The Court of Appeal is presently meeting in Grenada and one of the matters attracting its attention is the Commission of Inquiry into the US$500, 000 briefcase issue involving Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell.

Opposition Leader, Tillman Thomas has challenged in court the decision of sole Commissioner, Dr. Richard Cheltenham of Barbados not to give him an official standing in the inquiry.

Last week, GRENADA TODAY brought Part 1 of an analysis of the Briefcase Issue which dealt with among other things the Prime Minister's address to the nation on the issue nearly two years ago.
This week, we bring the second and final part of the article:


TREATMENT OF CABINET

From Meryl Forsyth's (former Cabinet Secretary) testimony to the Commission, we learned the following:

(I) that an oral presentation to Cabinet on the mission was made by the Prime Minister!

(ii) That that presentation was made less than three (3) days before the mission was to have commenced;

(iii) that no official (written) report on the mission was submitted to Cabinet!

These facts send a disturbing message as to the manner in which the Prime Minister treated his own Cabinet and also as to his treatment of what was supposed to be a matter of high national importance.

This news is not good! Bear in mind also that there seems to be no record of technical preparation for the mission by the competent public officers. And very little assistance is provided by those who accompanied the Prime Minister.

On the one hand, the female Ambassador in Brussels fails to submit a written report on the mission covering the meetings at which she was present. On the other hand, the two Policemen had no visas to travel to Paris and were therefore left idle in London with no subject to protect, as the Prime Minister went to France alone!

Were the circumstances of those Policemen the result of inadequate or hasty preparations? Or was it that someone did not think it was prudent for them to witness what was to occur in Paris or wherever else the Prime Minister may have travelled during the period of their separation?

The mission to Europe must have taken some time to plan. The decision not to obtain visas need for France and Austria before leaving Grenada meant that visaS had to be obtained in London for those needing it.

Grenada's diplomatic representation in London must have been aware (per itinerary) of the impossibility of obtaining visas for France in the time available after arrival in London and the scheduled departure for Paris. (This matter ought to be probed with the Former High Commissioner to London). It is reasonable to expect that this information would have been communicated to the Prime Minister in good time, presumably before he left Grenada.

If this was the case, then the Prime Minister took a conscious risk to abandon his security men for the duration of his visit to Paris. Perhaps this may be justified on some ground of"necessity" beyond the requirement of public affairs.

We know that in 2000, one appropriate visa could facilitate travel to both France and"Austria".  Whether visas were needed for Switzerland and Leichenstein can be easily established. If the policemen accompanied the Prime Minister to ŒAustria" then they must have received appropriate visas and scrutiny of their passports could establish the relevant facts.

Supposedly, a visit to Leichenstein might also be recorded in the passports of all members of the Party.  All of those loose ends must be tied up in searching for the truth.

V. Which was the Fifth Country?

According to the GIS release of May 10, 2004, the Prime Minister visited Leichtenstein.   According to the Prime Minister's address he visited Austria. How could this confusion have come about? Why is it that the Government/PM has never arranged for the GIS to retract its version of the countries visited?

The GIS release could not have been issued without the approval of the Prime Minister since he was the subject under scrutiny and the Minister responsible for Information. What is Leichtenstein noted for?

And if the Prime Minister did go there, then what business did he transact there in the name of Grenada? Alternatively, were his visit and dealings there entirely of a personal nature? Regarding the geography of that part of Europe, one notices that Leichenstein is landlocked between Austria and Switzerland.

The Prime Minister's meeting with Resteiner in Switzerland must have been followed by a visit to Leichenstein (per GIS release) or Austria (per Prime Minister's statement).

The fact that the sequence was not the reverse and on the evidence that one purpose of meeting with Resteiner was the promotion of the Prime Minister's financial interests, strengthen the probability that the GIS account is the more accurate.

The essential point here is that the passports of all members of the delegation must be crucial sources of evidence to be exposed and considered by the Commission of Inquiry.

The Public Officers: Responsible, Incompetent or Timid?

Throughout the evidence before the Inquiry, one got the impression that the Public Officers were being sacrificed. While it was clear that most of them lacked the knowledge and competence ordinarily required of their assignment as Permanent Secretaries, the fact of their appointment cannot be over-looked.

Note that the Prime Minister appointed all of them. However, do not even think that any Permanent Secretary could have stopped the Prime Minister from engaging in the enterprises and schemes which he set up by way of policy and programmes.  

All citizens must be concerned about the state of the Public Service, but responsibility for the improper conduct, ill-advised policies and other forms of wrong-doing cannot be put on the shoulders of those weak, coward and frightened Public Officers. In any event, we must not lose sight of the fact that the primary issue of concern here (Inquiry) is the conduct of the Prime Minister. That conduct is to be evaluated as much by the official decisions made by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as by the activities and choices made by him.

Conclusion

An objective appreciation of the issues raised herein would cause any reasonable citizen of Grenada immense worry and concern about the conduct of the Prime Minister in undertaking his investment promotional tour and his account to the Nation in the face of the widely publicised bribery allegation.

How believable is the Prime Minister's explanation given the above? Truth and honour do not always sit well with privilege. But the people have the right to act against privilege deriving from public office where truth is in such grave doubt and honour is so compromised that the nation is put to shame and ridicule.

It is untenable for the Prime Minister to say that he did not know of Resteiner's reputation. The Prime Minister's retention of cash given to him by Resteiner whom he knows to be a fraudster poses a disturbing question as to his own standards of integrity. In short, he has kept a fraudster's money!!!

His reimbursement defence is also breached by his very own words, and now stands devoid of merit and credibility. And Grenada faces the prospect of having to provide a home for Resteiner after serving his jail term.

In the premises, therefore, the Prime Minister is faced with a very serious 'problem of conduct'.