Thursday, February 22, 2018

Why blame Anil alone?

 Here we are again, part 162 of this People’s Partnership series. Whereas the world is satisfied Anil Roberts has tendered his resignation, I find this whole situation with LifeSport repulsive in the least. 

For any organisation to adjust a propo­sal from $6 million to over $100 million means there was a fundamental flaw either with the first submission or with the updated one. However, the updated mishmash was approved by Cabinet. The Cabinet consists of old men who were bankers, former government ministers, even a UWI (University of the West Indies) boss man. What a boo-boo he continues to be. 

What was Cabinet’s understanding of this new project? What did they expect the participants to achieve at the end of the programme? Were they convinced the country was getting value for money? Did they consider upgrading existing programmes, in lieu of starting new ones? In my view, all members of Cabinet should account for their acceptance of this project.

Next, the legal department. This appears to be an upgraded version of false papers. The new name can easily be

“past papers” when individuals only study past papers on a topic and then go sit the connected examination. What happens then is the individual has a sound legitimate certificate showing they have successfully completed the examination, but their work shows there is absolutely no understanding of the subject matter. Is it possible the long list of lame, legal luminaries called the Law Association would be making a statement on this matter before the year finishes?

Can you imagine the legal department of the Sport company prepares a contract that is totally ridiculous and then pays another legal department to confirm the self-same contract is useless? Then, to add more insult to stupidity, the Attorney General is going to get a legal opinion from another legal firm so Mr Daniell can return the monies he has received. 

Notwithstanding Mr Roberts’ responsibility under the Westminster system, everyone employed by that ministry had/has a right to exercise a duty of care because if Mr Roberts told them to jump of a cliff, what would be their reaction?

With the exception of possibly the maid and the cleaner, everyone else in the legal department should be interviewed/questioned/dismissed about their preparation, vetting and acceptance of this piece of rubbish. As a matter of fact, all contracts ever prepared and/or executed by this “lame” department should be reviewed or, at least, be sent to a real legal office. 

Finally, the Minister of Fi­nance cannot extricate himself with the

statement that Mr Daniell was introduced to him by Mr Roberts. What was his position on the project from inception? Did he accept that a 50 per cent payment at the start of the project was in order, even though this was unusual in any Government underta­king? Why was the full sum of $34 million for the two-year programme released for payment a couple months apart? I feel we should pay this minister $12,000 (present value of past bad finan­cial performance) and send him away twice. 

The question which arises now is why blame the ironman alone when the whole steelband lost Panorama? This is a no-no. A nil result.

F Jackman