Yesterday's announcement that the Bermuda Housing Corporation plans to sue up to 30 construction companies it claims may have ripped off the taxpayer by overcharging should be viewed with some scepticism.

Since his appointment last October, Housing Minister Sen. David Burch has frequently assured the public that his Ministry is doing all it can to retrieve "substantial" sums which, he believes, the BHC wrongly paid out to contractors that may have "ripped off" the Corporation.

At a press conference yesterday the Minister once more rammed home this reassurance, saying: "We will not write off one penny of taxpayers' money unless we have no choice and have exhausted every avenue to get it back."

But, referring to the companies on his list of "challenges" that could eventually go to court, he added: "Some of the 30 are not necessarily criminal, they are more likely to be unethical, and in those cases I would imagine they would not want to go to court."

This is hardly a reassuring statement and only begs further questions, namely, how does Government expect to get any overpayments back in the first place? How long will it take? How much will it cost?

As Opposition Housing Minister Michael Dunkley rightly pointed out when Sen. Burch first announced that he was gunning for the contractors last October: "The Minister talks about verbal agreements and contracts, so how is he in a position to pursue those overpayments? The contractors didn't just go into the vaults and take the money, there must have been some agreement between the contractors and the BHC."

While Sen. Burch's determination to target unethical contractors may be well-intended, it may also prove to be misdirected and ultimately futile.

If a contractor agreed to carry out a certain amount of work at a set price, and the BHC willingly agreed to pay that price - regardless of how astronomical - then, providing the work was carried out to the satisfaction of the Corporation, it could have no complaints about being ripped off. While that might sound unethical, as with any business transaction it doesn't necessarily give the BHC a legal right to start clamouring for its - or rather the taxpayers' - money back.

If the contractors were actually fraudulent, for example by falsifying invoices or claiming to have done work that they had not, then they should be taken to court - but they should be prosecuted as criminals in addition to any efforts to get the public's money back.

But if it is a case of "a fool and his money being easily parted", then the Minister's war on the contractors may be short-lived.

Cynics may view such a war as a smokescreen. While that may be unfair, Government's decision to impose a gagging order on any debate of the scandal in the House of Assembly pending a Police inquiry - on the grounds that any such debate would be sub judice - is preposterous and gives some credence to that argument.

And while Sen. Burch has been energetic in putting the BHC's house back in order, that does not diminish the fact that at the heart of 'Bermuda's Enron' hang question marks not only on the ethics of a group of contractors, but on both the ethics and/or competence of BHC officials entrusted with spending a portion of the public purse wisely and responsibly.

Until prosecutions are brought against those on the inside of the scandal - or the public gets a reasonable explanation as to why they are not taking place - and the Auditor's report is made public - Sen. Burch's assault on suspected shady contractors is simply a sideshow and should not draw attention away from the real culprit at the centre of this scandal - the Government on whose watch it was allowed to happen.