Editorial: 'Lie in unison' whitewash simply fantasy

Finding a way around the blindingly obvious usually entails jumping through a large number of hoops. In most instances, those obstacles trip up the would-be fantasist. James Buwalda, the Secretary of Labour, is clearly something of an athlete. Only the most dextrous of men would even try to come up with a case to support the conclusion that Immigration Service officials did not conspire to lie about the detention of Algerian asylum-seeker Ahmed Zaoui. Dr Buwalda is, however, no Superman and, sure enough, his exertions have proved unavailing. It could be the only outcome when there is no way of formulating a whitewash that will wash.

After a month-long inquiry, Dr Buwalda has concluded there is no evidence to suggest that Immigration officials colluded or conspired to "lie in unison"; and that, similarly, there was no evidence officials deliberately misled the Ombudsman about the existence of a memo effectively confirming such behaviour. Neither conclusion is credible; both involve considerable contortion to even start to deny what was staring Dr Buwalda in the face. Both also suggest a disturbing degree of delusion and disingenuousness.

When the Herald first revealed an internal memo written by Immigration spokesman Ian Smith stating that "everyone had agreed to lie in unison" about Mr Zaoui's apprehension, it was excused as the reaction of an angry man. Mr Smith was said to be annoyed about not being able to respond to a Herald editorial's inference that he had told untruths. Now, the story has changed. No matter, Dr Buwalda accepts Mr Smith's contention that his comment, attached to an in-house log of media reports, was merely an ironic response to the criticism. The log would, he adds, be an unlikely place for Mr Smith to broadcast the view that he felt "let down badly" by the failure of other staff to stick to an preconceived story.

It could, of course, be exactly the place if Mr Smith wished to broadcast his sense of betrayal; to express his anger to colleagues about being "the only one left singing the original song". Early in his report, Dr Buwalda concedes that "taken at face value, Ian Smith's annotation in the media log ... suggests a conspiracy to deceive". Nothing in the report starts to suggest that is a false assumption, or that the "lie in unison" reference was the "product of one person's actions". Other comments that Mr Smith attached to media logs suggest he was accustomed to venting his spleen this way, no matter how inappropriate or how unprofessional the behaviour. Why not do the same over this incident?

Similarly, Dr Buwalda turns a blind eye to the obvious over the handling of a request for information from the Ombudsman. He seems only mildly perturbed that media logs were not handed over in the first instance - even though the Ombudsman had advised they carried official information status as long ago as 1997. He appears not unduly worried that Immigration's general manager did not respond to a particular inquiry from the Ombudsman. And he notes, but does not adequately address, the fact that Mr Smith was able to hand over media logs for December 16, 18 and 19, 2002 - but not that of December 17, which included the "lie in unison" annotation.

Quite simply, the evidence of evasion, obfuscation and deceit is too strong to ignore. Immigration's attitude to the Ombudsman and, by extension, the public, was one of contempt. Quite specific departmental guidelines were treated with disdain, even when a highly specific request was made under the Official Information Act.

To reach his conclusions, Dr Buwalda has had to portray Immigration as rabble-like in its ill-discipline and disorganisation. The picture would be a sorry one, even if his findings could be accepted. That they cannot compounds the severe damage to the public service's reputation. Hopefully, the forthcoming report of the Ombudsman will set the record straight - and extract the degree of accountability that this episode demands.