I’m actually glad that this issue has finally reached the judiciary because we’re emotional people and we often make decisions based on sentiments and rumors without examining facts and figures. We often make final judgments based on what a journalist or politician said on a newspaper. We all do this, and it’s wrong because it means we will scarcely make right judgments.
Since I’m a student of politics and business, I would like to share with my readers what I think about this matter. I’m trying here to clarify the picture for the sake of reason…the verdict of the court will later show whether or not I have a good understanding of what’s going on.
I have noticed two things from observing the trial and what’s being written in newspapers. First, there’s a relentless personal attack on Calder Hart that targeted his education, family, background and even friends and relatives. In my opinion, reducing the debate about a large institution with a strategic role in development in the country to disparaging assaults on individuals (in this case Mr. Hart) is a huge fallacy.
If someone has objections to the performance of an institution of this magnitude, they ought to be professional and scientific in presenting these objections. If claims of shortcomings in the policy or performance of the company can be proven with reason and facts, then Mr. Hart would shoulder a part of the responsibility proportional to his role in the company. This is not what’s happening in this case. When I look at the allegations and accusations, they all look like an attempt to frame someone in a conspiratory way. I am pretty sure that none of these allegations will prove legitimate in the end.
This leads me to think that this assault on Hart might be fueled by personal ambitions to overthrow Hart and take his place. Like I said, I think the office is the goal, not the interests of the country.
The second thing that makes me curious is that I often read and hear the following question: why did UDeCOTT give ‘X’ contract to ‘Y’ company and not ‘Z’ contractor? Some have went in their arguments as far as claiming that the companies that get the contracts belong to Hart’s family. I believe this too is wrong and is only a way to mislead the public opinion. Why I think this claim is not true? Any informed observer knows that there are financial and technical terms and conditions under which contracts are awarded to companies. Ironically, no one in their attacks on UDeCOTT and Hart says anything about the actual technical content of the contracts, or whether they are legal and satisfactory or not. The whole clamor is about why this company got this and why this contractor got that!
These points make me believe that the whole matter is fabricated by some companies and contractors who are bitter because they did not get contracts for whatever reasons. I think this is all about those individuals’ business interests, rather than the interest of the country. Take this for example... the news from the courtroom today revealed connections between Kenneth Sirjiu of the Uff commission and Emile Elias of NHIC:
Goddard spent most of his five-and -a-half-hours yesterday training his guns on Commission member Kenneth Sirju, an engineer, who he claimed repeatedly refused to disclose his professional relationship with NHIC which we wrote about in an earlier post.
Goddard also claimed that Sirju’s company also performed design services for NHIC at the Cleaver Heights development, one of the projects being examined by the Commission and Sirju was personally involved in modifying the designs relating to the retaining walls.
I think this story will be getting more interesting in the coming days and the court will prove whether I’m right or wrong in my analysis of the case. I will try to comment more on this soon as the case develops. This case matters to the whole country and we must get to the truth!
No comments:
Post a Comment