Any reply or subsequent reference to this communication should be addressed to the Contractor-General and the following reference quoted:-

OFFICE OF THE CONTRACTORGENERAL

PIOJ Building 16 Oxford Road P.O. BOX 540 KIN
GSTON

No.

TELEPHONE No.:876-929-8560/6466 FAX No. : 876-929-2476 E-mail: communications@ocg.gov.jm

5 JAMAICA, W.I

MEDIA RELEASE OCG MOVES TO CORRECT FALSE INFERENCES MADE IN SUNDAY OBSERVER ABOUT DISAPPEARANCE OF WITNESS IN KSAC MATTER AND TO CLARIFY ITS POSITIONS

Kingston; June 20, 2011 - The Office of the Contractor-General (OCG) wishes to correct certain false and misleading inferences which were conveyed in a front page article which was published in yesterdays edition of the Sunday Observer Newspaper, entitled Ellington, Llewllyn scold Christie OCGs release of KSAC info hurts probe. The article, which was written by the Sunday Observers senior reporter, Ingrid Brown, starts off by stating quite matter-of-factly that The disappearance of a witness identified in the Office of the Contractor Generals (OCGs) report of alleged fraud at the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation (KSAC) is being blamed on the OCGs release of the information to the public before the police were able to complete their investigations. The reference which was made by the Observer to a witness is a reference to the sham Government contractor who, in her sworn written and tape-recorded statements, given to the OCG, had implicated at least three (3) KSAC Councilors in her allegations of fraud and corruption in the award of certain Government contracts by the KSAC. The Observer article, although it suggests that the witness has still not been found, seeks substantiate the said claims by referring to a letter, dated June 7, 2011, which was written Contractor General Greg Christie by Commissioner of Police Owen Ellington, as well as responses thereto which were written to the Commissioner by the Contractor General on June 2011, and by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms. Paula Llewllyn on June 8, 2011. to to to 7,

The Sunday Observer report makes extensive reference to the Commissioners and the DPPs letters, as well as to additional comments which were apparently made by the DPP to Ms. Ingrid Brownlast Thursday. However, very little was conveyed in the Observer story about the OCGs responses and positions on the matter. In the circumstances, the OCG now wishes to place the following facts upon the public record: (1) Although the Police Commissioner, in his letter of June 7, 2011, had asserted that the 1

witness, at the time of the date of his letter, had disappeared, the Sunday Observer has gone one step further to infer that, as at Sunday, June 19, 2011, the date of the publication of its story, the disappeared status of the witness had remained unchanged. Any such inference or assertion is, however, patently false, erroneous and misleading. Indeed, it is a matter of public record that on June 8, 2011, one day after the date of the Commissioners letter to the Contractor General, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Ealan Powell, issued a statement to at least one (1) local Media House, RJR News, in which he confirmed that the cops have made contact with the contractor at the centre of the allegations, but no statements have been collected as yet. (See full text of story at http://rjrnewsonline.com/news/local/fraud-squad-begins-probe-fraud-allegations-ksac ). ACP Powells statement to RJR was further corroborated by a letter, dated June 9, 2011, which was written by him to the OCG, in which he confirmed, inter alia, that the witness had in fact attended the Fraud Squad Office at 34 Duke Street on Wednesday, June 8, 2011. She was accompanied by her attorney. The statements of ACP Powell, that were made to the Media and to the OCG, would suggest that the Police had acted prematurely when it had initially determined that the witness had disappeared . (2) Further, and contrary to that which has been conveyed by the Observer story, the identity of the witness was not disclosed to the public in the OCGs Media Release of May 30, 2011, the complete contents of which can be examined at: http://www.ocg.gov.jm/website_files/media_releases_issued/media203.pdf Indeed, the plain fact of the matter is that the only person to whom the OCG, to date, has disclosed the identity of the witness, as well as the identity of the three (3) KSAC Councilors who were implicated by the witness allegations, is the Police Commissioner, Mr. Owen Ellington. The identities of the referenced persons, together with the original copies of the sworn statements which were signed by the witness, were conveyed on Monday, May 30, 2011, by the OCG, to the Police Commissioner, in a sealed package, under cover of a confidential letter which bore the same date. The package, which was stamped Confidential, was handdelivered to the Office of the Police Commissioner at approx. 4:50 pm on May 30. Consequently, the fact that, by 10:00 am the next morning, the Nationwide News Network (NNN) was able to publish the names of the three (3) implicated Councilors, and the fact that the identify of the witness was allegedly revealed to several persons before the week had ended, continue to remain a source of major concern to the OCG, particularly now that the unfounded and erroneous suggestion is being made by the Sunday Observer that the OCG had disclosed information regarding the identity of the witness in its Media Release of May 30, 2011. The OCG wishes to assure the public that it has taken note of the concerns which were 2

