shout, "It's not the who, it's the why, stupid!"

Nobody cares who hired Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP). Maybe it was the JLP; maybe the Government. MPP certainly did help with government tasks. But the real issue; the bone stuck in every right-thinking Jamaican's throat; the fundamental reason for setting up a commission of enquiry; is WHY MPP was retained.

Was it retained, as Driva maintains, to remove a stonewall to the Government's discussions? Or, as Driva insists, to revive stalemated discussions? Or was it retained, as many Jamaicans fear, for the sole and express purpose of defending an accused drug- and gunrunner and preventing his extradition to the USA to face such charges? If this last is the correct answer, regardless of whether it was the JLP or the Government which did the engaging, it's a calculated betrayal of the national interest that shouldn't go unpunished.

Once again, so-called pundits like Ian 'Booklist' Boyne, in an anxiety to avoid the real issue, tie themselves into intellectual knots defending the indefensible. On Sunday, he accused us all of prejudging the matter:

"My suspicion, however, is that the public might be ... inclined ... to call the results of the game before it's over. I maintain that Golding deserves a fair, rational and impartial hearing, no matter how much abuse I will take for it. Why have so many called for an enquiry 'in the search for truth' ... when they have predetermined what that truth is? Is it really a search for truth Jamaicans are on - or a search for a gas chamber to mete out punishment?

"For many, it's as plain as day where the truth lies - and who is lying - ... . Talk to people randomly and tell me how many have not already made up their minds. How many are genuinely, sincerely weighing the evidence, carefully assessing the arguments being put forward to determine truth?"

Awaiting careful assessment?

Apparently, only Booklist is waiting on a careful assessment of the evidence before deciding what happened. Or is he? In almost the same breath (literarily speaking), he wrote:

"Let's take this matter of the engagement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. I maintain, contrary to most of the country, that there's nothing necessarily improper about a political party engaging a firm to open doors for them in diplomatic circles."

And, later on:

"It's clear from Golding's testimony that MPP was to open doors to get the US to ... listen to Jamaica and to tone down its arrogance and contemptuous disregard for the sovereignty of other nations."

Booklist has concluded (from the same testimony that names Liguanea as the uptown-downtown divide), before "carefully assessing the arguments", that MPP was engaged "to open doors for [the Government] in diplomatic circles." And, in his continued anxiety to establish pseudo-balance by restoring Driva's honour, he heaps praise on an incomplete Keith Knight cross-examination, the better to make over Driva's alleged mastery thereof. But the results appear worse than those of Mu'ammar Gaddafi's plastic surgeon. Booklist's conclusion itself usurps the whole point of the enquiry, which is: Was MPP engaged on Presi's behalf; to promote Presi's interests; and to ensure Presi's safety from big, bad USA? If the JLP hired MPP simply to open doors for the Government, nothing would be wrong with that. But, if that facile Booklist Boyne conclusion was factual, why was there the need for such an elaborate cover-up?

In so far as the fundamental issue is concerned, there can be no more important evidence in the "search for truth" than the identity of the so-called 'contributor' of the retainer fee from whom the source of those funds can be enquired. Driva admitted he knows this vital link in the "search for truth". He refuses to tell. For refusing to testify, Harold Brady is currently facing criminal charges before a resident magistrate. For the exact same refusal, Driva is protected by his hand-picked commissioners, and Keith Knight is prevented from pursuing that issue.

It's well known Presi controlled several corporations in the construction and entertainment industries. His companies were awarded several government contracts and subcontracts. The 'contributor' is said to be connected to a large corporation. Is there any link between that corporation and Presi's corporations, contracts or subcontracts? It seems the Madantz commission doesn't want us to know.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.