Chairman of the Integrity Commission Ken Gordon has again dismissed as “wild and irresponsible” the claim that his May 15 meeting with the Leader of the Opposition was secret and was held to plan a political conspiracy. In a statement yesterday, Gordon also revealed he had recused himself from the Section 34 e-mail probe at the first meeting of the new commission on July 4, eight days before any request was received.
Earlier this week, he replied to calls from lawyers representing the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, who had written to him last week asking him to recuse himself. In his letters to them, Gordon said he had already done so. AG Anand Ramlogan replied, however, that the “noble and decent thing” for Gordon to do would be to resign. The demand for Gordon to recuse himself arose from a meeting between Gordon and Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley at Gordon’s Glencoe home.
Rowley had asked to meet with Gordon to find out whether the commission was investigating the documents that Rowley had passed to former president George Maxwell Richards. Rowley presented these documents in Parliament on May 20, saying they represented the contents of e-mails exchanged between government officials last September about the Section 34 issue. Rowley did not tell Parliament that he had met with Gordon to discuss the issue, and both men have been heavily criticised over their meeting.
Rowley did not tell Parliament that he had met with Gordon to discuss the issue, and both men have been heavily criticised over their meeting. In his 2,000-word release, which was presented in a question-and-answer format, Gordon said perhaps he had waited too long before responding to what he called the “misrepresentations and in some cases deliberate distortions” that had appeared in the media about the meeting.
His comments were largely an expanded version of a statement he made on June 21 in which he defended himself against criticisms that arose after news of the meeting became public. He again strenuously denied that the meeting with Rowley at his home was held in secret or “in the dead of night like Dracula,” saying it took place from 6.15-6.30 pm. He also insisted Rowley had not misled or trapped him into the meeting.
On his reasons for not resigning, Gordon said the law made it clear that the commission “is not subject to the direction or control of any other persons or authority and that it has the power to do what it considers necessary or expedient.” He said whether or not there was a constituted commission on May 15, the identical circumstances could have occurred.
In that case, he said: “My response would almost certainly have been the same except that I might have called one of the commissioners on the phone on Dr Rowley’s departure.” He said he did the next best thing—write an aide-memoire.
Gordon also repeated that he had to seek a legal opinion on whether the commission had jurisdiction to investigate the Section 34 e-mail probe because Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the Attorney General had said the commission was not the competent body to do such a probe. The legal opinion was necessary, he said, “to clear up the widespread uncertainty as a matter of public opinion.”
The commission required clarity on the matter, he argued, “as part of its preparation for the incoming commissioners.” “Resignation holds no dragons for me,” Gordon said, adding that he had resigned from four previous national appointments under three different governments, and on all those occasions it was because of his principled position “against what I considered to be wrong.”