Phyllis Thomas, News Editor
WITHIN THE 10-day period of May 23 to June 2, more than 44 Jamaicans have been murdered. The continued increase of crude oil price on the world market is pushing up prices in the country and threatening to derail a number of promising developmental projects being undertaken. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and the trade unions has been made unstable, despite claims by the Government to the contrary.
But while national attention is focused on those fundamental issues which have the capacity to consume us, the Jamaica Labour Party's internecine vote-buying scandal, which everyone thought had been laid to rest, has been revived.
News surfaced in the week that the Political Ombudsman has been asked to investigate the reports of widescale bribery, allegations which were made last year November after James Robertson thrashed 'Basby' Grange to become one of the Deputy Leaders of the party. Dr. Dennis Minott who is the JLP's caretaker for Eastern Portland said that he had conducted his own investigations which confirmed Ms. Grange's claim.
OMBUDSMAN
But he took the matter to the Ombudsman after his party's secretariat, whom he had written to first, took five weeks to respond to him. That was reported by The Gleaner Thursday and on Friday came a report about how Dr. Minott came under fire for his 'unprecedented' action which has brought the party's internal business into public domain. Other reports had party members charging that the party has been brought into disrepute.
Here comes more dirty linen! Even though the clothes line is tearing down from the weight.
Apart from that though, there are several things about Dr. Minott's action that are puzzling. Dr. Minott told the Breakfast Club on Friday that the Ombudsman had been investigating the matter for at least four months. The election of Deputy Leaders was held in November but the Ombudsman had investigating for at least four months, that is, at least one month after the election and the allegations of bribery.
Dr. Minott seems to have been in a mighty rush to take the matter to the Ombudsman. Also, the time it was taken there would make it around the same time that the police were investigating the allegation that tainted money was used to buy votes. He clearly did not wait for the results of those investigations.
What's up Dr. Minott?
EVIDENCE
What is the difference between what the police was investigating and what the Political Ombuds-man has been asked to investigate? Was the evidence that Dr. Minott garnered from his own investigations turned over to the police at the time when they were investigating? If not, why not? If he did, why was the case dropped by the police?
There could be several interpretations to his action of taking it to the Ombudsman:
It could be that it is self-serving and he sees going to the Ombudsman and the accompanying publicity as platform from which to further his political ambitions.
He really takes exception to, and feels strongly about, what he perceives to be impropriety and misconduct or he has evidence of such behaviour among his colleagues during that election, that he feels warrant investigations and sanction.
(b) He is a visionary seeking to clean up the political process beginning with his own party. For, there have been allegations in the past that both the JLP and the People's National Party (PNP) have accepted dirty money. Way back in December 1986, The Gleaner reported Edward Seaga, the then Prime Minister, as accusing the PNP of having links to 'ganja barons'. Mr. Seaga said then, "If we are not careful we are going to wake up one day and find that Jamaica has become another drug republic."
But P.J. Patterson, who was then chairman of the PNP, countered by going for a 'US Government report' which 'stated categorically that high placed (JLP) Govern-ment officials were involved in trafficking ganja.'
A MAN OF COURAGE
If Dr. Minott in fact has evidence and feels so strongly that he is willing to risk the ire of his colleagues then all I can say is that he is a man of courage and I lift my hat to him. But thinking about it, there could be a further interpretation to his action the bottom line the succession race.
Dr. Minott was asked by one of the presenters on the Breakfast Club whether Mr. Seaga was aware of his taking the matter to the Ombudsman to which he replied, "no further comment." Answering as he did served only to put some doubt in people's mind. I feel that if the answer was no he would have said no. Could it therefore be, that at the root of all this is a move to get rid of the so-called reformists in the party who pose a threat to Mr. Seaga's continued hold on the JLP?
When the Political Ombudsman takes his findings to Parliament as he is so bound to do, that should be very interesting. Whichever way the cookie crumbles.
Comments? E-mail me at phyllis.thomas@gleanerjm.com
