Thursday, September 3 2009

We consider that Engineer Kenneth Sirju did the right thing in stepping aside from the Commission of Inquiry into Udecott and the Construction Industry. Mind you, he has only recused himself from that portion of the Inquiry involving the Cleaver Heights Housing Project, and again, this appears in order, because it is only this project where a charge of conflict of interest has been made against Mr Sirju.

However, we do not necessarily agree, on what has been presented, that Mr Sirju had any issue deserving of a response here. But, in the interest of “justice appearing to be done” it was better, once the issue of any relationship with the contractor on Cleaver Heights was raised, Mr Sirju should have recused himself. Initially he strongly condemned the suggestion that he step aside, but it appears that upon reflection, or maybe persuasion, he decided to stand down from this portion of the Inquiry.

Three points arise from this issue: The first is the claim of conflict of interest because Mr Sirju’s firm had been associated with NHIC on projects in the past. Given the conditions in the country it would be difficult to imagine any given firm of Consulting Engineers not having worked with any given contractor in the past. Indeed, engineers, architects and contractors have all worked with each other on joint venture projects, and they have all worked “against” each other in matters which went into dispute. Udecott’s local lawyers, who raised this issue in the first place, have probably represented parties currently “against” Udecott in this Inquiry. They will stoutly defend their right to have done this, and be most offended that their integrity was being impugned.

They owe no less respect to their engineering brethren in this apparent matter of a conflict of interest.

The second point is why Udecott raised the issue of Mr Sirju’s apparent conflict of interest in the Cleaver Heights part of the Inquiry. Udecott has no interest or standing in this matter, as the project was never on their portfolio. The Ministry of Housing, and the Minister herself, apparently had no objection to Mr Sirju being part of the Inquiry into Cleaver Heights. It was Minister Dick-Forde who called in Forensic Investigator Lindquist to do a special audit into Cleaver Heights after the Commission’s own investigator found nothing wrong. Ms Dick-Forde has said she is in receipt of Lindquist’s Report, but so far she is keeping it a secret. In short, Udecott seems to have been out of place in raising objections to Mr Sirju.

Thirdly what is the proper role that should be played by the Attorney General in situations like this one? Attorney General John Jeremie has been accused by Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley of intervening in the matter. But Jeremie has denied this, as has the chairman to the inquiry, Professor John Uff. However, in general, one would expect that the appropriateness of an intervention on the part of the Attorney General would depend on the circumstances. For instance, the Attorney General was said to have intervened previously in the circumstances surrounding the resignation of former commissioner Israel Khan SC. In that situation, it was not outside of the remit of the Attorney General, who is charged with the administration of legal affairs in the country to have intervened to preserve the integrity of a commission that has proven to be costly. While it may not have automatically been outside of the Attorney’s General remit to intervene in the Sirju row, and he strongly denies such interference, the point is moot as it is clear that the Commission will continue its sittings from Monday with Sirju still in place for matters pertaining to Udecott.