SCRUTINY SCREWS SCRUPLES again....

The SECRET SEVEN were in action again from 1.15 p.m. today - in between sessions of the States Assembly.

This time it was Constable Dan Murphy of Grouville who was “put to the question” as key witness before the feared Jersey Development Company Selection Process Corporate Services Scrutiny Sub-Panel - or JDCSPCSSSP for short.

Today there weren’t actually seven tormentors –only Deputies Le Fondre, Le Herissier and Senators Perchard and Le Gresley with just one “Scrutiny Officer” around the “operations table.” Another “officer” deftly worked the electronic control panel from a discreet distance - out of sight of the witness.

Although the session was supposedly open to the public – nobody except yours truly had the nerve to attend the X rated proceedings.

Before entering the sealed room (which only has one doorway) we asked Dan if he agreed to be video-recorded. He said he was very happy for this and was all in favour of total transparency. Yours truly was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps Dan is not so desperate after all?

Unfortunately, Deputy Le Fondre over-ruled the Constable’s wishes and declared that there could be no video-recording and there was no time to explain his reasoning which was also the view of the sub-panel.

Deputy Le Herissier tried to disagree - saying that he had no objection - but Senators Perchard and Le Gresley said nothing whilst looking blankly at their thumbs.

The “Scrutiny Officer” also claimed that the Chairmen’s Committee had ruled about twelve months ago that such public meetings could not be vide-recorded.

Yours truly tried to counter-object of course but the SECRET SEVEN minus Two’s leader said they were not going to waste time discussing it now…..

It’s all very strange because the room has large windows overlooking the

Royal Square

where real, ordinary people can be seen going silently about their lives. Why oh why don’t any look up and see what horrors are taking place here in their name?

Constable Murphy was asked to give his name – which as it turned out was probably the most searching question of the day.

It then transpired that he had also been invited to play a part in the same mysterious Selection games as Senator Sarah. He had wanted to see the “long list” of candidates for the job of Chairman for the Jersey Development Company rather than just the “short list” because the names on that were all former UK LABOUR PARTY APPARATCHIKS!!!

Even Le Fondre looked shocked at this startling revelation of a possible Communist inspired Plot deep at the heart of Jersey government.

Could this be pay-back time for the reciprocal heath agreement deal yours truly wondered?

The Constable knew that there were fourteen names on the original “long list” but he wanted to know who the discarded ones were, why had they been rejected and were there any Jersey people amongst them? But, on the short list the “Baroness” was so far ahead of the other apparatchiks that there was really no contest. The result was obvious even before the meetings took place….Spooky eh? What now – with the Baroness in a sulk and the chair still empty?

As for the Non-Executive Directors – NEDs or Nodding Donkeys in common parlance – Dan had wanted more local names and he knew somebody who would be ideal but was not even considered. Jersey’s very own-breed apparatchik perhaps?

However, Constable Dan thought that the whole procedure was handled professionally although the cost of employing “head-hunters” was excessive.

He did not know why Pip Rondel from St. John was so afraid to speak in public…

Then at 2.00 p.m. precisely, Deputy Le Fondre suddenly declared that there was just one more question to ask and that could only be dealt with IN PRIVATE.

Yours truly had to leave.

The GREAT SECRET would not be exposed today.

Tomorrow, Thursday, Mr. Ken Soar is billed to appear before the SECRET SEVEN. What SECRETS might he reveal?

Yours truly cannot wait…SCRUTINY is just so exciting.

TOM GRUCHY

COMPLAINTS BOARD COMPLAINTS

DEPUTY BOB HILL presented yet another Complaints Board today on behalf of a member of the public (or more correctly a family) from Trinity.

As is so often the case, it was against the administration of the Planning Department and concerned an enforcement order requiring the demolition of a boundary wall.

Few people will realise just how much work is involved in putting together a case for such a simple-sounding hearing by the likes of Bob Hill or the amount of stress that is caused to those who have the grievance.

