Full Disclosure

There can be no argument about the position of any adjudicating panel.  It must be in fact and in perception free of bias, conflict or compromise in the matter at hand.  There must not be even a whiff of bias. 

The FINSAC enquiry is not a trial.  It is a fact finding mission geared at unearthing the truth.  Many individuals are playing critical roles in this endeavour.  Questions are asked not only by members of the panel but also attorneys representing various vested interests.  Both panelists and attorneys play critical roles in determining the eventual outcome of the exercise. But are the attorneys themselves conflicted or compromised?  The public needs to know where each attorney stands in relation to FINSAC and the FINSACKED.  For example:

• Did any attorney, now appearing, work previously for FINSAC?
• Did any attorney now appearing, take steps to acquire any of the FINSACKED properties?
• Was any attorney now appearing FINSACKED?
• Has any attorney now appearing benefitted personally from the operations of FINSAC?

Let us have full disclosure of all the parties involved in this FINSAC enquiry.  If hands are dirty, then it is better to know the extent now than to be surprised later. Full disclosure does not pose any jeopardy to an attorney appearing before the enquiry. This is fundamentally different from the position of the commissioners. Clients have the right to employ an attorney of their choice. Their antecedents could affect the angle and manner of approach and the public has a right to know.

We need to put all the cards on the table in order to end the suss, speculation and rumours.

The hide and collide must stop.