EDITORIAL - The tragedy of the Hibbert case

They say never speak ill of the dead. We won't. But the death of Joseph Hibbert, the former government minister, is a reminder of the issue of corruption in Jamaica, and raises serious questions about the will, and perhaps the competence, of those charged with the prosecution and investigation of such matters.

First, no tribunal of fact or law, at least none in Jamaica, ever tried or proved the late Mr Hibbert guilty of corruption.

Mr Hibbert's name, however, figured prominently in the case against an English firm, Mabey & Johnson. They pleaded guilty in a British court to having, over several years, bribed Mr Hibbert, when he was a senior technical man in Jamaica's works ministry and in a position to influence the award of contracts.

As a result, Mabey & Johnson conceded that it won several contracts for the delivery of Bailey bridges to Jamaica. Mabey & Johnson similarly bribed officials in a number of African countries, the company confessed, to win contracts.

That case in the United Kingdom (UK) courts was concluded in 2009, not long after which Mr Hibbert was pressured into resigning his junior minister job.

In the meantime, Jamaica's Office of the Contractor General (OCG), having investigated the case, held that there was prima facie evidence on which to prosecute Mr Hibbert. That was four years ago.

Since then, we have been subjected to a myriad of reasons why the case has not progressed.

It is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that has the ultimate authority to pursue such cases. Initially, it argued that the information provided by the OCG was the basis for further investigation by the police.

Then there was the question of whether, months after it was said to have been done, the Office of the DPP had actually forwarded a request to Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which had investigated Mabey & Johnson, for pertinent information on the case. It was determined that it had not been done. That was more than two years after the claims against Mr Hibbert first arose.

The explanation, in so far as it was navigable, was about a prosecutor being dispatched to Britain in the first quarter of 2011 and the need, thereafter, to refine its request for help under Jamaica's Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with the UK.

SLOW POLICE RESPONSE

Then there was the further suggestion that the police were slow in follow-up investigation to provide the DPP with specific information for the redrafted request to the SFO.

By March 2012, we were being told that the British can be slow in responding to the requests of partners under MLAT - a claim to which the SFO was said to admit.

This is 15 months later and Mr Hibbert is dead. There was little clarity on the state of his case at the time of his death. It was not known if the SFO had as yet responded to the request for information, whether the police had completed their investigation, and if the DPP intended to prefer charges against him.

The process has been unfair to Mr Hibbert and the public. He will go to the grave with a cloud over his name, innocence or guilt unresolved. Taxpayers are left to wonder about the value of their investment in Jamaica's prosecutorial and anti-corruption agencies.

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.