Yet, in Jersey, only about a dozen such cases make it each year to a full Board hearing and some might conclude that this reflects the high standards of our various government departments.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, there should be hundreds of such cases heard each year for a population of 92,000 but the whole system of Jersey government and administration is loaded against the public.

Complaints are actively discouraged at all levels so that the construction of a simple wall can become the issue that ruins lives, destroys friendships and breaks any trust with the political system.

Obviously, the basis for a complaint might be simple, complicated, not so serious or a matter of very great importance and/or cost.

Yet, sadly, Jersey’s Complaints Board procedure is totally inadequate to deal with the myriad of irritations that arise each and every day between the public and its government or in the consumerist market-place

In other places, there are all sorts of specialist bodies (sometimes called Ombudsmen) to deal with specific aspect s of administration by governments departments such as health, social security and pensions, planning and building, housing, taxation etc etc besides others that deal with private grievances arising with insurance companies, banking, lawyers, consumer issues and Utility companies supplying water, electricity and gas.

Jersey’s Complaints Board system is hopelessly inadequate.

Its terms of reference are far too narrow and the team of volunteer panellists are just simply not pro-active in seeking out the matters that are causing grief to the public. Even when a positive decision is made – it cannot be enforced.

The Complaints Board system is grossly under-resourced, is not fully independent (it operates through the States’ Greffe) and is hardly ever advertised or promoted. Very few States Members have the interest or ability to research or present a grievance on behalf of a member of the public and there is no Legal Aid available to engage a lawyer – although States Departments can call upon the Crown Officers etc as felt necessary for legal help.

Of course, Jersey likes to claim that the Complaints Board system satisfies international human rights obligations by providing an appeal system against administrative decisions. But this is just a sad joke and a mere pretence.

In other places similar Boards have the power and duty to initiate hearings even where no complaint has been made or to call departments to account, to enforce decisions and even to prosecute where the law has been broken.

When Complaints Boards are initiated they are almost always supposed to take place in public. Yet the Greffe hardly ever announces when and where they are to take place and today’s Board did not even meet at the agreed time and place! There is no Press prior- announcement of Board hearings and details are not even posted in the States Building notice box. Hearings cannot be filmed, recorded or broadcast.

Once hearings have taken place there is no comprehensive archive of previous decisions or even an indexed list to guide potential complainants regarding precedents.

A recent decision declared that Boards are not constituted to hear complaints based upon human rights arguments!

Coupled with the inadequacy of the Complaints Board system are the deficiencies of the Jersey legal system (cost, lack of clarity, shortage of published information), limitations of the CAB service, shortage of published information by government departments, absence of Jersey NGOs or political parties and the refusal of the  entire States’ Scrutiny Board system to investigate individuals’ grievances etc etc.

If Jersey had 53 States Members like Bob Hill then perhaps there might not be so great a problem – but Jersey has only ONE such elected peoples’ representative.

When did you last hear of a Constable representing a Parishioner before a Complaints Board? If you wanted representation where would you turn?

Jersey’s whole system of administrative review needs to be totally changed. The existing system does not work – it should be scrapped.

TOM GRUCHY

SARAH and THE SECRET SEVEN...DO SCRUTINY...

The Secret Seven are a secret society who hold regular meetings and organise things to do, whether it’s helping the community in some way, solving mysteries that turn up or just having fun playing Red Indians in the woods….

Well, on Thursday, because the weather was a bit gloomy Sarah decided that she and her chums would play indoors.

According to the Usher at the States Building it was only to be a private game and he was all for refusing admittance to the accredited press gang until “blogger” (yours truly) explained that it was only the start that was restricted. When Usher revealed that a special messenger had been sent out to buy biscuits we knew that we should be welcome to attend and watch - if not actually to join-in…

Normally, Sarah is Chairman (that’s what she calls herself) of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel (just her, Deputy Le Fondre and Deputy De Sousa only because she does not have many friends), so she makes up all the rules, but on this occasion she chose to appear as star witness before the specially created “Jersey Development Company Selection Process Corporate Services Scrutiny Sub-Panel.”

