Taking Integrity Commission report with a grain or two of salt

Dear Editor,

I have been closely following the unravelling of the so-called Petrojam scandal and, from the outside looking in, it seems to be rife with overpoliticised opinions, cruel and unnecessary criticism, and, to an extent, scapegoating.

If we are to be fair to the parties involved, Petrojam’s mismanagement began years before the current administration and previous board were in place, and while negligence is no excuse I don’t believe placing the blame squarely at the feet of a few individuals will bring justice.

As for the Integrity Commission, if you are called upon to investigate, detail, and prepare a report on what has transpired, we expect that report to be impartial, thorough, and most importantly, hinged by the facts! While I’m sure most Jamaicans welcome the report and its findings, its overhanging menacing tone makes it difficult to accept it as the whole truth. The assertion that the minister previously knew the members of the board is both trivial and troublesome. Usually, any public board appointed by a minister of Government under any administration will be comprised of trusted associates.

So, to this end, I’ll accept the report with a grain or two of salt. Bring the facts, no character assassinations and wild assumptions, and allow us to draw our conclusions.