The Tribune

ON MONDAY, Labour Minister Shane Gibson accused former National Insurance Board Director Algernon Cargill of frustrating the current audit into NIB by making “unreasonable demands on them”. These demands, therefore, had delayed the completion of the audit, and obviously its delivery to government.

It is difficult to understand how Mr Cargill is frustrating anyone when on being told that the auditors had no questions to ask him, he replied to their invitation to question them, that neither had he any questions for them. It was obvious that a meeting between the two became pointless. There was no need for further delay.

So for Mr Gibson to tell the press that he guessed that the “auditors will have to make a decision as to how much time they think is sufficient (to give Mr Cargill to meet with them) before they decide to move…” is in our opinion just playing to the public and an apparent attempt to continue to put Mr Cargill in a bad light.

In this column, we shall go through the sequence of events and leave it to our readers to decide what is in fact happening behind the scenes with the NIB audit.

On December 19, 2012, Mr Alfred Sears, Mr Cargill’s counsel, wrote to Mr Kendrik Christie — Prime Minister Christie’s cousin and partner in the auditing firm of Grant Thornton —reminding him of a November 29th e-mail requesting a copy of his firm’s terms of reference and “the scope of your forensic investigation of the various allegations relating to our clients (Mr Cargill, NIB Director, and Mr Raymond Wells, NIB’s vice president of Information Technology) and (NIB chairman) Mr Gregory Moss and NIB.”

The requested terms of the audit were sent by the auditing firm to Mr Sears this Saturday — three months after the first request. Among the terms for investigation were accusations made in what was claimed to have been a confidential letter from then NIB chairman Gregory Moss to his minister, Shane Gibson. This letter was subsequently “leaked” to the press. Affidavits containing what Mr Cargill calls “false accusations” made by Mr Moss against him in the letter to Mr Gibson have been filed by Mr Sears pending a defamation trial in the Supreme Court. Also being investigated were bonuses to all NIB executives.

On Friday, February 1, Mr Sears e-mailed Mr Paul Andy Gomez, who heads the Grant Thornton firm, drawing to his attention that it had been announced in the press that morning that his firm planned to deliver the completed report to Government on Monday, February 4. Mr Sears pointed out that his clients — Cargill and Wells — were yet to be interviewed although on December 10, 2012, Mr Gomez’s firm had been informed that both men were “available to assist in your review and we request that you provide us with a copy of the questions that you wish to put to our client” – it seemed that the report was to focus on Mr Cargill. Mr Sears added: “We have not had the courtesy of a response to our (December 10) letter.”

On the afternoon of February 1, Mr Gomez telephoned Mr Sears. Mr Sears returned the call. Mr Gomez asked him whether Mr Cargill could meet with the auditors the next morning.

Recording their conversation by e-mail Mr Sears replied: “Having represented forensic accountants and participated in forensic exercises, as a legal commercial practitioner over the past 20 years, subjects of investigations were always afforded reasonable notice and, in many instances, provided with the questions before the interview to ensure due process in the exercise, especially in cases involving public corporations and entities. We, therefore, insist that our client be afforded the normal due process and fairness that was afforded to the other parties at NIB with whom you and your team have met with in a deliberate and considered manner.” Mr Sears then suggested a meeting for February 7. He repeated his request that the questions be provided before the interview.

Mr Gomez replied that they were in office the next morning, Saturday, February 2, and Sunday, February 3, between 10am and 4pm and would be prepared to meet with Mr Cargill then.

“We are prepared to meet with your client for him to ask any questions that he has. We have no questions for Mr Cargill at this time to complete this phase of our report,” wrote Mr Gomez. Mr Cargill was not available on those dates but could make February 7. Kendrick Christie replied that his firm was prepared to meet with Mr Cargill anytime before Thursday, February 7. Obviously, no meeting took place as no questions were provided.

This Monday, Minister Sean Gibson told a reporter that the auditors were still willing to give Mr Cargill an opportunity to speak to them. However, they would not provide him with questions ahead of the meeting.

“The auditors have over extended themselves in trying to get Mr Cargill to come in,” said Mr Gibson.

“Of course, he keeps filibustering and referring us to his lawyer who keeps asking for what wasn’t done for anybody else. He’s asking for questions to be sent to him in advance. I guess so he can properly craft his response.

“They are placing unreasonable demands on the auditors who, as far as I was advised, have not provided advanced reasons to anybody. That is not the style they used to in conducting forensic audits, I am told.”

And then Mr Gibson added: “The questions, I am advised will not be provided. It wasn’t done in any other case and it will not be done in this case.”

This, however, is not what we have been advised. We have been told that certain persons interviewed were given questions in advance. And, there are those persons who have seen those questions.

We cannot understand why there would be any objection to advance questions. At least the person being interviewed can be prepared. Such preparation will save time on both sides.

The object of the exercise is to discover the truth, not to ask trick questions to trap anyone.

On February 1st in announcing that the forensic report would be ready on February 4, the auditors declared that “the Bahamian people will see exactly what happened and there isn’t going to be any ambiguity because the facts are going to be laid.”

We do not see how this is going to be achieved if the auditors fail to interview the main subjects of the audit — Mr Cargill, Mr Raymond Wells and Mr Gregory Moss. A list of questions would assist in jogging memories and saving time.

Either the object is to present the truth, or play games with the public so that in the end no one will know exactly what happened.