Obviously this is a silly title created by the Confuse-them Committee but the object of the game is much simpler to understand - viz Sarah has a SECRET and the Scrutiny Panel (all males) has to discover what it is!

So, on Thursday 31 March 2011 at 1.15 p.m., Senators Perchard, Breckon and Le Gresley together with Deputies Le Herissier and Le Fondre plus two “officers” sat around the truth table in Le Capelain Room to face the challenge of discovering “Sarah’s Secret.” What a super wheeze!!

Before going into the room of secrets, yours truly asked Sarah if we might video-record the proceedings for history since she was appearing unusually in the role of witness? Unfortunately, she explained, she had not had her hair done so she must decline and in any case, she said yours truly only ever writes bad things about Jersey and she cannot understand why people like me live here at all…nothing personal of course.

Deputy Le Fondre acted as “chair” and sat in the middle waving the magic pen. He explained that it was the first time he had ever done anything like this and they were really only trying to discover some basic clues to start with. As he explained, at the moment we haven’t got a clue.

But, very soon he was stringing together sentences of five words or more and Sarah revealed some strange things that had happened to her on several occasions from December to February last.

The whole room went very quiet as we all listened in anticipation.

Apparently, she had been invited to join an advisory group or something but she did not know what is was for and there were no rules or terms of reference that she was aware of. It was all a bit spooky because other people invited to attend seldom turned up and when they did, nobody seemed to take any notice of what they said or decided.

Deputy Le Herissier explained that he had been invited to attend one of these meetings too but had declined. However, this came as no surprise because he always sits on the fence and it is said that he still cannot tie his own shoe-laces.

A couple of times the Panellists seemed to be getting warm with their questions but Sarah kept alluding to some “big boys” with names like Ugly, Ozo and The Sewer who had been playing in another room, choosing a Chairman for the newly formed Jersey Development Company – and she was not at all keen to tell any tales on them.

There was somebody called “The Baroness” and apparently she was breathing fire for something that the big boys had done to her but Sarah had by now drunk all the water and her mouth sounded very dry.

Eventually Sarah confirmed that it seemed to her that she had been asked to play in a scoring-game but the result was known even before the game commenced. She was not at all happy about it but she wanted to whisper some answers in private although we suspected that she really wanted all the chocolate biscuits for herself.

So, we few onlookers were asked to leave the room so that the game might continue behind closed doors.

We asked if any details of the private proceedings might be revealed later but were told that these will be kept secret for eternity – if not longer.

We understand that Pip Rondel from St John had also played a part in these strange goings-on and that he wants to go into the “room of secrets” too and to be “put to the question.”

However, he will only do so in total privacy because he is really afraid of the big boys –even though he is a member of the

Stopford Road

gang. It is all so scary.

What can he possibly know that is so secret?

Scrutiny is such an exciting game!!!

Tom Gruchy

SHEEP WORRYING and SCRUTINY 2011

It was Denis “eyebrows” Healey who once dismissed Geoffrey Howe’s parliamentary interrogation as “being savaged by a dead sheep.”

That is certainly the standard that Scrutiny Panels in Jersey aspire to.

If anybody was ever in doubt about the ineffectiveness of the Island’s scrutiny process they should have witnessed the dismal performance of the Corporate Services Panel confronted by Chief Minister Le Sueur, on Wednesday 23 March.

Of course, toothless Le Sueur would make Geoffrey Howe appear savage. Yet, the depleted Corporate Services Panellists, Senator Ferguson and Deputy Le Fondre were cringing before our leader and his almost mute bodyguard, Bill Ogley.

After one hour and ten minutes of utterly pointless ruminating and chit-chat, it was a relieved Le Fondre who summed up the proceedings with a fawning farewell to our flock leader - “You had a very easy ride this morning.”

Talk about understatement!

Unfortunately there were no other members of the general public present to observe the pathetic proceedings and the sole accredited press presence would no doubt have considered it all as an example of heated investigative political research.

Strangely, Corporate Services have just published a remarkably good “Review of the Fiscal Strategy Review” and it is a puzzle how this was achieved on the evidence of this showing. Presumably the published Review was written by the Scrutiny Officers.

