Was Narda Garcia scape-goated by the Senate Select Committee that investigated Social Security? That's the question that Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh considered today. Appearing for Garcia was Elson Kaseke while the Solicitor General Edwin Flowers appeared to defend the Senate committee. The four senators who comprised the committee also had to be in court.
But before anything started, Flowers opened with a preliminary objection. He said it was a conflict of interest for Kaseke, the former Solicitor General, advisor to, and witness for the Select Committee, to appear as lead counsel for Garcia in her attempt to have the report thrown out. Glaring overlaps, but the Chief Justice found that there was not a true conflict and the hearing proceeded.
Kaseke argued that Garcia had been denied natural justice by not being allowed a chance to see the report of special auditor Mark Hulse. Also, she was not allowed to respond to the charges against her in the report before it was tabled. Those charges eventually led to her dismissal. Solicitor General Flowers countered that the senate had no obligation to Garcia because it did not terminate her; the board, at the urging of the Prime Minister, did that.
And in a surprising development, Chairman of the Select Committee Godwin Hulse took the witness stand to say that just before the report was finalized, he called Garcia to meet with the Select Committee and clarify certain issues, but she refused.
In the end, after three and a half hours of arguments on both sides, the Chief Justice found in favour of Hulse and the Special Select Committee. Conteh explained that because parliament has special privileges, the high court cannot easily interfere with its workings. In view of that and the fact that Narda Garcia was not the subject of the inquiry, Conteh said he is unable to grant
permission for judicial review.
Speaking with us as he left court, Senator Hulse says it is an expected vindication.
Senator Godwin Hulse,
"We felt that we had done our work Jules and we felt that we had taken every care, we had considered every option, we were very cognizant of the very things that Mrs. Garcia raised, that we should not in anyway try to violate any of her rights. We went beyond, to my mind, our call and our responsibility, to ensure that every facet was covered. We invited her, as you heard, she is the one who had denied that invitation to return a fourth, it was actually a third time. She was there three times, she said her attorney said there was nothing else that she could add.
The reports, the audit formed a part of our overall investigation into documentation. The audit was only substantiate that the transactions actually took place, the recommendations were not based on the audit. They were based on a whole package of documents including the mortgages, testimony, and everything that we brought. And we do feel, I personally feel, that if the people's truly appointed representative to the Senate, namely Senator Gomez representing the unions and myself representing the business community, who are the people who contribute to the Social Security fund do not have the right to ask their representatives to look into their fund which the Board and Mrs. Garcia holds in for the people then where are we.
I think the Act, I don't remember clearly the exact section, I think it is section 35 of the Social Security Act that puts the responsibility on her. She is the functionary. She is the one who is there everyday. She is the one who does the daily work. And yes, it is her responsibility to advise the Board, it is her responsibility to advise the investment committee, it is her responsibility to say this doesn't look good. And we kept asking is there any writ in any board papers, any documentations, anything to say that the Board said contrary what you are telling us, 'we want you to proceed.' She didn't produce any."
Jules Vasquez,
You think your report will face more challenges along this line?
Senator Godwin Hulse,
"It is hard to say but we stand by that report. Nobody has challenged the substance of the report. The substance of the report are based facts and will stand the test of time. There is no doubt in my mind about that."
And while she lost on her request for leave to apply for judicial review of the senate report, Garcia did have one win. Early in the morning, Kaseke and the attorney for Social Security Andrew Marshalleck informed the court that a settlement has been reached on her contract termination payoff. Garcia had requested that the court appoint an arbitrator to determine what compensation she should receive for the early termination of her contract. Now that her request has been withdrawn, it means that an adequate compensation package has been arrived at.
In December of 2004, the board gave Garcia an $850,000 employment contract for a salary of $170,000 a year for 5 years.