(3)

raised by the Police Commissioner in his letter June 7, 2011 to the OCG regarding the alleged publicity given to matters referred by (the OCG) to the Police for investigation generally, and more specifically the instant matter of alleged fraud at the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation (KSAC). In his letter, the Commissioner requested that in the future the OCG communicates with the police and give (it) time to complete the early and crucial stages of (its) investigations before releasing reports on such matters to the media. The OCG, in its written response of June 7, 2011 to the Commissioner, assured him that a mutually agreed protocol to address the matter had already been agreed upon between representatives of the OCG and the Police at a meeting which was convened by the Police on May 31, 2011 to discuss the matter of the allegations that had been made by the witness. It is, however, critical to note that the OCG, in its letter to the Police Commissioner, also advised him of the following caveats: (a) That the OCG is an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission of the Parliament of Jamaica which, for the purposes of its conduct of Investigations, is enclothed with the powers of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Jamaica, under the provisions of the Contractor General Act. (b) That Section 21 of the Contractor General Act imposes upon a Contractor General, the statutory obligation to submit a formal Report of its Investigation to the Parliament of Jamaica and to certain State Authorities if during the course of its Investigations, or upon completion thereof, it finds evidence of, among other things, the commission of a criminal offence on the part of an officer or member of a public body. That once this is done, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are obliged by law to table the referenced OCG Report of Investigation in both Houses of Parliament. Once that is done, the contents of the Report, as you are no doubt aware, are placed fully within the public domain. (c) That there are instances in which the Commission of the Contractor General, in the exercise of the discretionary powers that are vested in it by the law, will deem it prudent, if not critical, to bring certain matters to the attention of the Media and to the public. Such circumstances will, among other things, include the preservation of the security, safety and the very lives of the officers of the OCG, as well as the right of the Jamaican public to become privy, without delay, to certain matters which have been uncovered during the course of the OCGs enquires or Investigations. For obvious reasons, the OCG will not countenance any attempt by anyone to fetter its discretion in the stated circumstances. (4) The OCG, in its letter of June 7, 2011, to the Police Commissioner, also highlighted what it 3

regarded to be a very unfortunate misstatement of fact which is embodied in your letter and which, apparently, has been utilized by you to lend credence to a number of the positions which you have conveyed to me. Reference was then made to the following statement which was made by the Commissioner in his letter, of June 7, 2011, to the OCG Given the nature and gravity of the allegations raised in your media release, which were aired almost 72 hours before we received your written correspondence, our first consideration was the security of the witness. (OCG Emphasis). The Commissioners allegation suggested that he did not receive any correspondence whatsoever on the matter from the OCG until approx. 2:00 pm on Thursday, June 2, 2011, since it is an incontrovertible fact that the OCGs Media Release was issued, via email, at precisely 2:38 pm on Monday, May 30, 2011. The OCG was alarmed at the Commissioners allegation since the two (2) sets of documents and exhibits which were conveyed by the OCG to him were certified as having been received at his Old Hope Road Office at 4:50 pm on Monday, May 30 and at 11:35 am on Tuesday, May 30. This was less than three (3) hours and 21 hours, respectively, after the OCGs Media Release on the matter was sent, via email, to the Media on Monday, May 30, 2011. The OCGs consternation was further heightened by the fact that the Police Commissioner, himself, had written to the Contractor General on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, acknowledging his receipt of your letters of May 30 and 31, 2011 along with relevant attachments. Further, a meeting between several senior Police Officers (who had by then come into possession of the documents and exhibits that had been sent by the OCG to the Commissioner), and the OCG, was convened at the instance of the Police at 2:40 pm on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, to discuss the matter. The Commissioners allegation, although it was therefore patently erroneous, and had been copied to at least seven (7) State Authorities, is yet to be withdrawn by the Commissioner, or explained or rationalized, despite the fact that the OCG has raised its grave concerns about his misrepresentations directly with him. (5) With regard to the positions of the DPP that were articulated by the Sunday Observer, the OCG has already, by way of letter which was dated June 9, 2011 to the DPP, advised the DPP of the OCGs considered positions thereon. Given the vantage position from which it sits, and the unique intelligence which is available to it, the OCG can assert without any fear of contradiction that the fight against the monster of corruption in Jamaica is a dangerous, perilous and formidable one. It is one which, without a shadow of a doubt, is fraught with unique obstacles and challenges. 4

While the OCG, as well as the Jamaican public, are acutely aware of the attempts that have been made to muzzle it, the OCG wishes to reiterate that it continues to stand irretrievably by its previously stated position that all decisions that are taken by it, in the discharge of its lawful mandates under the Contractor General Act, will be taken solely in the best interests of the Jamaican people and taxpayer, for it is these interests alone that the OCG has been sworn to serve and to protect. Further, the OCG continues to hold to the unapologetic and unrepentant position that once it is seized with adequate and actionable evidence of major occurrences of impropriety, irregularity and/or corruption in the Government contractor registration or contract award process, it will bring same to the attention of the Jamaican public, whose interests it is sworn to protect. The OCGs belief in the foregoing regard is buttressed by its clear recognition of the fact that one of the most effective weapons for fighting corruption in public office, in Jamaica, is transparency, for corruption can only thrive in Jamaica where there is darkness not where there is light. Additionally, the OCG will proceed as it has stated above in all instances in which it believes that the preservation of the security of the lives of the officers of the OCG demand that such action should be taken without delay.
-ENDContact: The Communications Department, Office of the Contractor General of Jamaica C/o Craig Beresford, Senior Director of Monitoring Operations, Corporate Communications and Special Projects E-mail: communications@ocg.gov.jm. Tel: 876-929-8560; Direct: 876-926-0034; Mobile: 876-564-1806