In fact, Corporate Services has been at the centre of political musical chairs recently. Former member Deputy Vallois has just been made an assistant-minister and Deputy Le Fondre has recently joined having been sacked as an assistant-minister.

Previously, in an earlier episode of this absurd soap-like saga – Deputy Egre also left to become an assistant-minister and Constable Murphy departed to do whatever Constables do in Grouville.

Perhaps one of the out-going Panel members took the collective sheep’s brain?

With all this constant to and fro-ing it is little wonder that our “representatives” do not know which side of government they are batting for and there have been other notable shufflings too on other Panels. Evidently, the whole scrutiny system is falling apart through lack of active participation and coordinated planning. Not to mention competence.

Deputy De Sousa joined this Scrutiny Panel in February but it is unlikely that her absence on Wednesday made any difference or that her presence might have curtailed the deference.

On Thursday and Friday it was the turn of the Education & Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, suddenly jolted awake by the actions of John Mills in publishing schools examination performance data.

Of course, this is a matter that the Panel should have investigated years ago but had always been easily fobbed-off by Minister (Deputy) Reed and his talkative C.O. Lundy.

Just a few weeks ago this Panel, “led” (if that is the correct word where sheep are concerned), by fence-focussed Deputy Le Herissier, was moaning that it was starved of subjects to scrutinise.

Then they protested at so many ongoing internal inquiries at the Education and Home Affairs departments. Besides which, the Panellists were visibly looking towards the October democratic sheep-trials and wanted to clear their desks of anything that was not potentially vote-catching.

That John Mills “an ex-career civil servant” – a mere pleb (more or less) here - should have achieved what Scrutiny had so miserably failed to do was such a shock that this instant “Review” was immediately set-up and even the regular venue was changed to the Pomme D’Or Hotel, to engage the public over two days of more comfortable, intensive, publicity attracting “Scrutiny.”

How ironic therefore, that the Scrutiny Panel (Deputies Le Herissier, Macon and Tadier) should find itself cast in the role of defender of the establishment for Thursday’s two hours confrontation with the usurper Mills on Thursday.

Of course John Mills – a previous occupier of CEO Mr. Ogley’s musical chair – was the real scrutinizer here. The Panel was reduced to a shadow role – the understudy – being shown how the process of “calling government to account” really should work.

Mr. Mills’ call for a total reform of Jersey’s schooling system and the adoption of a “Comprehensive” structure that ensured equality for all without publicly funded fee-payers privileges came as a shock. Even Deputy Tadier blurted out - “But that is Socialism!” It was presumably one of his feeble jokes. However, it was obvious that Mills as the progressive was not what the Deputy had anticipated. It was also obvious that Mills the very senior and important person was not tolerating ill-prepared jibes from any inexperienced black tousle-haired lambs either. Much prejudice, and some testosterone, was apparent.

No wonder then, that Deputy Le Herissier had to constantly defend his panel as “only playing devil’s advocate” when attempting to pose the most inane questions or that he was finally reduced to asking why Mr Mills had not done something about it when he occupied the chief Jersey civil-servant’s chair?

Outside of his powers he explained.

Although a superficially relevant question, somebody should have reminded the Deputy that Mr Mills is no longer in government employ but that it is the Minister who is answerable now.

On Friday it was the turn of Minister Reed and his team of an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman, to respond to the Scrutiny team. It was a promising cast for a few jokes but Deputy Tadier had been replaced by Deputy T. Pitman, who unfortunately did not have the benefit of having heard Mr Mills previously.

Now the panel was cast in the role of speaking Mr. Mills’ words because he was not allowed to speak for himself, being required to sit silently in the public gallery.

Such is the nature of the ineffective scrutiny process, where engaging with the public is always a sham imitation. It mattered not at all that John Mills was much better qualified or capable than this elected trio to pose his own questions directly to the Minister. The system demands public silence. Yet the muted John Mills still dominated the proceedings because the questions raised had been initiated by his actions, research and Report. Once again, the Scrutiny Panel was reduced to a mere surrogate shadow.

