John Saldivar Reinstated as Minister of Defence

John Saldivar

He was not in Cabinet today; however, Minister of Defence John Saldivar is back in office after being suspended last week by Prime Minister Dean Barrow. Saldivar’s one-week suspension was originally described as a leave of absence. It came after documents were revealed that pointed to the existence of the company he formed with accused con man, kidnapper and murderer William “Danny” Mason, Bandits Sporting Club Limited, and whether that company continued as a relationship between the two after September of 2015. That was when the embattled Minister said he cut all ties with Mason after learning of his seedy past. The Prime Minister sought and received a legal opinion concerning this. In a statement, the Prime Minister’s Office states, “the opinion rejects as invalid any conclusion that the Minister, in consequence of the continued existence after September 2015 of a company in which both the Minister and Mister Mason had subscribed to shares, continued in a business relationship with Mister Mason. The opinion makes the point that after the company was formed, and no doubt because the Minister shortly thereafter made unsavoury discoveries about Mister Mason, the Minister took no steps to actually allot to himself or Mister Mason any of the shares to which they had subscribed. This meant that they never actually became shareholders and the company never got off the ground.” Paragraphs fourteen and fifteen are quoted. The former emphasizes, “there is no allegation that Honorable Saldivar interacted or associated with Mister Mason in any way after he said he terminated contact with Mister Mason. It is not alleged he did anything. The charge against him is solely that by remaining a shareholder, in common with Mister Mason, in a company which apparently never did anything after it was incorporated, Honorable Saldivar thereby remained in a business relationship with Mister Mason.” This is called a purely legalistic argument, and wrong, because action is needed to cement a relationship and there was none suggested on Saldivar’s part, either in issuing the shares or taking further action in relation to Mason. It was not clear whether this opinion was obtained in-house, from the Solicitor General’s office, or from outside counsel.