Mar 03 - GSD “Disappointed At Government Irresponsibility Over OEM”

Written by YGTV Team on 03 March 2015.

The GSD says that, for a Government that is constantly accusing the GSD Opposition of irresponsibility and not having the interests of this community at heart, the Chief Minister’s statement on OEM “must rank as one of the most irresponsible statements ever issued by this or any other Government.”

According to the GSD, it is a statement “for political effect” without regard to the impact it might have on the claim by the liquidator of OEM. The statement from the Chief Minister that “this is the rotten legacy the GSD” left implies, says the GSD, that the Claimant is right.  If the Claimant does not succeed in court, then there can be no “rotten legacy”. Such statements, argues the Opposition, can only harm the strength of the Government’s and therefore Gibraltar’s case.

The fact is, says the GSD, that the Liquidator of OEM has made a claim against the Government and no doubt the Government has its own claims against the Liquidator.  It has not been possible to settle the dispute and the matter is being litigated. Until the Supreme Court decides the case, the GSD calls on the Government to put the interest of this community before its own political interests and defend the claim robustly “without the kind of cheap political point scoring characterised in this statement.”

The GSD also points out that the statement contrasts sharply with the refusal of the Government to comment on on-going legal proceedings when it does not suit its purpose.  A case in point (though by no means the only one, says the GSD) is the instruction given by Government to the Bus Company not to defend an unfair dismissal claim by one of its most prominent activists, despite that person having been convicted in a criminal court for providing fraudulent documents in that very same unfair dismissal case.  That resulted, says the GSD, in a substantial pay out to that activist.  The Government, says the Opposition, consistently refused to answer questions about this in Parliament claiming the matter was sub-judice.