The PM’s Hobson’s choice

I just don’t know what to make of the Dr Keith Rowley’s speech last Sunday at Point Cumana. One moment the Diego Martin West MP was Mr Macho, Macho Man, spitting fire at the Opposition UNC, his language decidedly provocative. He told the UNC to go to hell and he menacingly informed Fyzabad MP, Chandresh Sharma that when he, Rowley, “the big, hard back man from Mason Hall beat him, he would know.” From Mason Hall bad john, he became the submissive Mr Rowley, the husband who simply “sign paper for his wife” for the Mason Hall development project.

It is this second role I find more difficult to conceive. You see I cannot forget Dr Rowley’s statement to reporters on Thursday October 14, 2004 after UNC whip Ganga Singh, in his contribution to the Budget debate, alleged corruption in a Rowley family land development project in Mason Hall called Landate. During the ensuing tea break Dr Rowley held a press conference. In his defence, he told reporters: “I have nothing to fear, I have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong. I have broken no law. I account to my bankers, and my wife and I, our obligation is to Warner Construction for the carrying out of that project. We have a fixed contract with Warner construction to do this development as per the engineering design and we make progress payments along the way.” However, last Sunday, according to Dr Rowley, he was no land developer. The developer was his wife, Sharon Rowley. Dr Rowley’s October and November statements were in complete contradiction and most fair minded people would wonder why Dr Rowley didn’t tell the House and reporters on October 14 what he told his constituents last weekend. He had a chance to speak that afternoon, but did not mention her name. During the days immediately following Mr Singh’s accusations, Rowley remained silent on Landate, even as he was pounded in the media and by UNC MPs during the Budget debate. Not a, whisper of his wife. Suddenly Sunday he was shouting her name for everyone to hear! It was all very odd.

I’d like to think that Dr Rowley was so bowled over by Mr Singh’s wealth of information in October that he forgot he had signed papers for his wife. What else am I to conclude? What I want to know though, is how his wife’s ownership of Landate erases the conflict of interest inherent in his holding the portfolios of Minister of Planning and Development and Minister of Housing during the commencement and realisation of this land project? This is precisely why the 2000 legislation sought to include wives in the declaration of assets and liabilities and why the word “family” is included over and over in the Act. Twenty lots have reportedly been sold at $1 million each. Are Mrs Rowley’s substantial profits for her and her alone? More damaging though, are the facts put forward by Mr Singh, which Dr Rowley did not refute in Point Cumana: “Mrs Rowley’s” Landate used the very architect and contractor employed by the hospital; materials were transported from the hospital site to Mason Hall; someone from NH International was renting a flat from Dr Rowley; and Rowley himself visited the Landate site.

The two projects were thus, on the surface of it, more intertwined than Siamese twins and Dr Rowley, by his own admission, knew what was going on with Landate, as he was able to assert in October that he and his wife had paid for all the project’s materials.  Furthermore, didn’t Dr Rowley realise that as Minister of Planning and Development and of Housing the last business his wife should suddenly turn to was land development? Or that given Mrs Rowley was going into land development, should Dr Rowley not have asked his Prime Minister for a change of portfolio? I am truly amazed by the behaviour of some of our public officials. Are they missing the conflict of interest point or are they deliberately playing dumb? It’s as if they haven’t read the Integrity in Public Life Act, 2000. Or perhaps, they really don’t care about it. Look at Minister of Health John Rahael. He’s defending his son’s right to open a Super Pharm chain of drug stores, as stoutly as Dr Rowley now claims Landate belongs to his wife and that she too has the right to become a developer. Joseph Rahael’s constitutional liberties, as Mrs Rowley’s, are not in dispute. What is in question is the conflict of interest tangle in which John Rahael now finds himself and will continue to find himself as Minister of Heath in these circumstances.

Imagine the following scenario. Government announces next year it is considering a radical expansion of its Chronic Disease Assistance Programme, undoubtedly one of this administration’s best initiatives. It sets up a Cabinet committee which decides, after a period of consultation and research, that CDAP will become DAP, the Drug Assistance Programme and thus, include all prescription medicine. In order to secure the co-operation of as many pharmacies as possible, Government opts to raise substantially the fee each drug store receives per prescription so that dispensing DAP drugs is worth pharmacists’ economic while.  John Rahael, as Minister of Health, is a key member of the Cabinet Committee. His son, Joseph, is one of the shareholders of Super Pharm, a group of pharmacies. When DAP becomes a reality, Joseph, like other drug store owners, will profit from the conversion of CDAP into DAP. Indeed Super Pharm may benefit more than the smaller pharmacies because of its chain store capacity and resources.

It is quite likely that John Rahael on making the DAP decision may be in violation of the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, which states, “a conflict of interest is deemed to arise if a person in public life or any person exercising a public function were to make or  participate in the making of a decision in the execution of his office and at the same time knows or ought reasonably to have known, that in the making of the decision, there is an opportunity either directly or indirectly to further his private interests or that of a member of his family or of any other person.” Indeed, according to the Act, Mr Rahael would be obliged to excuse himself from the DAP decision-making process. (One can only hope the Minister to date has not been part of any decision to expand CDAP while Super Pharm was in the pipeline because he may already have violated the Act.) Can the Minister of Health tell me many citizens might not pause to question his motives for assenting to the CDAP expansion? My guess is quite a few would be more than suspicious. Can Mr Rahael blame them? Will he try to silence them? Will he launch as vicious an attack as Dr Rowley on those who disagree with his conduct? Or will he remember that he is a public official and his actions a matter of public interest?

At the end of the day though, it matters little what Dr Rowley or Mr Rahael say or how they react to their critics. It is their Prime Minister who must decide whether he can afford to keep the two men in their current portfolios. In my view, Mr Manning is faced with nothing less than a Hobson’s choice.

Columnist’s note: I’m thinking of a new parang soca song called, “Ah want a wife for de Christmas” and I am seeking the assistance of experts in this field. The lyrically inclined may apply to suz@itrini.com