I cannot allow your editorial of Friday, January 9, headed 'Mr Hibbert should take leave of absence' to go unchallenged. In my opinion you are completely wrong on this matter.

This is not a situation where Hibbert has been charged for any wrongdoing, in which case there could be some justification for your opinion. In the case of Hibbert, he seems to have been innocently implicated in some investigation in the United Kingdom into a company which did business in Jamaica while he was the chief technical director of the Public Works Department.

Lack of knowledge

Hibbert and his attorneys have stated his complete innocence and lack of any knowledge of the bank accounts in his name and payments alleged to have been made to a 'Joseph Hibbert'. I cannot see why Mr Hibbert should even think of taking leave of absence. There does not appear to be any evidence linking him with these accounts or the payments, and from what I have heard on the radio, the English police have gone back to investigate if there is any such evidence.

With regard to the investigation by the contractor general, again I do not see why he should take leave of absence when there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part and he knows that he is innocent. If the contractor general after investigation makes a report based on evidence he has obtained, which says that Hibbert should be charged with some wrongdoing, then that will be an entirely different matter. Your editorial is being very unfair to Hibbert.

Unfair

You are being even more unfair to the prime minister, to use a false hypothesis, and then go on to accuse him of not living up to the high moral principles which he has advocated while in opposition and since taking office. I have no doubt that if the PM felt that there was any justification for Hibbert to take the action you think he should, the PM would have privately advised him to do so.

I am, etc.,

C. D. R. Bovell

cdrb@cwjamaica.com.