This expose seeks to identify and expose a set of critical issues surrounding the Briefcase scandal. Much of the material informing this analysis comes frOm two sources:
(I) Evidence presented to the Commission of Inquiry; and
(ii) The Prime's Minister's address to the Nation of May 19, 2004
Broadly speaking, the entire issue may be set out in terms of:
(a) the bribery allegation
(b) the conduct of the Prime Minister.
This distinction is important because while clear and direct evidence is needed to sustain the bribery allegation as a criminal matter, the conduct issue is affected by a different and perhaps less stringent standard.
The latter is very much open to deductive reasoning based on knowledge of the Public Service, applicable regulations, the identification of inconsistencies as applied to the facts and circumstances of the case.
So that while the bribery allegation may lead to a criminal conviction, if established, the conduct of the Prime minister may be found to be such that he is deemed to be unfit to hold public office.
The prosecution of these issues and the outcome will constitute a matter of grave national importance.
We shall concern ourselves herein only with the issue of the Prime Minister's conduct. In progressing the analysis, we will endeavour to specify certain vital elements and to explore each with a view to creating a picture which either points to a "problem of conduct" for the Prime Minister or otherwise.
We begin therefore by looking at certain factors which may be grouped together as "foundation issues".
(1). Knowledge of Eric Resteiner
The main concern here is to seek to determine whether it is plausible for the Prime Minister to argue that he was unaware of the true character of Mr Resteiner at the time of direct and indirect dealings with him and up to the infamous journey to visit Resteiner in St. Moritz, Switzerland.
Consider the following:
(i) that Resteiner's renunciation of his highly-valued US citizenship to become an "economic" citizen of Grenada in 1997 must have put any reasonable person on guard that all was not well! (Incidentally, the US may well export Resteiner to Grenada after he serves his prison sentence!!!)
(ii) the Prime Minister would have had to approve Grenadian citizenship for Resteiner. Similarly, the granting of diplomatic status in 1999 to Resteiner and the issuing of Grenada Diplomatic passports to him would have had to result from the Prime Minister's approval.
Note that this information has not been disclosed to the public by Government. So the opportunity to know who Resteiner was, was available many times before the 2000 Mission to Europe. At the very least, there must have been constructive knowledge on the part of the Prime Minister;
(iii) the "PAY TO MEET" offer by Resteiner (arising from Creft's evidence to the Commission) should also have struck the Prime Minister as being irregular and deserving of scrutiny as to purpose.
Recall that the Prime Minister's address did not attribute any beneficial outcome to the meeting with Resteiner. In fact, there is no reference to the meeting with Resteiner throughout the speech, except regarding the collection of money.
As such, one can conclude that the meeting with Resteiner did not relate to the objectives of the Prime Minister's "investment promotion tour".
(iv) there is evidence (per Creft) of contact with Resteiner's British lawyer over a period of time. That individual is believed to have been given a diplomatic passport and is reported to have advised Government to effect certain amendments to its Economic Citizenship legislation to facilitate "Agents" processing groups of applicants and the lucrative fees/commission payable in such circumstances.
So there seems to have been some direct or in-direct link between the Prime Minister and Resteiner's Lawyer (per Creft) which may have impacted on the Economic Citizenship Programme.
Consequently, it would not be far-fetched to speculate that Resteiner himself might have been a special player in attracting candidates under Grenada's Economic Citizenship Programme and that that role might have provided the reason and context for his meeting with the Prime Minister.
We now know that Resteiner's dealings with Grenada had nothing to do with trade or investment promotion in the traditional sense. Scrutiny of Resteiner's Ordinary and Diplomatic Passports as to the countries visited would be of considerable help on this point. Equally important would be a thorough investigation of the sale of passports under the Economic Citizenship Programme.
II. Improper conduct
All financial transactions involving the State are governed by the Finance and Audit Act and by the Financial Rules and Regulations pursuant thereto.
All practice must be compliant with these for them to be proper. These rules do not provide for State officials to accept moneys in a personal capacity in the name of Grenada.
On this premise therefore, the following observations are in order:
(I) the decision of Cabinet to accept financial assistance from Resteiner did not and could not change the law or regulations. Recall that decisions of Cabinet must be consistent with existing law for them to be lawful.
Resteiner's offer of assistance could have been properly received through the Treasury as follows:
(a) Computation by Ministry staff of the estimated cost of mission and request that Resteiner remit such sum to Treasury prior to mission, to be recorded as a gift to Grenada;
(b) Proceed on mission using the preferred and established method of a Treasury Advance, versus one's personal credit cards and upon return to Grenada, advise Resteiner of costs incurred with a request to remit the sum expended to Treasury in keeping with his promise;
(ii) the Prime Minister's acceptance of cash from Resteiner therefore turned what was supposed to be assistance to Grenada into a personal transaction with the Prime Minister which cannot be justified on the basis that the Treasury was saved the cost of the mission;
(iii) the Prime Minister in this capacity and in his previous capacity as Minister of Finance must have full responsibility as chief custodian of the Financial Rules and Regulations.
His position and knowledge should constrain him to act lawfully at all times. On this basis, it is no defence to say "others did it before",
(iv) the irregularity of the Prime Minister's visit to Resteiner's house points to the private nature of what was transacted there. Remember that it was not a luncheon or dinner party.
From the Prime Minister's own account, there was nothing of benefit to Grenada that he could report as arising from his meeting with Resteiner. As indicated above, the speech is silent on what was discussed with or what was achieved through the meeting with Resteiner.
(v) notice the willingness of the Prime Minister to drive for about twelve (12) hours on a Sunday to meet Resteiner! One could hardly suggest that he was extremely idle at the time.
On the contrary, the meeting with Resteiner must have been very important except that that importance is hidden in secrecy between the Prime Minister and Resteiner and was not for the enrichment of Grenada.
III. Reimbursement?
Here we are concerned with a few elements:
(a) the scope and sequence of the mission
(b) the point at which the so-called reimbursement was collected
© the travel costs (airfares)
There should be no difficulty in accepting that US $15,000 could not cover all of the mission's expenses to include air fares for Prime Minister, his security men and Grenada's Ambassador in Brussels.
So that while Cabinet was said to have agreed to accept Resteiner's offer to cover the expenses of the mission, certain of those costs could not have been met by the US$15,000.
Questions must therefore be asked about the flouting of the Cabinet's decision and who or which organisation actually paid for the tickets for the travel to five countries.
But perhaps the biggest and most significant problem for the Prime Minister is contained in the following statement which he made in his address to the Nation:
"I received approximately US$15,000 from the former Trade Counsellor while in Switzerland. I had already travelled from Grenada to Paris, I had used my own credit cards to finance the trip of my delegation and myself'.
On this account, clearly the mission had not yet been completed i.e. There were still two countries to visit: ŒAustria' and Kuwait, both being part of the mission as disclosed by the Prime Minister himself. How then were the remaining costs covered?
Herein lies the massive problem of truth which opens the door to the view that "reimbursement" could not have been the nature of the business transacted between Resteiner and the Prime Minister, the latter having not explained things in terms of a partial reimbursement.
Incidentally, it would be interesting to learn whether Grenada's Ambassador in Brussels also collected a cash reimbursement from Resteiner with the Prime Minister as a witness!
If not, how were her expenses met and accounted for? The Accountant General could provide answers to these questions.
(To be continued)
