Lindquist cover up?

MANY will find it sad, even pitiable, that the UNC Opposition, devoid of fresh ideas or a new approach, has become tediously predictable. Another example of this may be seen in the WASA-Water Farms affair which they had blown up into a public controversy. All the allegations the Opposition had made about corruption in this $51 million out-of-court settlement have been refuted by the investigation of Bob Lindquist whose report was tabled in the Senate on Tuesday. In its basic findings, the report states: "We are satisfied with the integrity of the process of negotiation engaged in by WASA and its legal representatives that led to the 'Out of Court' settlement with WFTL." Having regard to the fact that it was the UNC's Ganga Singh who had called for the Lindquist probe in the first place, one would expect that the Opposition would now accept the contents of his report and its finding that their charges, particularly against three persons who they claimed were involved in a conspiracy to defraud WASA of $17 million, were totally unfounded.

But experience of UNC tactics tells us that this is not the way they would react. True to form, the Opposition is now accusing the well-known and reputable forensic investigator of "singing for his supper", describing his report as a cover-up and even calling for an investigation into Lindquist himself! It is a knee-jerk reaction that further exposes the problems of the UNC. Members of the Opposition must have received copies of the tabled report; they must have read the facts outlined by the investigator and the reasons for his findings. In response to their charges, Lindquist explained the apparent discrepancy between the $11 million recommendation of Ernst and Young and the eventual $51 million settlement made by WASA which he described as "reasonable." The investigator also traced all the money paid to Water Farms as being deposited into the company's accounts, which also cleared the three persons whom the UNC had accused of complicity to defraud the Authority.

Where then was the cover up? For the UNC now to condemn the Lindquist investigation that they themselves had called for, seems to provide further evidence of the ad hoc, vi-ke-vy, capricious, inconsistent and contrary nature of their thinking, and the action that springs from it. The obvious conclusion many will now make is that their reaction derives simply from the fact that the findings did not support their charges. If the Lindquist report is flawed, the UNC must explain to the country why. If the investigator has engaged in a "cover up" they should proceed to prove it. Surely the Opposition cannot expect to level such damaging but unfounded charges and escape unscathed. What documentary evidence did Mr Ganga Singh give to the forensic investigator to support his allegations? In light of Mr Lindquist's refutation, can he now prove the serious charges he made against three persons, calling their names in the House, and accusing them of engaging in a conspiracy to defraud WASA of millions of dollars? Were these allegations by the Member for Caroni East not an irresponsible abuse of the privilege of parliament? Will Mr Singh now accept a moral duty to set the record straight? When the UNC was in office, the formative work in setting up the Caribbean Court of Justice proceeded apace. Now the party is opposing the establishment of the Court because it first wants constitutional reform. And it justifies this stand by blaming the constitution for the appointment of former Chief Justice Clinton Bernard and Justice Lennox Deylsingh! The plight of the UNC has now become painfully obvious; for the sake of the party and the country we would urge its members to take a serious look at themselves.