Up until news broke earlier this week that Dr. Hyginus ‘Gene’ Leon had tendered his resignation as President of the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), there had been a lengthy period during which a paucity of information prevailed in the matter of the reason(s) why the St. Lucia-born economist had earlier been sent on ‘administrative leave’ by the Bank’s Board of Governors. That the reason for the decision to, in the first instance, remove the CDB President from his job had not been made public is a matter that had since then been a talking point among Caribbean people who were aware of the importance of the Bank to the development of the region.
The information void created by the decision to go no further than simply announce that the CDB President had been ‘sent on leave,’ predictably, gave rise to vigorous speculation with regard to the action taken by the Board. There were mixed views on whether the handling of the events associated with Dr. Leon being sent on leave had been appropriate and whether, moreover, the way it played out was pleasing to the people of the Caribbean. What made matters more discomfiting was that there appeared a decided official unwillingness to make any further, more enlightening public disclosures on the matter.
Here the point should be made that the void created by Dr. Leon being sent on leave would have impacted on the image of the Bank. Additionally, it is entirely reasonable to assume that there would have been a generous measure of concern among member governments of the Caribbean community as well, and within the wider ‘family’ of regional and global financial institutions. And why not? The CDB, after all, has established its credentials as a critical cog in the wheel of the overarching development of the region so that any challenges to its effective functioning ought correctly to be the business of the people of the region. This, of course, is not to say that such discretionary protocols ought to have been set aside altogether.
It is only now, through comments made in Dr. Leon’s letter of resignation – purportedly authored by his attorneys – that it is clear that his being sent on administrative leave was a decision taken, seemingly, to probe particular unstated ‘concerns.’ What particularly jumps out in the now former CDB President’s letter of resignation is the assertion that having been sent on leave, in the first place, he would never, thereafter, have been “treated fairly.”
Now that Dr. Leon has officially separated himself from the CDB, one expects that Caribbean governments and people would be entitled to further disclosure on the matter. While there are, doubtless, those who would opt for a ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ posture on the matter, the Caribbean people, as a whole, the substantive owners of the Bank, are entitled to a greater measure of transparency in the matter of the unexpected end to Dr. Leon’s tenure as Head of the Bank. His now confirmed resignation is no reason for the placing of an exclamation point on an issue which ought to be of considerable interest to the governments and people of the region as a whole.
Aspects of the tone and content of Dr. Leon’s letter of resignation send an unmistakable message that he believes he was unfairly treated. That alone gives reason for us to be told much more than what we know at this time. What must be avoided at all cost are circumstances of misinformation and distortion that are bound to arise from the flow of information that is now likely to arise from ‘all corners’ on the matter of his being ‘sent on leave,’ in the first place, and afterwards, his resignation.
