Christie reacts to editorial

The Editor, Sir

I write with reference to your editorial of June 19, titled 'The controversial CAP shares'. You have raised, among other things, a number of questions regarding a contractor general's jurisdiction over state asset-divestment issues.

The Contractor General Act provides that a government contract "includes any licence, permit or other concession or authority issued by a public body, or agreement entered into by a public body for the carrying out of building or other works or for the supply of any goods or services". (My emphasis).

By the use of the term "includes" in the statute, it is conclusively evident that a 'government contract' is not, as you have postulated, confined to licences, permits and con-cessions, and building, goods and services contracts. There is also absolutely nothing in the statute which implicitly or expressly excludes government asset divestment agreements from the ambit of the definition of a government contract.

Well founded

It is for the foregoing reasons that the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) has always been fortified in its view that its practised jurisdiction, over government asset-divestment transactions, over the better part of the past 25 years, is one which is properly and legally founded.

The OCG has never retreated from this view and, as you have correctly stated, the view is one which has been substantiated and supported by a formal legal opinion, dated January 25, 2000, which was written on the matter by eminent counsel, Dr the Hon Lloyd Barnett, OJ.

Regrettably, however, having constructed your own statutory definition of a government contract by deliberately excluding the word "includes" from your contrived definition of the term, you have then attempted to give credence to your remark that you "find it puzzling that shares could ever be classified as goods".

On the basis of this obviously flawed and misinformed premise, you have proceeded to call into question the integrity of the discharge of my functions by your injunction that "in order not to devalue the important work he has done and is doing, the contractor general must administer the law with certainty and consistency".

In adding insult to injury, you then go further to falsely state that "strangely enough, neither the Government nor the contractor general has said anything to enlighten the public on this controversial matter", obviously forgetting that when the very issue was first raised by you in your Friday, June 4 Financial Gleaner, within a matter of mere hours a media release was issued by the OCG to clarify its positions on the matter. (See OCG media release, dated June 4, 2010, titled 'Contractor general invites attorney general to reconsider positions on OCG's jurisdiction in light of legal opinion of Queen's Counsel". (http://www.ocg.gov.jm/website_files/media_releases_issued/media141.pdf).

False Charge

Interestingly, and despite the false charge that you have now made, The Gleaner did not see it fit at the time to print anything from the above-referenced release.

I am also obliged to place on record the fact that in a further media release, which was issued by the OCG on June 7, 2010, the issue was again clarified. Also, an earlier OCG release dated June 1, 2010 went to great lengths to give details of the OCG's recent work in respect of government asset-divestment matters. Both releases can be examined by you and others at http://www.ocg.gov.jm/ocg/media_releases_issued.php.

With respect to the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips issue, which has also been raised in your editorial, I have already lucidly articulated the OCG's positions on the matter in an official OCG statement which was made public on May 16. That statement, as you would no doubt recall, was written in response to your editorial of the same date. No further OCG comment on the issue is necessary.

I am etc.,

Greg Christie

Contractor General