The Tribune

IS THE government-ordered forensic audit of National Insurance an independent audit or a witch hunt?

This is a question that we were asked this week. However, it is not a question that anyone can answer or even have an opinion on at this stage. Intelligent comments can be made after the audit has been released by government. Even so we do have very serious concerns about certain features of this audit – as a matter of fact our concerns are great. Those concerns are already starting to cause us to question this whole exercise.

The audit was the result of a “leaked” letter, written by newly-appointed NIB chairman Gregory Moss, to newly-appointed Labour Minister Shane Gibson. The letter accused Mr Algernon Cargill, NIB executive director for the previous four years, of many improprieties. It was obvious that the new government, elected on May 7 last year, was anxious to rid itself of Mr Cargill, who was enticed by the Ingraham Government from the private sector to head NIB as its executive director. We do not know Mr Cargill’s politics, but we do know that he comes from a deeply entrenched PLP family — several stalwart councillors, and all that. Therefore, we do not know why ?— although other persons have been named — the spotlight seems to be focused solely on Mr Cargill. Mr Cargill has denied all the charges made against him by Mr Moss. In turn, he has accused Mr Moss of certain indiscretions, listing them in affidavits filed with the Supreme Court in a defamation action.

Mr Cargill and Mr Raymond Wells, NIB’s vice-president of Information Technology, were suspended, pending the results of the current audit. Mr Moss, although Mr Cargill laid charges against him, remained as NIB chairman. However, he was later fired when he overstepped the mark by criticising Prime Minister Christie.

What is of great concern to us is that the two men, around whom this controversy swirls, were not called in by the auditors to be interviewed — nor was Mr Raymond Wells, who was also on administrative leave.

When Mr Alfred Sears, Mr Cargill’s counsel, requested that his client be interviewed, the auditors replied that they had no questions for him. However, they were willing to give him an appointment so that he could question them. This procedure seems most unusual. If this is to be an independent audit, it would seem that the two main actors in this drama should be the first to appear on stage.

Mr Sears also requested a copy of the questions that they planned to put to both Mr Cargill and Mr Wells. Minister Shane Gibson then entered the picture. His appearance cast a shadow over the claim that the audit would be independent. He told a reporter that he was advised that the requested questions would not be provided — as a matter of fact it was not the custom for auditors to do so. He said he was advised that no one else called in by the auditors was given questions in advance. No exception would be made for Mr Cargill. Of course, we have heard otherwise — we have been told that others were given questions in advance.

Minister Gibson commented to the press that the auditors have over-extended themselves in trying to get Mr Cargill to come in. “Of course,” said Mr Gibson, ”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.”

“He keeps filibustering and referring US to his lawyer…” We thought this was supposed to be an independent audit, or is it being orchestrated by Minister Gibson? We presume he includes himself in the use of the word “us”. We now have the scene of Mr Gibson and the auditors. For us, this raises major problems.

According to Mr Alfred Sears, and Edmund Rahming of Krys Global, the forensic auditor retained by Mr Sears for Mr Cargill, the persons who are the subjects of Mr Moss’ leaked November 8 letter “should have been the first interviewed, the scope of the audit outlined, and any questions for these gentlemen posed at this time. If the scope changes, and it obviously has, they should again be interviewed in order that the investigation and their report reflects their views”.

And so in the exchange of e-mails between the auditors and Mr Sears, it seems strange indeed that the auditors would say that they have no reason to interview Mr Cargill and will not ask him any questions. Instead they will listen to questions from Mr Cargill as he might have information that they do not have.

If the audit is meant to be fair ?— or at least give the appearance of being fair — why did they not follow the Prime Minister’s advice? Mr Christie said that the audit would look at the allegations raised by Mr Moss against Mr Cargill, and the allegations raised by Mr Cargill against Mr Moss. If truth is what they want, then why was the Prime Minister’s advice not taken?

However, if the object of the exercise was to rid themselves of Mr Cargill, then why didn’t they buy out his contract and quietly part company?

Whatever this audit delivers – and with what has already been exposed – the public now knows that they will have to remain vigilant as to how their savings are being handled — or mishandled as presently seems to be the case.