This comment is about the scrutiny process – not the matter under discussion.

However, this correspondent submitted the usual request on both days to be allowed to video-record the proceedings and this was refused by witnesses John Mills and the Minister.

This is especially ironic since both stressed the need for total transparency and publication of information as major parts of their arguments.

For the record, this correspondent did not ask Senator Ferguson to be allowed to video-record the Corporate Services hearing. She has adopted her own personal policy to refuse permission to all non-accredited media, even where the witnesses have agreed.

Such is the value of education - prejudice, discrimination, suppressions of facts and the stifling of discussion or free expression.

Shall John Mills be challenging the Deputy at St. Ouen this autumn?

Tom Gruchy

Jersey Hypocrisy Day?

Since 2001, Jersey has been marking Holocaust Day with a ceremony.

Twenty-two people from Jersey are known to have died in the various extermination camps during World War Two and it is perfectly proper that they should not be forgotten.

But, as referred to in our previous blog – this ceremony is part of our obsession with death in war and the manner in which this is so often presented as something glorious.

At the centre of Jersey’s Holocaust Day is the former navigation light, now turned into yet another obelisk to the memory of the fallen and every year it is the focal-point for a service of remembrance and laying of wreaths. Of course, that is all perfectly desirable - but what else does or should happen?

“It must never happen again” is the message on so many lips year after year - and the same annual speeches are presented by Jersey’s leaders about man’s inhumanity and the horrors of war. Yet, the people of Jersey fail to remove the discrimination and injustices within this little community that are the very breeding ground for discontent and hostility between groups and nations.

Here, in the following video we look very briefly at this year’s ceremony and speak with Constable Simon Crowcroft who laid a wreath for the people and Parish of St. Helier.

Last year, interviews with Senators Freddie Cohen and Ian Le Marquand were posted on You Tube by The Voice and these are re-presented here too so that the smug complacency of our government might be exposed.

With the passing of yet another year, there is even less chance of Jersey enacting anti-discriminations laws in the near future or signing-up for so many of the international human rights conventions and treaties that were written following the “Holocaust.”

Jersey was supposedly “liberated” in 1945 from occupation and should be leading the world in upholding human rights standards. In fact, this Island is so far behind most places that it is becoming an insult to the memory of the many millions who have died in wars.

This Island claims not to have the funds or resources to ratify the world’s most basic obligations with regard to children, women or disability yet has ample money to establish overseas offices in Brussels, the Middle East and China touting for tax haven business.

This is hypocritical and discredits Jersey’s Holocaust Memorial internationally.

JERSEY MEMORIALS

Jersey Death Haven…

The only certainties in life are said to be death and taxes.

Jersey is long established as a tax haven but what is the scope regarding death?

Clearly avoidance of death is not an option yet for us living persons – but memorials to the dead are usually designed to keep somebody alive in our minds. No harm in that we might think but there is a bandwagon currently promoting the construction of yet another memorial to Major Peirson who was killed in the Royal Square in 1781 fighting the French.

There are already many images of the dead Yorkshire-man around. He features in Copley’s painting of the “Battle of Jersey”, his bronze bust sits in the Town Hall and in the Town Church, his likeness features in countless articles and books. But why?

What is our obsession with this death in battle really all about?.....

“What need of sculpture’s marble to imprint

The worth impressed on every British heart

Peirson’s – who rushed invasion to repel

And conquering, covered o’er with laurels fell.”

Another memorial is underway to Francois Scornet, the young French-man executed at St. Ouen’s Manor by the Germans during the Occupation.

Of all the millions who died violently during the Second World War – why are we constructing this particular memorial now?

What are we really remembering?

Of course it helps if somebody local has been killed by foreigners. That allows us to justify murder as a glorious patriotic act more easily and gives us somebody to blame who is not part of our own community.

The words on the Durell/Saumarez memorial in the Town Church says it all – “he acquired glory to his country by his death being slain in a sea-fight against the French in 1747 etc.”

