?"O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason." I remember this William Shakespeare quote from Julius Caesar as I follow the Udecott drama. There are many views on the real meaning of that quote but many believe that it refers to a loss of rationality and reasoning among men, and a surrender to brutish instincts. The chairman of Transparency International, Victor Hart, says the court action by Udecott shows how Third World we are. He condemns us as a backward thinking people. But what is his argument? If Udecott as a corporate citizen and the individual citizens that run the corporation think that there are serious issues of bias at the commission of enquiry, how should they resolve that? I think that an enlightened and civilised people turn to a fearless and independent judiciary to resolve their differences. But for Hart this is Third World conduct.
I wonder how Hart would describe the societies where people settle differences not via a free and independent judiciary but by blowing up trains, planes and public buildings. Is it fair for Udecott's executives, if they fear bias, to become like the TV character Sgt Schultz and see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing while their professional reputations are at risk and there are strident calls to "jail all ah them." Can anyone forget the blazing newspaper headline "Jail Calder Hart"? I don't know for sure whether there is a cartel in the construction industry that manipulates the sector for its own enrichment and at taxpayers' expense. But I hope the commission of enquiry will shed some light on that. I hope the commission completes its work. I do not know whether there is corruption and nepotism at Udecott. I hope the commission completes its work and sheds some light on that. And I hope if wrongdoing is found there are consequences.
But if as a result of Udecott's action a free and independent judiciary kills the commission because of bias, then I will applaud that too because no citizen of this country deserves to be condemned by a biased tribunal. It is better that the commission dies than bias prevails. Similarly, if the commission is tested by an independent judiciary and is cleared of charges of bias, then I will applaud that too and look forward to its report. The day we deny one citizen the right to seek the protection of the judiciary is the day we deny all citizens that right. I admire Dr Rowley's courage in pursuing justice and clearing his name via the judiciary. His courage is an inspiration and I ask any citizen who feels that he is a victim of injustice to have the same confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary that Rowley has.
In the same vein, I commend the Udecott board for remaining steadfast in its desire to clear their names and for seeking to settle their differences with the commission by civilised means. And I commend the Government too for standing by Udecott if it feels strongly about its position. I can't remember the source but it is said that in matters of style one can flow with the tide, but in matters of principle stand like a rock. Many seem appalled by Udecott's use of taxpayers' money to pursue its court matters. But to me it is a noble cause to use taxpayers' money to clarify matters of justice and fairness. If we insinuate that Udecott has an unholy agenda in going to court, what prevents someone else from thinking that we have an unholy agenda when we want the protection of the court? We need to make up our minds what sort of country we want to live in. In our zeal to get Udecott we cannot lose patience.
We cannot ascribe infallibility to the commissioners. So far there appears to be serious questions about some of the operations of Udecott, but there are also serious questions about bias at the commission. Some of the same people who come to the defence of the judiciary with fanatical zeal now want to deny a particular group of citizens the right to use that same judiciary. I believe that is it George Orwell's Animal Farm that questions whether the very nature of democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction. I think those who are in a rush to get rid of Udecott could be using the very freedom of democracy to undermine democracy itself when they seek to prevent Udecott from using a pillar of democracy, the judiciary, to defend itself. If there is wrongdoing at Udecott, they could run but they can't hide. But let us not for a moment think that we could ever justify denying citizens the right to access a free judiciary. God help us if we do.