Peter Espeut | Exoneration? Not at all!

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word “exonerate” means “to absolve from blame for fault or wrongdoing”. The Merriam-Webster dictionary from the other side of the pond defines it as “to clear from accusation or blame”. On neither side of the Atlantic does it mean “to have the clear wrongdoing of a politician not rise to the level of a criminal charge according to how the parliament composed of politicians defines a criminal act”.

The report of the Integrity Commission (IC) tabled in parliament last Tuesday following a three-year probe into allegations of procurement irregularities and conflicts of interest surrounding the award of contracts to Market Me Consulting Ltd between 2016 and 2021, indicated that the IC found wrongdoing.

According to the report, Dr Christopher Tufton introduced Lyndsey McDonnough, the co-managing director of Market Me – and the company’s unsolicited proposal – to his management team shortly after becoming Minister of Health in March 2016. The IC investigation found that, subsequently, 15 contracts valued at $78,579,522.49 were awarded to Market Me during the period, with 14 of them issued by the ministry and one by the National Family Planning Board.

In the report, the IC’s Director of Investigation (DI) said he saw no evidence to indicate that Tufton was directly involved in the award of a $15.8 million contract to Market Me, the issue that triggered the probe. The key word here is “directly”.

Yet the DI found that Tufton’s statements to staff suggesting that Market Me “be involved in all PR matters related to the Office of the Minister” could be reasonably interpreted “to have indirectly influenced the engagement of Market Me.” “Indirectly”, Mr. DI? How much more direct can one be?

The DI went on to state that “Neither Dr Tufton nor McDonnough made formal declarations of conflict as required under the rules governing conflict of interest and broader governance best practice. Whilst others may have known of the connection between the parties (Dr Tufton and McDonnough and/or McDonnough and Market Me), they (Dr Tufton and McDonnough) both had a responsibility to have made formal declarations of conflict at the appropriate times and recuse themselves from any involvement which could be deemed or perceived to be a conflict of interest.”

CLEAR EVIDENCE

Clear evidence of wrongdoing!

According to the IC report tabled last Tuesday, the minister “appeared to have advanced a private interest which resulted in a monetary benefit to Market Me Consulting Limited,” and that his introduction of the company and its principals to ministry officials “gave rise to, at its lowest, a perceived conflict of interest and thereby contravened the principles of transparency and good governance.”

According to the IC report, McDonnough, served briefly on the board of the National Health Fund (NHF), and was found to have acted “wholly inappropriately and irregularly” by attending a January 2017 meeting where the Jamaica Moves programme was discussed. The DI said her presence exposed her to “valuable information” on a programme in which she had a financial interest. Ultimately, her firm was awarded contracts for many millions of dollars to implement the Jamaica Moves programme.

According to the DI of the IC. both Dr Tufton and Lyndsey McDonnough broke the rules. No honest person could claim that the IC Report exonerates them!

There is more.

The DI found that all 14 contracts with the ministry were awarded using the direct contracting method, which means that they did not go through the normal tendering process. More “indirect” influence, perhaps?

The DI said that two of the contracts exceeded $1.5 million in value, which “amounts to a breach in the [finance] ministry’s circular on direct contracting which limits such contracts to $1.5 million”. Clearly the other 12 contracts were conveniently under $1.5 million. Who slipped up? Don’t they know the runnin’s? To avoid the tendering process, the contracts must be under $1.5 million.

Despite identifying the clear wrongdoing, and the breaches and governance failures, no one will be held accountable. The report said that “evidentiary gaps” prevented referral of the matter to the Director of Corruption Prosecution. I am no lawyer, but it sounds like an open-and-shut case to me.

How friendly!

EXPRESSED SATISFACTION

In the mean time, both Dr Tufton and Market Me have expressed satisfaction with the IC report. In his statement, Dr Tufton said, inter alia, “I am, however, pleased that the IC has reported no illegality by any party involved, and I am relieved that the report brings clarity to the facts”.

For its part, Market Me in a brief statement said “The report confirms what we have always known, that our work stands on integrity, professionalism, purpose and excellent value for money”.

You have to hand it to the marketers and spinners!

The facts are that the politicians in our parliament have declined to make criminal offences of several kinds of wrongdoing commonly committed by themselves, and continue to make it difficult for the Integrity Commission to prosecute political corruption. Breaches of procurement guidelines, and conflict of interest procedures, are not criminal offences in Jamaica. In some places, resignations would be automatic. Elsewhere, these breaches trigger jail terms.

So if the IC reports “no illegality by any party involved”, that does not mean there is no wrongdoing; it can mean that our politicians have failed to make wrongdoing a criminal offence.

That, of course, is the biggest conflict of interest: that politicians get to decide whether their wrong actions are criminal or not; and how the Integrity Commission operates. The fox is in charge of guarding the henhouse!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com