Not so long ago, when a particular MP I need not identify was perceived as “the worst prospect confronting politics in Saint Lucia” and marked for demolition by whatever means, some chose to see me as his chief enabler largely because I demanded proof of their outrageous allegations. I had been in shoes similar to the targeted MP’s and knew how it felt to have as your stop at nothing enemies (yes, enemies, not just adversaries!) the most powerful in the land, for whom state power was just another weapon to be used against critics of their policies.
This was how I responded to one especially vicious assault on my own unwilting professionalism by dubious nameless characters demonstrably without minds, let alone minds incapable of metaphor (apologies to Derek Walcott): “If what the MP’s accusers say is valid, public relations alone will be of small avail to him. Quite obviously he would be better served by a good criminal defense lawyer, or two!”
Some fourteen years on the once besieged MP remains conspicuously free. Evidently the countless charges daily leveled at him when he held public office have been forgotten. Iced, some might say, to be defrosted should he risk a return to the campaign trail. In more recent times the poisoned arrows have been flying in the direction of another MP. And yes, since I’ve resisted all invitations to join the latest howlers for his hide, I am once again accused of giving him shelter with my silence.
The undeniable truth is that Guy Joseph has repeatedly proved his ability to frustrate those who live only to bury him. Not once has he been required to stand before a commission of inquiry, let alone a court. On the contrary, the MP has publicly challenged the muckrakers to prove themselves more than garden-variety rumormongers. Which is not to say they’ve not spent millions of taxpayer dollars prospecting for nuggets supportive of their often alarming allegations.
The last desperate attempt at nailing Guy Joseph, according to the MP himself, was made by the Kenny Anthony administration in early February 2012. Retained for the job was the famous American financial forensic investigator Robert Lindquist, at a cost of some $3 million. Seven years later, and despite several official requests, the Allen Chastanet government still has not received a report. It would seem Robert Lindquist considers his special assignment a matter between him and his client the 2012 government of Prime Minister Kenny Anthony—no business of the government elected in its place on 6 June 2016.
A reliable source informs me that all work performed during the Lindquist engagement is construed as “attorney work product,” to be kept by the firm as “confidential.” Moreover, that Lindquist will not disclose his findings except with his client’s permission. Lindquist remains in total control of the results of his probe into Guy Joseph’s activities, private and public—unless otherwise directed by Lindquist’s client the former prime minister Kenny Anthony. But my source suggests there may be another way to skin this accommodating bearcat: by order of a court of law.
Still, it is baffling that having spent public funds on an investigation of a Cabinet member, the government cannot avail itself of the result without the intervention of a judge. Could it be that what Robert Lindquist discovered might be potentially embarrassing to his retainers? I should at this point repeat myself: I know from experience how low incumbent politicians can stoop in their quest to silence uncooperative journalists or even an opposing parliamentarian.
Which is why, before I write or speak out on an issue, I have always insisted on proof of the allegations. In today’s world, I need add, when lies can be made to resemble distilled truth, I have of necessity become even more careful in my judgments. In all events, our Constitution demands that citizens be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, that the burden of proof be borne by the accuser—never the accused!
The last mentioned constitutional protection came to mind this week as I took in the spectacle of my friend Philip J. Pierre taking questions from that well known denizen of the spirit world, Andre Paul. It didn’t take long before the “to whom it may concern” letter was served up. For several weeks now the opposition party has been referring to it as “a contract” allegedly signed without proper authority by the MP Guy Joseph. (For the record, here’s the simplest definition of contract: “A legal document between two parties. In order to be enforceable the contract must contain seven elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, competence/capacity, mutual consent, legality, writing.”) The letter in question features a single signature.
The MP Guy Joseph has himself said little on the matter, on the reasonable ground that professed official documents picked up from Facebook, of all places, are altogether undeserving of his attention. Incidentally, Section 16 of the House Standing Orders reads as follows: “A question shall not be asked inquiring whether statements in the press, or of private individuals, or official bodies are accurate.” Conceivably, that would include online publications.
During Tuesday’s interview with Andre Paul, Pierre was asked to comment on the possibility that the letter in question might be a photo-shop concoction. Pierre’s reaction: “All the minister had to say is ‘I did not sign that letter.’ Simple. Or ‘That letter is a forgery, and let me call on the police to investigate.’ Further, when the prime minister was asked to comment on the letter he said that as far as he is concerned [the projects listed] had already been funded.”
The host wondered aloud about the need for a “to whom it may concern” letter that apparently sought financing for a project for which the government had already secured funding. Pierre’s response: “That is what the government has to answer. That’s what Guy Joseph has to answer. What he normally does is go to Grynberg, Rochamel and so on.” (By the way “to whom it may concern” is defined as “a formula placed at the beginning of a letter or document when the identity of the reader or readers is unknown.” I might add that such letters carry little weight!)
The host reminded Pierre that in an earlier interview the prime minister claimed he had no knowledge of the letter to which Pierre persistently referred. Pierre recalled a former prime minister (Stephenson King) telling reporters that “if that letter was written by the minister then Guy Joseph should be disciplined.” Perhaps inadvertently, Pierre actually emphasized King’s carefully positioned “if” that spoke volumes to the attentive ear. (I am here reminded of the nursery rhyme that says “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride!”
Finally, Andre Paul asked Pierre what he would say should the letter prove a fake. Pierre replied that in the event he would willingly offer his apologies. It seemed to me that in the matter at hand Pierre rode aboard a cart placed before his ass. He could not swear to the authenticity of the “to whom it may concern” letter, and even admitted at one point in the interview with Andre Paul that the letter was in its circumstances “unnecessary.” It was up to others to prove it was the real deal, he implied. But that would turn on its head the law that requires the accuser to prove his case, not the accused—who need not utter a single word in his own defense.
Mr. Pierre, lest we forget, is the leader of the House opposition. He has at his disposal mechanisms by which to discover the truth in matters of public interest. However, that he has chosen to try his case in the media and not before the appropriate tribunals only leaves room for conjecture, whether or not reasonable. Indeed, I might add that Mr. Pierre has at his disposal both the media and House mechanisms, not to say the courts. To turn only to the media and his political platform suggests to me either a lack of faith in his repeated assertions or in the system itself.
Or, considering all that has gone on before—among them the unforgettable hollow accusations against John Compton in 1998—perhaps the latest assault on Guy Joseph’s reputation is just more noisome propaganda, for which local politicians are especially notorious. I have been reliably informed that at least one of the projects mentioned in the Facebook publication has been contracted out—and not to the party indicated in the questionable “to whom it may concern” missive.
It goes without saying that while Pierre mentioned Grynberg during his sit-down with Andre Paul his announced lack of interest in revisiting the road to RSM’s US$500 million breach of contract lawsuit against the government was never questioned!
