Premature disclosure

HOW CLOSE is Attorney General Glenda Morean-Phillip to the independent inquiry being conducted by forensic investigator Bob Lindquist into WASA's $51 million payout to Water Farms Ltd? The question arises from a newspaper report on Monday in which the AG reveals what Opposition member Ganga Singh had presented by way of evidence to Mr Lindquist when they met about two weeks ago. In the report, Mrs Morean-Phillip told the reporter that the Opposition Chief Whip had provided no documentary evidence to the investigation and that he simply went over the same story he had told to Parliament some time ago. She said he supplied no documents and no new names.

In making this disclosure to a newspaper reporter, it seems clear that the AG was anxious to counter the charges of corruption in the Water Farms deal which Mr Singh had made in the House a few weeks ago, naming former PNM MP Dr Joe Laquis, WASA vice chairman Rollingson Agard and attorney Mark Laquis as the men behind it. When the controversy arose following Mr Singh's questions, Mrs Morean-Phillip commissioned the Canadian forensic investigator to probe the WASA payouts and she advised the Opposition member to hand over the documentary evidence he apparently had to Mr Lindquist. However, in stating publicly that the Opposition member did not back up his charges with documents the AG was not only jumping the gun but giving the Opposition cause for questioning her role in the investigation.

If, for example, the AG knows what "evidence" Mr Lindquist had collected from Mr Singh, does she also know what other material the investigator had obtained from other sources? And if so, how did she get to know this? Is Mr Lindquist, charged with conducting an independent inquiry, conferring with the AG on the evidence he gathers? The implications of Mrs Morean-Phillip's premature and inappropriate disclosure are fairly obvious and somewhat disturbing, not the least of which is the compromising effect it may have on the independent nature of Mr Lindquist's investigation. The significance of this lapse will hardly be lost on the Opposition, and the AG will have only herself to blame if Mr Singh and his UNC colleagues eventually use this as the basis for charges of political interference in the investigation. Placed on the defensive, the Government, of course, may defend the inquiry, whatever its results may be, by affirming the integrity of Mr Linquist whose reputation is international, but the damage to the exercise has already been done.

Why did the AG not say simply that she had requisitioned an independent investigation into the WASA payouts and she was awaiting its results? Surely this was her intention and this was the proper course for the government to take in resolving this questionable matter. It was in full support of Prime Minister Patrick Manning's observation that there were "no holy cows" in his government or his party and that those found to be involved in corrupt activities would be dealt with. Now the AG's unfortunate disclosure before the conclusion of the investigation may spark a fresh controversy and give new ammunition to her critics. Still, however, the country will await the results of Mr Lindquist's investigations. We expect it will tell the truth about how and why Water Farms was paid $51 million by WASA for work done on an unauthorised contract, when an independent assessment placed the compensation at no more than $13 million. And that Mr Manning will take the appropriate action if, as Mr Ganga claims, corruption was involved.