The Tribune

THE departure of Sylvanus Petty from his role as chairman of the Water and Sewerage Corporation came swiftly.

Once he had testified in court and admitted that his daughter received a contract at WSC, the pressure built quickly, and Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis asked for Mr Petty’s resignation.

And then what?

After all, the chairmanship is not the only role Mr Petty held.

Former Speaker of the House of Assembly Halson Moultrie was quick to point out that Mr Petty is also Deputy Speaker.

He said: “Mr Petty sits in the seat of the deputy speaker, and the institution of the Parliament will definitely be affected by the fact that he was forced to resign as chairman under such a scandal.

“The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, when substituting for the Speaker, is the judge of the high court of Parliament so that integrity and the credibility of the person sitting in the Speaker and Deputy Speaker’s chair should not come into question.”

Whoever is acting in the role of Speaker, in short, should be beyond reproach.

Can you imagine having a debate on awarding contracts to family members in the House when Mr Petty is presiding in the chair?

The acting press secretary, Keishla Adderley, said the acceptance of Mr Petty’s resignation showed there is “intolerance” for his conduct. Apparently only so much intolerance, however, as so far he is keeping his Deputy Speaker role just fine.

And now we discover that despite the questionable nature of the situation with a contract awarded to a family member under his tenure at WSC, there has been no attempt to see if there are any other contracts that need greater scrutiny.

Mr Davis said yesterday: “I have not done any investigations. The action I took was a result of his admissions in court, and we’re still talking with him about these matters.”

This despite Mr Petty himself saying he did not have a problem with nepotism or contracts for political allies, saying: “Everyone in The Bahamas was family.”

One would think that one of the first actions after a senior executive was compelled to resign because of concern over contract awards would be to check the rest of the contracts handed out. There may be nothing untoward at all, but given Mr Petty’s openness on awarding contracts to family or allies, it ought to be done with some urgency.

Mr Davis feels he has no need so far to investigate whether other friends or relatives benefited from Mr Petty’s leadership. One has to wonder if this truly is intolerance for such behaviour. Why would Mr Davis not want to make sure that the contract process has been fair and appropriate? After all, that would benefit the Bahamian people.

Mr Petty himself has not publicly spoken up about the manner – despite telling reporters he would speak to them about the issue prior to his resignation. That shows no respect to the Bahamian people either.

It would be impossible for Mr Petty to preside in the House while there are arguments about his position within it, and Mr Moultrie is right – if Mr Petty is deemed unworthy to hold the post of WSC chairman, then he ought to be unworthy to serve as moderator for debates over changing the laws of our land.

Mr Petty’s court testimony has landed him in an untenable position. Mr Davis, by not investigating to see if there are any further issues, is certainly not showing a zero tolerance approach to such matters. A thorough review of contracts on Mr Petty’s watch is the least that should be done to restore confidence over matters at the corporation. Mr Davis is not responsible for Mr Petty’s actions – but a failure to follow through and investigate properly will be on Mr Davis’ shoulders.

Let the truth come out.