Our Readers' Opinions
August 29, 2014

Demonstration of competence in Tamara Gibson-Marks’ matter

Fri Aug 29, 2014

EDITOR: The ULP administration has shown clearly, in the Tamara Marks’ matter, that it knows what it is doing. Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves has proven once again that he is a leader with superior competence and tact, who performs far above all other current leaders in St Vincent and the Grenadines.{{more}}

After Mrs Marks left St Vincent the same day she met with the Attorney General Judith Morgan Jones, most Vincentians believed that she had disappeared forever and Vincentians would never receive justice in that case. Many of us also believed erroneously that the Prime Minister’s relationship had clouded his good judgment and caused him to be biased.

The world is a huge place and it would have been very easy for Mrs Marks to assume a new identity in a foreign country without facing prosecution in St Vincent and the Grenadines. Should that have been the case, it would have been an extremely costly endeavour to try to locate Mrs Marks and request her extradition. In Mrs Marks matter, a quarter million dollars went missing, but many additional millions of dollars would have been required to try and resolve this matter. Yet, there would have been no guarantee of justice. Tamara Marks could have sought asylum elsewhere, and could have been free as a bird and the taxpayers of St Vincent might have lost many more millions in what could have been an international debacle.

The ULP administration avoided such an international debacle by simply using a superbly skillful approach with precision and tact to expertly handle the matter. They did not have to spend an additional dime in employing bands of international detectives and lawyers to bring Mrs Marks back to St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Now, the matter involving Mrs Tamara Marks is much more complex compared to the case of Mrs. Rasthata Nicholls. In the case of Mrs Nicholls, we see a simple personnel issue becoming an international political explosion due to the incompetence of the Opposition Leader, Mr Arnhim Eustace, in resolving the matter. Meanwhile, Dr Ralph Gonsalves and his administration turned this highly complex matter involving Mrs Marks into child’s play. They handled it like experts which de-escalated the matter and resulted in expeditious resolution with minimal additional cost to the taxpayers. Mrs Nicholls’ matter was more expensive to resolve because there were several attempts made to remedy it that failed. Ultimately Mrs Nicholls was paid her money after Mr Eustace’s arrogance caused the waste of much more of taxpayers’ money than Mrs Nicholls’ severance award.

The different approaches that were used in these two matters should make it crystal clear to all which man is qualified to lead the people of St Vincent and the Grenadines and develop the country to become a competitor in the global market. Dr Ralph Gonsalves is a natural diplomat, spokesman and statesman, who represents the country exceedingly well, while Mr Arnhim Eustace is a prolific rabble-rouser who sanctions and promotes continuous chaos and confusion. The handling of Mrs Nicholls’ case is a testament to Mr Eustace’s unsuitability to manage the country.


Helena R Edwards