The likelihood is that the board of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ) will claim that judicial constraints prevented them from giving details about the firing last week of Rodney Salmon, the corporation's long-standing director of administration and corporate secretary, ostensibly for his role in the free light-bulb scandal.

The PCJ implied that Mr Salmon had breached laws relating to the management and operation of the state-owned companies, including the specific legislation covering the PCJ. What was not said, however, was precisely what sections of the specific laws had been breached, how PCJ Chairman Ian Moore and his fellow directors had arrived at their conclusions, and whether they felt that Mr Salmon's conduct rose to the level of criminal misdemeanour.

This newspaper, and a wider public, believes that these questions are relevant not because of prurient curiosity, but rather, to ensure that there is no selective application of censure in this affair, and that the broad public interest is served.

Indeed, the light-bulb affair has come to epitomise the sloppiness present in the management of many agencies, and, many will claim, unbridled greed and pervasive political corruption.

The Cuban government gave Jamaica over four million energy-saving bulbs for free distribution to Jamaican households. The project should have cost the Jamaican government a handful of dollars, but the bill was closer to $300 million.

So far, Kern Spencer, the former junior energy minister for energy, who was in charge of the project, his personal assistant, Coleen Wright, and a business associate, Rodney Chin, have been charged by the police for fraud and money laundering. A report by the contractor general into the matter spoke of breaches of procurement rules and suggested cronyism and nepotism on the part of Mr Spencer.

The report also raised serious questions about the management of the PCJ, as well as the ministry under which it fell during the light-bulb debacle. For, as this newspaper has held, and continues to insist, no politician can breach the fiduciary rules of a government agency without the facilitation - often passive - of public officers.

It appears that Mr Salmon is deemed the facilitator in this case, but of what, is not clear. Also not clear, because of what has not been said, is his line of command. Did he have the final say at PCJ ?

Take for instance, the report of Mr Robert Stephens, highlighted by the contractor general, advising the PCJ that a full bilateral agreement and a formal project document were required for the project. Was it Mr Salmon's responsibility only to ensure that this was done?

These are issues to be clarified lest it be assumed that Rodney Salmon has been tossed under the bus.