ADRIAN GIBSON DIGS A HOLE FOR HIMSELF
The Member of Parliament for Long Island Adrian Gibson is a case study in what not to do when you are drowning politically. A little history: Mr. Gibson ran the Water and Sewerage Corporation under the recently dumped Free National Movement administration with an iron hand. At the end of his tenure, he had every group in the Corporation against him. He had allegations of malfeasance. He stood accused by a contactor of the Corporation of rank victimization. The staff said that he was as a manger a tyrant and erratic.
The allegations came to a head at the end of his tenure and in the height of the campaign. Hubert Minnis, the Prime Minister, who was his main benefactor, did nothing to defend him and the party said nothing in his defence. At the time of the allegations, he simply gave a statement saying that it wasn’t true.
Well, his party lost the general election but he survived as the MP for Long Island.
On Wednesday 3 November 2021, he decided to speak. He went on a rambling statement to defend what he had done, saying that the account which he and his girlfriend opened at the Royal Bank of Canada received a deposit from what he called a “ rogue contractor”. He did this knowing that there was a court case in which he had made allegations against a contractor that he was libeled. The case was heard as recently as two days before his speech in the House.
Beyond that violation of the rule on sub judice, Mr. Gibson dug a deeper hole for himself by suggesting that what happened in terms of giving a contract to a company in which his girlfriend had an interest was all innocent. He opened a Pandora’s box for contrary evidence to be adduced which might well cast doubt on the veracity of his story.
This was a classic case of it was simply better to keep his mouth shut. First no one believes a word he says. Secondly, the story appears to be full of holes.
Fred Mitchell asked for the full transcript of what Mr. Gibson said in the House and promised to revisit the matter on two counts: misleading the House and secondly a violation of the rule on sub judice.
We await the outcome.