Thomas Anquetil is remembered in the same building, killed “whilst fighting hand to hand with the enemy” in Bengal in 1842. Did he, we wonder, bayonet to death any of the ancestors of those Indians we now seek to trade with? Is Anquetil’s death to be viewed as “glorious” now?

What does God think about such sentiments being displayed in his holy building?

All twelve Jersey parishes have obelisks or other memorials to the glorious dead of the two world wars and a Town Church plaque declares that the names of the 24 men who fell in the 1914-18 conflict “liveth for evermore”- but do they and why should they?

There have been hundreds of wars over thousands of years and millions of deaths – why are we so selective with our memory – why do we only remember the few by name? If Major Peirson warrants a statue now, two centuries after he died – what about all the others? Or should it more properly be - ALL or NONE?

We have blogged previously about the whole Remembrance/ Red Poppy ritual that overtakes Britain from September to November each year and wonder if this an appropriate way to remember those who have suffered in past conflicts or to raise funds for injured service-people or their dependents still living.

This blog-site is dedicated to the memory of the gallant, brave people who overthrew the corrupt

Jersey Royal Court

on 28^th September 1769. We believe that this event is something that does warrant a memorial and should be celebrated as an important day in Island history. Nobody died – the demonstration was peaceful.

But, why has the event been so deliberately forgotten?

We also have supported Team Voice in sponsoring a bronze portrait of Emille Collins, the long-time democratic, political campaigner who still phones-in the BBC radio. He surely deserves to be recognised in his lifetime – and to be remembered long after his inevitable demise.

But, shall anybody be proposing a sculptured memorial outside or near Haut de la Garenne where generations of Jersey children were abused or worse, over many decades?

Which particular aspects of our own past violence are to be remembered in future?

The video that follows shows Jersey’s very own Welsh historian and linguist Geraint Jennings, talking in Jerriaise and English before the statue of German-speaking Hanoverian King George II aka Duke of Brunswick, who was the last British monarch to lead the English army into battle on foreign soil (in Germany) and he is depicted here, in the Royal Square of Jersey, as a Roman Emperor, whilst some would say he was really the Duke of Normandy, so far as the Channel Islands are concerned.

The statue, sculpted by Clapham-born John Cheere was already in the square to oversee the 1769 Jersey Revolution and received some damage from the French in the American War of Independence battle during which Yorkshire-man Major Peirson of a Derbyshire regiment – died on 6^th January 1781.

Where does any national glory belong now?

Tom Gruchy

JERSEY VULTURES

Who do we really remember on Remembrance Day each year – and why?

It’s all very well recognising those people who have fallen in past wars but they must have died for some purpose. We surely have a duty to remember them through our own actions - all the year round - not just for a few days in November?

This year, alongside the poppy “celebrations” it was announced that the Jersey Royal Court had found in favour of a USA based “distressed debt fund” (a so called, “vulture fund”) against the Democratic Republic of Congo (or DRC, formerly Zaire), for a mammoth $100 millions claim.

The picture attached to this posting is of a Congolese child who could well use even the smallest part of that money. It is an image we associate with so much of Africa - of the desperately poor people who live there and of their corrupt governments.

We have a responsibility for so much that happens in far away places but the practical basis of our International Finance sector is usually hidden from view or scrutiny. This extraordinary decision in favour of the US debt fund has briefly lifted the security curtain, once again, on the more dubious side of our economy. We should ask if we wear poppies and celebrate our gallant fallen in ignorance of such scandals or whether we just don’t care?

Did our “heroes” really die in order that we might exploit others and their misfortunes – all over the world?

In recent years, over 50 similar judgements have been made in various courts around the world, so Jersey’s involvement is by no means unique. The UK Government has passed temporary rules so that such debts cannot be pursued in courts there (UK Debt Relief – Developing Countries- Act) and it is becoming ever more difficult for the vulture fund managers to find any sympathetic jurisdictions prepared to hear them.

