Email

Print

But, as viewers are aware, several members of the UDP have indicated to our newsroom that they will forcefully challenge the Commission's findings in the Supreme Court. They pointed out all kinds of procedural flaws and problems with the way that the Commission went about its final report.

More importantly, they insist that the Commission violated their rights to natural justice and fair defense, especially since the allegations of misconduct are very serious.

We challenged the Chairman on a few of those pointed criticisms raised yesterday, and here's that back and forth:

Reporter
"The harshest critics of this report suggest that the Commission was doing a political job, a PUP job. The suggestion is that you behaved in a biased manner."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Chairman, Commission of Inquiry
"But Daniel, let's be fair. I was on the front page of the Guardian before the Commission did a single thing, being accused of embarking on a witch hunt. I think the headline was Let the witch hunt begin. So even before the Commission did a single thing, it was already decided that whatever it did, would be treated in that fashion."

Reporter
"But the suggestion is that the way it was worded and the way it was presented calls it into question."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"Well, nobody's perfect. There are always issues with that. People see things differently. That's fine. But, we do want to be fair to everybody. So as I said, if ex-Minister Hulse has some information that shows that we're wrong, please send it to us. We'll publicly restate the position we want to be fair, and that extends to anybody else affected or named as well."

Reporter
"Sir, the suggestion to me, especially in the case of Mr. Hugo Patt, the other side has interpreted that as a fact-finding mission that a court of law would make, and the suggestion was that he took a bribe."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"No, no. I gave rise to — I said the information gives rise to possibilities. Okay. We didn't decide what happened. We're saying that given that we think this about it, it needs to be investigated. I don't see how that information that came out before the commission can be interpreted otherwise than to say, Look, this needs to be checked further. To suggest that it's all OK, it's all right, that the story was entirely in line, and everything is all right would have been a complete miss from our perspective The commission, I think, is of the view — I'm saying this. This is a view that was presented, that these matters are of sufficient weight. They cause us to believe certain things, and in light of that, we think it needs to be passed to the authorities for investigation and action. And those investigations and actions have to be in compliance with everybody's rights. It's not to bypass or to diminish, in any way, any rights anybody has to defend themselves."

Reporter
"Do you disagree with the position that the findings overreached into the territory of the Judiciary?"

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"No, we didn't find anybody guilty or innocent."

Reporter
"That's just their insistence though, sir. I don't know if that's the spin."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"That's their interpretation of it, but we didn't. We didn't find we are not empowered to find anybody guilty or innocent of anything. Non-binding recommendations are made. There are no findings of guilt or innocence there. And if anybody perceives it as that, I'm here to tell you that there are none, and that's a wrong perception."

Reporter
"Some of the aggrieved persons have made that interpretation and are intending to challenge you on the Commission."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"Well, they can exercise whatever rights they have, and I'm sure our legal advisors; they'll be properly advised. I can't offer anything on that. I can only tell you what the commission did from its perspective."

We also asked the Chairman about the legal blowback for the Briceno Administration, since the Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the Government to conduct its investigation. Here's that part of our conversation:

Reporter
"There is also this suggestion that this report opens up the government to lawsuits."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"The government is always open to lawsuits. You can sue the government anytime. We have the claim by Senator Peyrefitte to very Smart contracts coming on for a hearing later today, I think. Government is always open to lawsuits."

Reporter
"So, you don't agree with that position that things stated in there specifically increased that risk."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"Look, the matters that we were asked to look into, to investigate, obviously have political repercussions. But it's also important for management and for the public. So, there are two sides to everything, and those considerations must be balanced."

Reporter
"I've heard you insist multiple times in our conversation today that any of the aggrieved parties, if they have information, you would be willing to take that on board and restate the position, if you come to a conclusion, based on that additional information, that you were wrong. The suggestion to us is that most likely, the people who you would want to invite those new submissions, they will take that to court instead."

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"That's up to them."

Reporter
"Are you concerned that maybe they may try to go around the protections that you are afforded as a commissioner to try to come after you personally?"

E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"People will do what they will do. There are certain things you control, and there are some things you don't. There's no point in dwelling on things you do not control."

We'll have a little more from that interview in tomorrow's newscast. You'll hear the Chairman's comments on some of the important oversight gaps in the management of the Government's fleet of vehicles.