A troubling picture

It defies belief that the two top post-holders in the land have presented two vastly different accounts of a series of events that have implications for national security and the workings of our Constitution.

Carmona has claimed he three times informed Rowley of his plans to meet with the Minister of National Security Major General Edmund Dillon and that Rowley consented. The Prime Minister, however, has said he was informed of the meeting by Dillon who was not certain of the nature of the meeting.

It is not clear if Carmona wrote Rowley prior to the meeting – as one would expect such an important office-holder to do. Nor is it apparent whether Rowley sought legal advice before instructing Dillon to proceed to meet with Carmona in order to find out the nature of the meeting. There are clear conduits through which matters relating to the President’s personal security could have been handled without recourse to a direct meeting with Dillon, meaning even if that were the purpose of the meeting, the Office of the Prime Minister would have been well-advised to seek the advice of Silk before consenting to Dillon engaging in reconnaissance.

Despite Rowley’s assurances that he plans to continue to work with the President, last Friday’s Budget presentation contained hints that tensions are likely to continue for some time yet.

Twice during Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s presentation, the Government indicated its intention to push forward with the implementation of a new scheme of public procurement. This has implications for President’s House on two levels. In the first place, the new rules apply first and foremost to the Office of the President, meaning there will be restrictions on how money is spent there.

In the second place, the appointment of a procurement regulator and board is a matter that has to be done through His Excellency.

With the Executive setting a timeline of implementation by March 2017, this places pressure on President’s House to get its act in order in terms of the appointments and its internal procedures. It is equally true a similar pressure will be exerted on all Government departments.

The meat and potatoes of the Budget, too, have been interpreted in context of the swirling controversy.

Cuts to the allocation at President’s House might be explained by recourse to overall cuts across the board, such as cuts to the Judiciary.

But the political impact of these measures may exceed their economic rationale. Both President’s House and the Judiciary have been very vocal in recent weeks about scare resources. Carmona went as far as to give details of leaks and floods of his master-bedroom! When all things are considered, it simply does not look good when we have the two most senior post-holders at odds. Can the discrepancies between their accounts of the September meeting with Dillon be explained away as a case of a simple misunderstanding? Carmona’s statement that he three times informed Rowley suggests not.

The Government might seek to use its powers under the Constitution to begin a process to remove Carmona. However, such a move ultimately requires the support of two-thirds of the Parliament. Ultimately, this renders the situation even more distressing.

We think this matter is far from over.