That Jersey still allows such a use of the

Royal Court

has attracted a great deal of international attention and criticism already and more is likely to follow. But it is just business so far as Jersey’s Finance leaders are concerned, and they seem to have no critical conscience in such matters. Shall any Jersey Ministers be offering a comment?
Why should this activity take place under a “Royal” banner?

Of course, it is impossible to extract the good guys from the bad ones where such huge sums of money are concerned. This case falls within the category of “dispute resolution” or “mediation” and is seen as a potentially lucrative branch of the international lawyers’ portfolio of services. It is the sort of business that Jersey seeks in the name of “diversification.”

Gillian Robertson is quoted on a  web-site of Jersey law firm “Applebys” referring to previous Jersey proceedings in this case in 2005, when the DRC government was resisting enforcement, following a Brussels court judgment. Her comments then referred to “Jersey’s legal system as a global best for a small jurisdiction.”

In Jersey, the law firm of Ogiers has acted for the New York based vulture fund “FG Hemisphere Associates LLC” for some years and has presumably submitted a substantial fee-note or two, for its efforts.

The case has been trawling around the world for decades in various forms – so others must have taken substantial sums in fees and charges too.

Originally, this debt arose in 1980 when Yugoslav company “Energoinvest” contracted to build a huge hydro-electric dam and electricity distribution system, but the Congolese government defaulted on re-payments.

In 2004 the matter went to arbitration in Switzerland and the debt of $24millions plus interest was assigned (sold) to the New York fund as a speculative venture.

In 2008, the fund tried to achieve settlement through the South African courts but failed, even though the court had halted the sale of electricity from Congo to South Africa in an attempt to secure payment to the US vulture.

By the time the case reached Hong Kong, the debt had grown to over $100 millions and the “signing bonus” from a deal between the DRC’s $66 billions minerals industry with China was the attraction. The China Railway Group – a Chinese State owned business – had agreed to invest in the DRC but the Hong Kong court was reluctant to rule and its law was unclear. The DRC government claimed “sovereign immunity” but the fund received a favourable judgment against the Chinese company which could not be enforced - so the case next appeared in Jersey.

The aim of the vulture fund is to make a claim on assets or funds arising from businesses with DRC government connections. In Jersey it was a deal connected with the largest unexploited gold-field in Africa that was identified as the potential source of a financial settlement. But the

Royal Court

initially declined to interfere in case it ruined that deal.

Then in June this year, the

Jersey Court

ordered that assets of $57 millions should be frozen whilst the vulture pursued the case in the USA, because a subsidiary of OM Group Inc. – the largest producer of cobalt in the world and one of the parties involved - is based in Ohio.

At this point in the proceedings, the case had appeared on the public list of cases being heard in the Jersey court system but enquiries over many weeks at the Judicial Greffe revealed nothing. Nobody would offer any assistance or information regarding this case. Now that the matter has reached a judgement, the Greffe has helpfully released a 46 page photo-copy, which is both very interesting, and complex.

The English Judge for the 27 October hearing was (Commissioner) Howard Page Q.C. assisted by Jurats Tibbo (a former Bank manager and member of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and Bob Kerley (the former Jersey Registrar of births etc).

Page is an experienced UK commercial lawyer and judge who sits in the Jersey court quite regularly but does not live in the Island. However, he is a great fan of the Jersey system of law and its administration. He recently wrote in glowing terms supporting the contentious Jersey Crown Officers, as part of the inquiry set up to examine their roles

(chaired by another UK Judge – Lord Carswell).

The recent judgment found for the New York vulture fund and allows the  $100 millions plus debt to be collected through “Gecamines,” a Jersey registered entity that is “an organ of the State of the DRC” which must “send all its future payments” to the New York based fund. It is this decision that has shocked the decent-minded world.

Now, an appeal has been lodged and all payments, up to the value of the debt, are to be deposited with the Jersey court, pending the outcome of the appeal, but details are sparse.

In fact, this $100 millions dispute is only a tiny part of Congolese debt problems. The DRC agreed a deal to “wipe out” $8 billions of international debts in July which have been accumulated since it achieved independent, self governing status from Belgium, fifty years ago. The true extent of the debts and the related corruption can only be guessed at but it has been suggested that former President Mobuto alone stole between $4 and $10 billions before he was deposed in 1997 and fled to Morocco.

