There are “clear lessons of governance and accountability” to be learned from the “sorry tale” of the Andre Curtis case, according to Governor Sir Richard Gozney.Mr Curtis was cleared by a jury yesterday of stealing public funds from Government and false accounting in relation to his $400,000 Faith-Based Tourism contract [see main story].Various issues relating to good governance emerged during his Supreme Court trial. Former director of tourism Cherie-Lynn Whitter said during her evidence that the proposal for Government to outsource Faith-Based Tourism originally came from Mr Curtis. He was head of the Tourism Board at the time he was awarded the contract. He was also political campaign manager for the then-Premier and Minister of Tourism Ewart Brown, and chairman of the Warwick South Central constituency held by Dr Brown.Dr Brown was the person who first brought the proposal to Ms Whitter’s attention, according to her evidence. She made no mention of any other party being invited to tender for the contract. Ms Whitter also confirmed that a $25,000 advance payment was made to Mr Curtis before the contract had been approved by Cabinet. That followed an e-mail from Permanent Secretary Marc Telemaque saying: “Mock-up a contract of sorts to make this happen yesterday”.The wording of that contract, which was signed-off by the Attorney General’s Chambers as well as Cabinet, came under fire from defence lawyer Mark Pettingill during the trial. He argued that Government simply handed the funds to Mr Curtis without instructions specifying how they were to be spent.Mr Curtis never denied he used the funds for personal transactions, including paying debts and making donations to his church. Mr Pettingill argued that the weak contract allowed him to do so without being guilty of theft.Invited to comment on the issues raised during the trial after the not-guilty verdicts yesterday, Sir Richard replied: “Consultancies and contracts issued by a Ministry such as the Ministry of Tourism are first and foremost matters for the Bermuda Government, not Government House. I would not normally comment on them. But Mr Curtis’ consultancy was not a normal one, as his trial has shown. The trial described a sorry tale.“There are clear lessons of governance and accountability, including the accountability of senior officials, to be learned from the story which unfolded during this trial.“I am confident that those at the top of Government will take them. Since the time when Mr Curtis was given his Faith-Based Tourism consultancy by the Minister and officials who were then running the Ministry of Tourism, the new Premier and Finance Minister has changed the procedures for consultants and contracts and procurement.“To my mind Mr Curtis’ trial shows the clear need for the changes and I wish the Premier and Finance Minister every success in driving through her reforms. She has my strong support.”Shadow Attorney General and Minister of Justice Trevor Moniz described the Faith-Based Tourism contract as “a complete sham” and suggested the case has affected public confidence in Government.A spokesman for Premier Paula Cox said last night: “It would not be prudent for the Premier to speak on the recently concluded Andre Curtis case as it is unclear whether the Department of Public Prosecutions will be pursuing further charges.“However, the Government’s Financial Instructions currently state that all goods and services over $5,000 will be subject to competition and that all purchases over $50,000 will not be entered into without a full tendering process and a written contract that is vetted by the Attorney General’s Chambers.“As part of the implementation of the Premier’s Good Governance Act 2011, in June 2011 an Interim Director of Project Management and Procurement was employed by Government.“The Interim Director is currently consulting on a new Code of Practice for Procurement, which will build on the established processes, ensuring that they are transparent and that Civil Servants and Ministers are accountable for complying with them. The Good Governance Act 2011, makes it an offence to bypass the Code of Practice. Full implementation of the Code of Practice is expected within the next three months.”