Who is lying about the Darryl Smith report?

Home*Cover Story*Government

Who is lying about the Darryl Smith report?

Contradictions, misinformation and lies. This as new information that contrary to the Prime Minister and Attorney General Faris Al Rawi’s statements that principles of ‘natural justice’ were not followed since Darryl Smith was not interviewed in the process of this report.

Darryl Smith, along with two Permanent Secretaries attached to the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs (MSYA), Attorney Michael Quamina, public servants and his accuser, Moreau, were all interviewed by the committee after which a first draft report was then prepared.
Another contradiction was whether or not the Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley had sight the report of the legal opinion given by Senior Coun­sel Douglas Mendes. The Attorney General said: “Of course he had sight of it. Why would he not have sight of it?” The contradiction now because at yesterday’s post-­Cabinet news briefing, Dr. Rowley denied seeing the opinion, adding that matters of a legal nature rest with his AG.

The Prime Minister at the post cabinet presser yesterday said the as Prime Minister he acted without hesitation and fired Smith when he realised that the process used to fire Moreau was improper and Smith was involved in the decision to pay $150,000.00 to Moreau. The team tasked with compiling the report chaired by Jacqueline Wilson and included attorney Elaine Green and Folade Mutota, and was appointed on April 10, 2018. The Prime Minister said the committee went too far in coming to certain conclusions at the end of the report. Dr. Rowley also said the report was done, but before it could have been made public, Smith had to be allowed to comment on it because it contained negative reflections (on him). The PM went on to elaborate: “The permanent secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office sent that report to Mr Smith, who brought his lawyers in. And the position is that the persons who did that report, the investigation to produce that report, they made findings…by that I mean they came to a conclusion negatively about Mr Smith without talking to him.

Several questions now arise about the issue including, whether or not the PM saw the report, and who is telling the truth related to if Smith was interviewed or not in the process given the contradictory reports now in the public domain.