Colin Steer, Associate Editor - Opinion
Many organisations and institutions have found it useful to have access, even informally, to a council of elders. These are people who have seen a few summers and are less likely to be swayed by sentiment, emotion and exuberance of the moment when decisions have to be made.
They may sometimes be guilty of being too conservative, but their tendency to look at situations with dispassion and insistence on restraint have often saved many organisations, families and individuals from self-destruction.
Where was the council and/or counsel of the elders in the People's National Party/Government of Jamaica-Trafigura affair? In light of last weekend's developments which forced Colin Campbell to resign from the government, Attorney-General A.J. Nicholson has said, if he knew last week what he came to know subse-quently, he would have spoken differently than he did initially.
Misinformed
If the senior party officials are to be believed, their vigorous defence last week of the Trafigura 'gift' stemmed from the inadequate information given them by Mr. Campbell. Only after Trafigura's statement of the payment being part of a 'commercial agreement', but later revised to be called 'a political donation', and reports of Mr. Camp-bell having an invoice relating to payment received did they become aware of the extent to which they had been misinformed.
If the PNP's officers are to be believed, in one week, the party's coffers which were nearly dry were flooded with a significant infusion of cash. Some of this infusion came from Trafigura, the public has been told. Did any of the senior officers satisfy themselves beforehand that a government minister or party functionary had not approached the company asking for a donation, or that the company did not first approach them 'out of the goodness of its heart' to make the donation with no strings attached? If they did not question this arrangement, why not?
Who has oversight responsibilities to monitor inflow and outflow of cash into the party's treasury? If they were so 'careless' in the Trafigura affair as the public is being asked to believe, how can they and we be sure that money may not be flowing from other sources of dubious repute? On what basis can they declare defini-tively that they will not accept 'dirty money'? If they are this cavalier with party matters, what have they been doing in government?
Amid the many layers of the controversy, it is important that the public keeps its eye on the ball.
Had reporters taken Mr. Campbell's word at the press conference, CCOC & Associates would be just another name. It would stand for nothing, and not Colin Campbell Our Candidate, as later reported and not since denied. Were the party's council of elders themselves unaware of what CCOC stood for? What if it was the Coca Cartel of Colombia? Did it seem OK to them for the party general secretary to be the recipient of and dispenser of cash?
Standard procedures
Had reporters allowed the discussion to get bogged down in the discussions about banker/customer confidentiality, nobody would have bothered to talk to Trafigura. The Dutch commodities trader's statement in response to media queries brought the issue of ministerial/governmental propriety back on the front burner.
Organisations function best where there are established principles and guidelines. When there are deviations from the norm, red flags are raised and explanations are required. This is as true of banks as it should be of political parties. What are the standard operating procedures within the PNP that allowed a minister of government and senior party officer to be the recipient of and dispenser of cash, while senior party officers including its leader, remain in the dark about exactly what is/was going on? Is this any way to run a party, let alone a government?
