PATTERSONONE OF Jamaica's top-flight legal luminaries, who does not want to be named, believes that Dr. Kenneth Rattray's report has done more harm than good to former Minister of Water and Housing, Dr. Karl Blythe.
According to the legal mind, there are inconsistencies and weaknesses in a number of the arguments which Dr. Rattray has put forward to clear the former minister of blame in the Operation PRIDE scandal.
The Rattray Report, which is the basis on which the Prime Minister has exonerated Dr. Blythe, asserts that "there is no finding of corruption by the Commission (Angus) in respect of the actions of the Minister. There is no evidence that the actions of the Minister constitute an abuse of public office for private gain."
Among other things, the Rattray Report also criticises the Angus Commission for certain "procedural defects", for failure to carry out a rigorous and in-depth examination of the facts, for failure to base its conclusions solely on facts and for relying on hearsay.
The report, which was submitted to the Prime Minister on November 18 last year, "reviewed the Report of The Commission Of Enquiry (Angus) in order to make an assessment of the culpability of former Housing Minister, Dr. Karl Blythe." Dr. Rattray noted in the report that he also had access to additional documents not contained in the commission's report.
"I'm not sure that Rattray has not put the noose more around the Minister's neck, even more than the commission did," said the legal luminary.
The legal authority noted that the Angus Report states that "The Minister informed the commission that he provides only policy guidance in respect of administration of the programme."
But, in his report, Dr. Rattray has taken a position that the minister, because he is a corporation sole, is entitled to 'interfere.'
This - according to the legal source - "is totally inconsistent with the position of the minister himself, who told the commission that he sticks to providing policy guidance and did not interfere in the day to day running of Operation PRIDE."
The legal luminary also noted that the Angus Commission identified the safeguarding of public funds at the NHDC as a collective responsibility and did not single out the minister for blame.
For example, in the matter of the absence of loan agreements at the appropriate time, the Angus Report noted the following: "The Commission considers this to be a gross dereliction of duties of persons responsible for ensuring the proper and prudent disbursement of public funds."
According to the source, "If Rattray had said the minister is only there to take care of policy -- (which is what the minister put forward in his own defence) - then the minister would have nothing to concern himself about. But now Rattray has put the ministry's head right into the noose."
Dr. Rattray has, however, argued that the minister is, and has the legal right as Corporation Sole to be hands-on.
The top-flight legal source has also noted that Dr. Rattray's approach to assessing the former minister's culpability was limited.
"I'm not sure that the Rattray report has fully addressed the vices that the Angus Report has brought to attention - and that is as being as kind to Dr. Rattray as I possibly can," the source said. "I think to assess culpability of Dr. Blythe, he (Dr. Rattray) would have to take each of the vices as was set out the Angus Report," and show that the minister either had nothing to do with that, or that the minister tried to protect public funds. But those persons who fall under his direction did not carry out his instructions.
In responding to Dr. Rattray's assertions that certain "procedural defects" which have affected the Angus findings, the legal source identifies a number of instances in the Angus Report where those assertions can be disproved.
"They did apparently look at a number of documents and they did interview people orally, including the minister. I believe that in an investigation of this nature, it is probably perfectly proper to have hearsay. But I don't know where Rattray got the idea that they relied on hearsay. There is nothing that I see in the Angus Report that leads to a conclusion that they did rely exclusively on hearsay evidence," the luminary said.
