By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Chief Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

A DEFENCE attorney in the criminal trial of Long Island MP Adrian Gibson and others suggested yesterday that a prosecution witness may have an agenda as he pressed the witness on his involvement in the contracts at the centre of the case.

Ian Cargill, who represents former Water & Sewerage Corporation (WSC) general manager Elwood Donaldson Jr, questioned Robert Deal about his role at the WSC and his oversight of the projects under scrutiny.

Mr Deal, who served as deputy general manager under the Minnis administration, had previously testified that he was not directly involved in the corporation’s tank painting project.

When asked about his role at the company, Mr Deal explained that he was responsible for the corporation’s daily operations and reported to the board of directors.

Mr Cargill then focused on Mr Deal’s role while Mr Donaldson was still in charge. Mr Deal confirmed that, as deputy general manager, he reported to Donaldson, who in turn reported to the board and carried out its directives.

Mr Cargill asked: “In relation to the work before this court, did he receive instructions from the board?”

Mr Deal referred to the board secretary’s certificates, saying they were clear on what they said, but added that he did not believe they indicated anything about the matter at hand.

Mr Cargill pressed him further, saying: “Either you knew or you didn’t know.”

“The only thing I know is what I saw on the board secretary’s certificates, sir,” Mr Deal replied.

The defence lawyer then challenged Mr Deal on whether he personally reviewed emails related to the project before forwarding them to Mr Donaldson or the board. Mr Deal asked which emails Mr Cargill was referring to, and the attorney responded, saying there were numerous emails from him that had been passed on to Mr Donaldson or sent directly to the board.

When Mr Cargill asked how often Mr Deal was updated on the project, Mr Deal said he received monthly reports, along with some weekly updates.

However, Mr Cargill sought to highlight what he perceived as inconsistencies in Mr Deal’s testimony regarding his involvement in the projects.

“Sir, let me understand this — you got some weekly reports, some daily reports, and some monthly reports, yet you claim to know nothing about the project,” Mr Cargill remarked.

Mr Deal maintained that he had already clarified his involvement with the project. But Mr Cargill pressed further, saying: “According to your evidence, you were either daily, weekly, or monthly involved with these projects.”

Mr Deal responded that he would have received updates on all projects handled by the engineering department, which he oversaw.

Mr Cargill pushed back, asking Mr Deal to focus on his specific role in the project. Mr Deal suggested that Mr Cargill refer to the email spread if he wanted to know more about his involvement.

Mr Cargill replied that he didn’t need to review emails, as Mr Deal was on the stand to provide his own testimony.

Mr Deal reiterated that he had no involvement in key aspects of the project, including the tender process, letters of award, payment vouchers, or any meetings with the contractors.

“So you did everything else then?” Mr Cargill retorted.

Mr Deal fired back: “As I’ve said from the beginning, the job jacket was sent to me. I had some concerns regarding it. I expressed what the concerns were, and I reluctantly signed the job jacket. I was not involved with the project beyond that.”

Mr Cargill asked whether Mr Deal had written anything to the board, to which Mr Deal responded that he had written to the general manager.

Mr Cargill then said: “My questions are specific. Whatever agenda you have, we’ll deal with that later. I’m asking you specific questions.”

The defence attorney continued by asking if, when questioning the general manager about the projects, Mr Deal was told that they were directives from the board. Mr Deal confirmed this.

Mr Cargill then asked: “Did you find anything to suggest that wasn’t true?”

Mr Deal replied, “No,” explaining that he had not conducted any investigations into the matter.

The trial, which focuses on allegations of misconduct and failure to declare interests in government contracts, continues. Gibson, Donaldson Jr, and others face charges related to their roles in awarding contracts during Gibson’s tenure.

The defence team includes Damian Gomez, KC, Geoffrey Farquharson, Murrio Ducille KC, Mr Cargill, Bryan Bastian, Ryan Eve, and Raphael Moxey. The Crown’s legal team includes Director of Public Prosecutions Cordell Frazier, Karine MacVean, and others.