The DFC Commission of Inquiry: it's been hailed by both the government and the social partners as the silver bullet that will settle the troubling allegation of large scale corruption at the unregulated and loosely managed government-run developmental bank. But in the over two months since its three members were sworn in, the Commission has not been able to live up to anyone's expectations because it has been hamstrung by legal and administrative hurdles. First, the government dragged its feet on giving the Commission funding for a secretariat, and then the DFC went into a stonewalling strategy invoking the secrecy clause under the DFC Act which bars any employees from disclosing what is classified as confidential information. And then, to add insult to injury, last week Friday the Chief Justice accused the Commission of Inquiry of dereliction of duty, sitting on its hands for two months having "tea parties" with DFC Manager Troy Gabb instead of prosecuting him. On top of that, the government issued a release which falsely stated that the Commission has been empowered to order the DFC to produce documents, fanciful spin but hardly true.
Well now the Commission is fighting back. Breaking an agreed-upon silence to explain that the Commission has been working, mostly against governmental indifference, Chairman David Price today spoke to us from his home which also serves as his office. He told Jules Vasquez that what should have been a straightforward process has now turned into a game of legal maneuverings and extended stonewalling.
Jules Vasquez Reporting, Email - [jules.vasquez@yahoo.com]
On March 29th., the three commission members had a meeting at the DFC's headquarters in Belmopan with the Cabinet Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Chairman and General Manager of the DFC.
David Price, Chairman, DFC Commission of Inquiry
"So in that meeting, which the Chief Justice referred to as our tea party, the matter of the conflict came up. The DFC asked us if we would agree not to prosecute until we could resolve that matter. The two people, Mr. Espejo and Mr. Gabb, promised that if a court order were applied for by the Commission, DFC would not challenge that court order; that was the understanding made at that tea party meeting. As it turned out, that understanding wasn't lived up to because last Friday not only did the DFC challenge that order, they actually proposed a counter to have it dismissed."
Of course, they did successfully seek to have it dismissed in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice. And since then, the Cabinet has refused to introduce legislation which would empower the commission of inquiry.
David Price,
"Our legal opinion suggested that perhaps a better way would be to amend the Commissions of Inquiry Act. I wrote to the Prime Minister making that recommendation and I copied my legal opinion, that I had obtained independently from the Solicitor Generals, and then subsequently the Prime Minister informed us through his Cabinet Secretary that Cabinet had decided not to amend the Act; that we had a legal recourse (and) to use that first."
Now the Chief Justice has denied that - so where will the Commission of Inquiry turn:
David Price,
"What we have done, this week in fact, was in the sense reactivate that summons dated 21st March that was served on Mr. Gabb on the 22nd. That summons is still active, in a sense it was in abeyance until legal clarification has been sought. To some extent legal clarification has been obtained when the Chief Justice told us (to) pursue whatever powers you have. We therefore reactivated that summons and, to be fair, we gave them an extension of that deadline. The original deadline for their submission was the first of April; clearly they cannot meet that deadline and so we have set a new deadline for them. If the CEO does not meet that deadline, and by meeting that deadline I mean two things: I mean appearing before the Commission and producing the documents on that list, then we the Commission will necessarily be forced to institute proceedings for his prosecution; that is where we are at this point. If there is prosecution, he is found guilty, and pays the fine then what? The Commission will be no nearer to the documents. If he is found not guilty because he has protection from the DFC Act then what? How do we get back to the Supreme Court?"
Jules Vasquez,
How do you get your hands on the documents?
David Price,
"Precisely. All of these are legal maneuverings that seems to lose sight of the principal objective. The principal objective is to get these documents so we can commence the investigation. The Commission is over two months old and we have not yet received a single document from DFC."
Jules Vasquez,
And it is not for a want of trying.
David Price,
"Of course. We were sworn in on the 16th and on the 21st and a summons was issued, on the 22nd it was heard; that was less than a week."
Jules Vasquez,
It would seem that if the government were serious about empowering the Commission of Inquiry or seeing the Commission work in an efficient and purposeful way, it would have empowered it by making a small amendment in the Commissions of Inquiry Act to get it the same sort of oversights and powers that the Contractor General has. Seeing that how the government has refused to do this, it would seem that the government is not interested in seeing the Commission work in a purposeful and efficient way. What would be your reaction to my judgment?
David Price,
"I wouldn't want to speculate on that but I will tell you that it is quite an arguable scenario. It can be argued that all of these can be seen simply as delaying tactics. I am not saying that I am saying that but what I'm saying is that is an arguable position and I believe that perception is becoming more and more widespread in this country. It can go so far as to indicate bad faith on the part of government."
That deadline for DFC General Manager Troy Gabb to appear before the Commission and produce those documents is 10:00 am tomorrow morning. We'll have the result of that encounter in tomorrow night's newscast.