Are his billions salted away in Jersey? Does anybody give a damn if they are?

The Belgian colonial government left a legacy of debt when it departed from the Congo. The USA and many other countries, under the cover of the World Bank, IMF and suchlike, have pumped in further huge sums over the years. Not only is the country awash with potential minerals, gold, diamond, timber and oil resources but “western” governments devoted billions in propping-up Mobuto and other  friendly despots in an attempt to keep the territory non-communist or “on-side.”

Inevitably, there have been several wars too, both within the territory and with bordering ones so that the 58 million population has endured a legacy of poverty, cruelty and exploitation. The Congolese will hardly notice the latest indignity dreamed up in Jersey – but we should protest, on their behalf.

In February this year, Floribert Chebaya, the leading Human Rights campaigner in the DRC and prominent member of the “Voice for the Voiceless” group was murdered in Kinshasa. The involvement of the government or very senior officials and police is not disputed and eight policemen have been charged with his murder. Five have now been put on trial and three are still at large, but the outcome will hardly change anything for the better.

Sadly, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not at all unusual in a corrupt commercial world. The neighbouring Republic of Congo has similar problems with debt fraud and huge sums of money vanishing into the usual complex of obscure companies or “special purpose vehicles” in the Channel Islands, the Caymans, BVI, and Anguilla, Bahamas etc.

Campaigning groups such as “Global Witness” research and publish information on the INTERNET regarding the similar debt problems of countries  including Ethiopia, Guyana, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia, Cameroons, Angola, Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon etc

The Global Witness evidence to the UK Treasury Select Committee on Offshore Financial Centres (2008 – reported in Feb 2009 on the UK Gov website) is especially worth studying.

Bloomberg.com has posted some interested internet articles on this Jersey case, in spite of difficulties in obtaining information from Jersey’s secretive administration.

The Channel Islands governments rubber-stamped the “Democratic Republic of Congo (UN) Sanctions (CI) Order 2005” which makes it an offence to release certain funds or financial assets - but whether it is, or is supposed to apply in such a case as this, is not obvious.

The New York “vulture fund” FG Hemisphere, was represented at this October hearing by Jersey lawyer Kerry Lawrence of Ogiers – the Jersey-based, international law firm with “locations” in Bahrain, the BVI, the Caymans, Hong Kong, Ireland, London and Tokyo besides Guernsey and Jersey.

Kerry Lawrence is described in glowing PR terms as “a superb litigator who focuses on trusts and commercial litigation” and is “incredibly bright”…giving….”very clear explanations of complex legal issues.” She is head of commercial litigation in the Jersey office and specialises in insolvency and tracing assets according to the Legal 500 and other web-sites’ blurb which also boasts of Ogiers’ role in pursuing this $100 millions debt from the DRC.

The Congolese government was not represented at the October Jersey hearing but Jersey Lawyer Justin Harvey-Hills of Mourant-Ozannes appeared for “La Generale des Carrieres et des Mines” (“Gecamines”), the second Respondent, and Jersey lawyer Anthony Robinson of Bedell and Cristin for “the Party Cited” – namely “Groupement pour le Traitment du Terril de Lubumbashi Ltd. (otherwise “GTL”).”

These law firms too have extensive international networks and their lawyers are described in glowing terms on several web-sites.

All this legal activity is just good business for the law firms involved. Places like Jersey are no longer just simple tax havens. Today, finance centres span the entire world through complex networks and the little domestic law firms that used to advise on purely local, island matters, a few decades ago, are now multi-millions, international businesses.

Of course, nobody seems to represent the best interests of the desperately poor child depicted on the image for this blog. Questions on the role of finance centres like Jersey are being asked ever more around the world and governments are looking at ways to curtail their activities. But who in the Jersey finance “industry” will defend the ethical standards that apply in such cases as this or will argue how such activities benefit the world?