LOST OUR WAY?

But maybe I am wrong? Maybe our current situations are not really the results of gross incompetence, ignorance and petty corruption, but have their roots deeply embedded in complex schemes to rob the people of their due, and to provide even greater wealth to persons who are presumably under investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions? And who are these people, and what are their schemes which appear to defy proper investigations? Some of them have had their names called in public, and in costly but apparently impotent Commissions of Inquiry. But these persons, presumed innocent of course, continue to live very comfortable and apparently unembarrassed lives while their victims suffer. Some of course remain unknown for the time being, hiding behind registered company titles as they conduct multi-million dollar deals with our government, using our money to purchase or lease ships to serve a critical aspect of our inter-island commerce. Others—most actually— just quietly sit out the brief firestorms of Inquiry which conveniently fade away and allow the perpetrators to return to the local commercial scene, wealthier, wiser and more arrogant than before.

I do not pretend to fully understand the current complexities of the ongoing, long –standing debacle arising out of the CLICO failure and promised bailout. Right now, it appears that it is the turn of our lawyers to feed upon what is still a relatively succulent carcass, but I have no doubt that by the time London’s Privy Council finally decides how the last rites will be administered, the legal profession would have left only dry bones for the victims. But what does all that matter? The government is seeking to wind up the company and this action, opposed by policyholders’ groups, will no doubt fester in our judicial system for years. Does that matter? Apparently not, the CLICO bailout matter has been festering for years anyway, and only policyholders—the small people of our society—have suffered.

The principals of the CLICO Group seem to be living very well, free to travel first class and live the high life.

But there is something I keep remembering about this whole matter, something which predates the decisions to wind up the company.

It is the Colman Commission of Inquiry into the CLICO disaster.

Does anyone remember the public hearings into this matter? The months of shocking revelations and all the high-powered, highly paid attorneys, many imported from England, to question and expose all levels of financial malfeasance which had been occurring with this entity—CLICO ? What, if anything in the still secret report of Commissioner Colman drives or gives support to government’s decision to wind up the company? While the current government has managed to keep Colman’s report secret (quite a commendable feat, I suppose, but maybe there are sufficient powerful forces ensuring this?), it had sent the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, over a year ago.

Does anyone take comfort from this? Only the people who should be charged for various acts of conspiracy and fraud, I would imagine.

Over the past few years, it appears that assigning certain matters involving “big people” to the office of the DPP ensures that such matters will never see the light of day or any form of exposure.

We do not yet know whom Colman has suggested needs the attention of the DPP, but we do know that the DPP will not be exposing them. We had a similar situation arising out of the UFF report into the construction industry (remember that one?), which is still apparently “being investigated” by the DPP. And of course, there is apparently an ongoing “delay” button in the DPP’s office for any matters involving politicians, and big people in our society.

But the question at hand, in my relatively inexpert opinion, is whether or not Lord Colman had recommended that CLICO be wound up as is being pursued by the current government? Remember that the debacle festered and burst under the PNM administration, and it may be that the Party, or its significant supporters need to keep certain things secret, and the winding up may ensure this secrecy? It would seem to me that people who are opposed to the winding up, should demand that the Colman recommendations be presented if indeed Coleman had not recommended closure? If the government is following a r e c omm e n - d a t i o n in the Co lma n r e p o r t , they have a duty to say so. But I doubt this.