Red herring? Let the public decide

Omar Davies, GUEST COLUMNIST

Shaw must come clean on FINSAC

I have learnt that at a press conference following his presentation in the Budget Debate, Mr Audley Shaw, opposition spokesman on finance, characterised as a "red herring" my insistence that he should make himself available to testify if the FINSAC enquiry were reopened.

I wish, through this medium, to raise certain issues so that the public can determine whether my demand is, in fact, a "red herring", or deserves to be pursued.

In terms of my own involvement with the enquiry, I was requested to, and readily agreed to, testify before the commission of enquiry when it was first established. I spent several days being questioned on a range of issues. I was questioned by the chairman, the other commissioners, by lawyers representing different individuals and groups, and also by two prominent members of the G2K, Messrs Delano Seiveright and Marlon Morgan, who had no direct interest in the matter.

Messrs Seiveright and Morgan, who were then both Government of Jamaica employees, were allowed by the chairman of the commission to question me on the grounds that the issue was one of "public interest".

As regards Mr Shaw, his involvement with FINSAC has two dimensions. In the first place, as minister of finance, FINSAC fell under the aegis of his ministry. One would have thought that he would have been concerned that for much of the period during which the commission held hearings, FINSAC had no legal representation. During that period of no representation, several individuals were allowed to make unsubstantiated allegations against the institution without being subject to cross-examination.

WHY NO REPRESENTATION?

As minister, Mr Shaw did nothing about this travesty. In fact, FINSAC was only allowed legal representation after the present prime minister, Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, and I brought the matter to the attention of then Prime Minister Bruce Golding. He indicated that he had been unaware of the situation and would immediately instruct the finance minister, Mr Shaw, to remedy it.

If the main objective of the commission of enquiry is to unearth the truth, Mr Shaw should be required to explain why FINSAC was left without representation for much of the period during which the commission sat.

Apart from his role as minister, Mr Shaw was involved with FINSAC as a bad debtor. He was indebted to Century National Bank, which had to be taken over by FINSAC because of insolvency. There are many assertions in the public domain concerning Mr Shaw's indebtedness to Century and it would be important if he were to detail how he was treated by the board and management of FINSAC in their attempt to resolve his indebtedness.

Mr Shaw has been on record condemning the "wicked, insensitive" actions of FINSAC, in dealing with clients. His appearance before the enquiry would allow him to clarify the level of his total indebtedness to FINSAC. There are suggestions in the public domain of an amount, including interest, of $90 million.

FESS UP ON SETTLEMENT

It would also be useful in the public interest if he would clarify whether he and his lawyers agreed to various settlements with FINSAC, and whether he failed to provide the funds to which he had agreed. Finally, Mr Shaw, as one of the thousands of debtors whose indebtedness was resolved, may wish to indicate the final settlement agreed to with the Jamaica Redevelopment Foundation, which bought his debt from FINSAC.

My simple point is that I was summoned and presented myself for exhaustive questioning at the commission. I did so readily, as I had nothing to hide. Mr Shaw, who has personally led the onslaught against FINSAC, has an obligation to explain his decision, as minister, to leave the institution without legal representation for an extended period.

In addition, the public deserves full knowledge of any concessions made in settling his personal indebtedness. This latter piece of information is of importance, as Mr Shaw, as recently as in his latest Budget presentation, highlighted the significant increase in the national debt, resulting from the intervention in the financial sector through FINSAC.

The public has a right to know whether any concessions made in settling Mr Shaw's obligations have contributed to the growth in the national debt, as taxpayers would have had to finance the difference between his original indebtedness and his final settlement.

Dr Omar Davies is the minister of transport, works and housing, and was minister of finance in the 1990s when FINSAC was formed. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.