BASSETERRE, St. Kitts, April 23, 2010 (Labour Secretariat) - The calamity which took place at the St. Kitts Marriott Hotel on Sunday January 10, a mere two weeks before the General Elections, in which Leader of the People’s Action Movement (PAM), Lindsay Grant, was involved in a US $1.7 million bribery “cash for land” deal with an unknown foreign investor, who he could only describe as a white “business executive representing some large company” with a British accent by the name of a Graham Wells, seems to have been brushed aside by the embattled leader as laughable.
It is only fools that laugh at their own calamity.
Grant has been the laughingstock of a multitude of people, who thinks his actions were foolish, naïve, imprudent and lacked integrity for a man who considers himself a mature politician, a virtuous leader and worst yet, an aspiring Prime Minister.
If Grant were running for political office in the United States of America or the United Kingdom, he would have been forced to resign in light of the magnitude of the scandal and the corruption tendencies that he showed by embroiling himself in such a scandal.
The rank and file of the PAM, too humiliated by the scandal and too proud to give in to the call for Grant’s resignation in light of the scandal, has kept silent, afraid to upset the status quo.
Like Washington “Washie” Archibald, who has been the voice crying in the wilderness to make straight the way for some other leader to replace Grant, others are joining the Advent chorus.
In his recent column, “Ask Washie” in the “The Observer” newspaper, Washie declared that Grant’s actions “was indeed a reckless gamble, a squander of all good will which a large segment of the population had showered on this leader”.
“PAM must find a fresh candidate from the many available prospects in the organizations. This is not to say that there is no gratitude for the part that Mr. Grant had played and the sacrifice which he has made. Then he was the party’s greatest asset, now he is its biggest liability,” Washie is quoted as saying.
Washie indicated that Grant’s colleagues in the last General Elections feel that the scandal did a lot of damage to their party, resulting in its dismal performance at the polls for a fourth consecutive time.
Grant betrayed his own colleagues by not telling them about the deal, only to have them suffer a severe shock when the drama unfolded, Washie said.
Of course, we don’t expect Grant to bow out as leader; he is too arrogant to do so. He will never want to give the appearance of weakness or submission to his critics and detractors. He will hold on to power as long as he can do so.
But the scandal of Sunday January 10, 2010, has shown the weaknesses of Grant. It has shown that he lacks sound judgment and has integrity issues.
Grant is yet to accept full responsibility for what took place, another sign of weakness as a leader. Instead he has blamed the Prime Minister and others for setting him up. Not only that, his version of what took place was presented by him as a man who knew what was taking place and that he was in total control of the situation.
Yet, the video of him meeting with the foreign investor tells a different story, one that is a far cry to the one told by Grant.
Grant was a mere puppet in the story, tossed and turned by the “wind of change” that dominated his party’s election campaign, that led him to the precipice of corruption and concern for his party’s dire need for cash to fund his party’s election campaign.
In the end he lost his soul, his seat and the elections.
But, Grant is still contesting the seat in Constituency #4, which he narrowly lost in the January elections. He still sees himself as a paragon of virtue and a champion of the poor. But all of this has been poisoned by the Marriott affair.
The questions must be asked: Would you vote for a man who was involved in the negotiation of a bribe?
Would you vote for a man who wanted to sell your patrimony (land) for next to nothing?
Would you vote for a man who has shown serious corruption tendencies?
Would you vote for a man who showed political immaturity?
Would you vote for a man who lacks integrity, sagacity and sound judgment? Would you vote for a man whose credibility is questionable?
Mr. Grant it is full time that you stop laughing at your own calamity and respond to it. It is also full time that those in your own camp break their silence about your poor judgment and stupidity.
Others are laughing at you!
