Yesterday, we showed you the howls of protest and outrage from several of the members of the former Barrow Administration. They say that the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the sale of Government assets during the last few months of their term in office, are not objective.
You'll remember that according to the commission, all 112 government vehicles sold during the time period they reviewed were disposed of improperly. Those questionable sales, the Commission says, caused a loss to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and to you, the taxpayers. The Commission characterized these deals as "waste and abuse".
It was supposed to be the Briceno Administration's first attempt to hold former government officials to account for these discount deals, and part of a bigger push to good governance and accountability.
Well, the Opposition has perused that document. And now, they're insisting in the strongest terms that the Commission has formed biased conclusions. They assert that their rights to natural justice and a proper defense were violated. They also think that these supposed missteps in procedure ought to have been easily avoided, since the Chairman, Andrew Marshalleck is a senior counsel.
Well, today, we got a chance to have an extended sit-down conversation with Chairman Marshalleck. We start first with his opening remarks in response to the aggrieved former government ministers who have commented publicly to 7News. He stressed that all findings were "non-binding recommendations" to the government, recommendations that can change if new information mandates that. Here's how he made that point:
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Chairman, Commission of Inquiry
"I have to state unequivocally that the commission is not here to find the guilt or innocence of anybody, in respect of any wrongdoing. That's for courts where rights everybody's rights are protected and respected to the fullest extent. The commission is a fact-finding tribunal and in the course of its investigations, makes certain findings, and based on those findings, offers non-binding recommendations to the authorities. The authorities are free to take them or leave them as they please. To the extent that certain people consider that unfair characterizations, references, [and] findings have been made and I note in particular from - because I read the transcript of your news proceedings. If ex-Minister Hulse is in possession of information that shows that the findings of the commission with regard to his vehicle were wrong, then I want to publicly invite him to make that information available to the commission. We are fully prepared to consider any new information and, if necessary, to restate our position. We want to be fair to everybody and the same would be team invitation can be extended is extended to Minister Hugo Patt. If he thinks he has something in his possession, shows the views we express to be misguided and wrong, please, send it to us. We will consider it. Consider that an open invitation. The material can be sent right here to this address, 1440 Coney Drive. We will receive it and consider it."
Later on in the interview, the Chairman also addressed a few of Senator Michael Peyrefitte's complaints about the findings. He pointed out that the Commission was not recommending the removal of Michael Peyrefitte and UDP Hugo Patt from the National Assembly. He said that in the opinion of the Commission, the National Assembly has to confront this issue of these contracts entered into with the Vehicle Care Unit, and whether or not these parliamentarians can still hold office as a result of their connection to these sold assets. Here's his point on that:
E. Andrew Marshalleck
"As to the complaints assuming your transcript is correct made by Senator Peyrefitte, I think he has he may have misread the commission's finding. [The] commission has not recommended that anybody would be removed from the House. The commission found that there were contracts. There are obviously provisions in the Constitution that disqualify members of their House where certain contracts exist, and the existence of these two things gives rise to a legitimate question which must be confronted and unresolved by the authorities, the relevant authorities in the usual way, giving full respect to everybody's rights. And that question is whether these contracts these contracts to buy vehicles operate to disqualify any of these people from the House. I can share with you my own personal view is that the contract that Senator Peyrefitte had, to acquire furniture on his iPad has is spent. It is executed. He is paid. He's received his goods. It no longer exists. So the obvious question is whether that disqualification would persist. My own view of it is not very important, and neither is his. What is important is that the National Assembly itself recognizes and sets very clear rules regarding these things and puts the measures in place to implement and enforce these rules once they're declared."
