Don Crawford should have his say

Godfrey E. McAllister, Contributor

The 1996 financial meltdown in Jamaica affected thousands of lives that were directly or indirectly critically hurt by the collapse of the banking sector. At least from the perspective of public opinion, at the centre of this collapse was the then third-largest commercial bank, and the largest indigenous bank in Jamaica, Century National Bank (CNB).

At least two consumer groups publicly attached themselves to the concerns of the depositors in Century and much media play was given to the developments over an extended period of time. As a matter of fact, it may even be argued that the name Don Crawford became synonymous with the corporate scapegoat on which Minister Omar Davies placed the blame for the financial collapse. Understandably, the fact that Minister Davies had a year earlier described CNB as the ideal bank that he would have created if he were in a position to create a bank, intensified the venom that the minister and his operatives privately and publicly displayed towards the CNB head, Don Crawford.

But there was a lot more that attracted attention to the CNB saga. The prestigious firm of world-class auditors, Price Waterhouse, was contracted to do a thorough forensic audit of CNB after the minister expressed dissatisfaction with the local auditor, Aulous Madden and Associates. Not only did Mr Crawford accept the request of the minister, but he cooperated fully with the international auditors, gave them full access to all bank information, and, perhaps most importantly, underwrote the cost of the Government-requested audit.

Some will remember the recommendations of Price Waterhouse that featured the famous 'good bank, bad bank' scenario. The auditors presented a proposal that would see CNB returning to profitability within approximately 14 months. They recommended a broadening and/or strengthening of the board of directors and Don Crawford accepted their proposals. As a matter of fact, then deputy governor of the Bank of Jamaica (BOJ), Audrey Anderson, unreservedly commended Price Waterhouse for its analysis.

What may not have been public knowledge was that the Government insisted on ostensibly improving the recommendations of Price Waterhouse, by demanding that 50 per cent of the new board must be appointees of the minister of finance and/or his operatives. To this, Mr Crawford reluctantly agreed.

separation of powers

The minister then demanded that there be a separation of powers of the chairman into two offices, one of chairman of the board and one of chief executive officer. To this, Mr Crawford also agreed. At a fateful meeting held on/or around July 4, 1996, and including Senator Alfred Rattray, BOJ Deputy Governor Derick Latibeaudiere, senior officials from Price Waterhouse and the Ministry of Finance, Mr Crawford was unconditionally assured that all outstanding issues had been settled and that the minister had approved the resolution. Memos to this effect were circulated to a jubilant CNB staff on Monday July 8, while Mr Crawford left Jamaica on Jamaica Grande Hotel business.

It was the shock of the century when Minister Davies, aided by armed policemen, invaded and took possession of CNB on July 10.

Fourteen years later, the Golding administration appointed a commission of enquiry to investigate the 1996 financial meltdown in Jamaica. Is it conceivable that the commissioners are trying to ensure that Mr Crawford does not testify, and if so, why not? I am privy to numerous attempts that Mr Crawford, who lives impecuniously in involuntary exile in the USA, has made to be returned to Jamaica to have his voice heard by the commission. Mr Crawford, who has been repeatedly threatened, contacted the commissioner of police to ascertain that his security could be guaranteed while in Jamaica, and that there was no outstanding warrant or cause of arrest for him. The commissioner, through one of his senior officers, assured me that there were no outstanding warrants nor cause for his arrest.

With those assurances, Mr Crawford reiterated his desire to appear before the commission. The commission's response was that it does not have the financial resources to underwrite an estimated US$3,000 for Mr Crawford's visit to the country for the purpose of testifying. Mr Crawford was then instructed to source a video-conferencing facility out of Atlanta so as to avoid appearing in person before the commission. He submitted the quote and was told that it was too high and was told to search for a lower quote.

It is understandable that the commission and/or very powerful and influential persons in Jamaica may not wish Mr Crawford to testify, and especially in person.

But does the Government and the commission it has appointed owe it to the people of Jamaica to have Mr Crawford finally have his say in Jamaica? Given the insanely high cost of paying commissioners and commission staff and commission accommodation, is US$3,000 really too much to accommodate Mr Crawford?

Or is somebody worried that, after hearing him, there might be a higher price to pay?

Godfrey McAllister is a justice of the peace.