Tweet
CONTRACTOR General Dirk Harrison last Wednesday disclosed that the preliminary findings of an investigation into the awarding of government contracts at the St Ann Parish Council and in the St Ann South Eastern constituency have revealed disturbing breaches involving fraud, forgery and conspiracy.
“My personal view is that if you think what happened in Hanover is bad, Hanover is a baby to St Ann,” he told councillors and Local Government Minister Desmond McKenzie at an Association of Local Government Authorities of Jamaica meeting in Clarendon.
He added: “Preliminary findings [revealed] fraud, forgery and conspiracy. We are taking our time, but the investigation is still ongoing.”
In May, the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) outlined breaches at the Hanover Parish Council in a scathing 176-page report stemming from its investigation into the circumstances surrounding allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest, favouritism, irregularity and impropriety in the awarding of government contracts to relatives and political affiliates of two councillors.
Harrison, who was defending his stewardship of the St Ann investigation, assured those present at the meeting that his office was giving the probe its due diligence.
Several people, including a number of political analysts, have raised questions about the delay in furnishing the report. Only last week one woman, in a letter to the editor of the Jamaica Observer, further questioned the status of the report.
The letter writer noted that the probe was opened in June 2015 in relation to how contracts were awarded and allegations that millions of dollars were paid over to loyalists of the then governing party for work that was purported to be done.
“In February 2016, prior to the general election, the contractor general denied reports that had surfaced that he was being pressured by influential People’s National Party officials to deliberately hold off on furnishing a report until after the election. He is on record in saying that the report would be forthcoming and that no one would get any special favours from him, and that he would allow his track record of delivering reports to speak for itself,” the letter writer said.
“Now, seven months after that bold declaration and 15 months after the probe began, what is the status of that report?” the letter writer asked.
Harrison, however, has maintained that an “investigation of this magnitude takes time”.
“It is still ongoing; it’s just a matter of time. We have had to readjust our focus in relation to some other matters. We haven’t been able to focus as much, but it’s still ongoing. So, despite all the rumours out there, we are still working on it,” he told the Observer when contacted.
He also reiterated at last Wednesday’s meeting that the investigation spans some three years and involved scores of people who had done ‘Christmas work’ in the constituency. He added that it had taken his office a significant amount of time to get the relevant documents, confirming that the parish council had given its full co-operation.
The Observer made contact with one resident of the St Ann South Eastern constituency who said he was used as a conduit in the scheme to collect money for work that was not done.
“I told him (Harrison) that a lady called me and asked me to go to the parish council and sign up for some work. I told her ‘yes’ and I went down there and I signed up the papers and it was done. About a week after, I got a call that the cheque is ready, so I went down there, collect that cheque, and when I came to Claremont I met her [apolitical operative] and hand her the cheque, and she put it in her bag,” he said.
The man added that he was later called, handed the cheque, and was instructed to cash it and that the money was later distributed. He told the Observer that since going on record about it he has received several death threats. He has since left the constituency, despite insisting that he is not afraid and would continue to speak out.
At the same time, Harrison said, while he accepted the fact that drain cleaning and bushing were necessary in any constituency, the process needs to be “micromanaged”.
“You can’t have one person collecting a cheque and then the councillor distributes that money. We have found evidence of it; it is happening, and we are looking into it,” he said at the meeting.
“My personal view is that if you think what happened in Hanover is bad, Hanover is a baby to St Ann,” he told councillors and Local Government Minister Desmond McKenzie at an Association of Local Government Authorities of Jamaica meeting in Clarendon.
He added: “Preliminary findings [revealed] fraud, forgery and conspiracy. We are taking our time, but the investigation is still ongoing.”
In May, the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) outlined breaches at the Hanover Parish Council in a scathing 176-page report stemming from its investigation into the circumstances surrounding allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest, favouritism, irregularity and impropriety in the awarding of government contracts to relatives and political affiliates of two councillors.
Harrison, who was defending his stewardship of the St Ann investigation, assured those present at the meeting that his office was giving the probe its due diligence.
Several people, including a number of political analysts, have raised questions about the delay in furnishing the report. Only last week one woman, in a letter to the editor of the Jamaica Observer, further questioned the status of the report.
The letter writer noted that the probe was opened in June 2015 in relation to how contracts were awarded and allegations that millions of dollars were paid over to loyalists of the then governing party for work that was purported to be done.
“In February 2016, prior to the general election, the contractor general denied reports that had surfaced that he was being pressured by influential People’s National Party officials to deliberately hold off on furnishing a report until after the election. He is on record in saying that the report would be forthcoming and that no one would get any special favours from him, and that he would allow his track record of delivering reports to speak for itself,” the letter writer said.
“Now, seven months after that bold declaration and 15 months after the probe began, what is the status of that report?” the letter writer asked.
Harrison, however, has maintained that an “investigation of this magnitude takes time”.
“It is still ongoing; it’s just a matter of time. We have had to readjust our focus in relation to some other matters. We haven’t been able to focus as much, but it’s still ongoing. So, despite all the rumours out there, we are still working on it,” he told the Observer when contacted.
He also reiterated at last Wednesday’s meeting that the investigation spans some three years and involved scores of people who had done ‘Christmas work’ in the constituency. He added that it had taken his office a significant amount of time to get the relevant documents, confirming that the parish council had given its full co-operation.
The Observer made contact with one resident of the St Ann South Eastern constituency who said he was used as a conduit in the scheme to collect money for work that was not done.
“I told him (Harrison) that a lady called me and asked me to go to the parish council and sign up for some work. I told her ‘yes’ and I went down there and I signed up the papers and it was done. About a week after, I got a call that the cheque is ready, so I went down there, collect that cheque, and when I came to Claremont I met her [apolitical operative] and hand her the cheque, and she put it in her bag,” he said.
The man added that he was later called, handed the cheque, and was instructed to cash it and that the money was later distributed. He told the Observer that since going on record about it he has received several death threats. He has since left the constituency, despite insisting that he is not afraid and would continue to speak out.
At the same time, Harrison said, while he accepted the fact that drain cleaning and bushing were necessary in any constituency, the process needs to be “micromanaged”.
“You can’t have one person collecting a cheque and then the councillor distributes that money. We have found evidence of it; it is happening, and we are looking into it,” he said at the meeting.
.png)
Comment