The Trinidad & Tobago Parliament is now conducting an Inquiry into TSTT and this article is an edited version of my submission to that Inquiry.

The Joint Select Committee’s (JSC) ‘Invitation for Written Submissions‘ was published on the TT Parliament website on Wednesday 23 April 2014, with the deadline for submissions set at 4:00 pm on Friday 2 May 2014. Only ten (10) days.

When one considers the far-reaching scope of the Inquiry as specified in its ten (10) objectives; the size and role of TSTT and the recent published reports as to the proposals for the State to relinquish a critical 2% of its share in TSTT, it is clear that these matters are of the utmost, long-term public importance. Placed in that context, the JSC decision to Inquire into these matters is commendable, but the time-frame is so short as to raise serious doubts as to the quantity and quality of submissions which could comply.

The deadline for submissions to this JSC Inquiry should be extended to allow a greater degree of public and stakeholder participation.

This submission is focused on the third of the Inquiry’s ten objectives –

3. “ To determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the Company’s policies and procedures as it pertains to ensuring accountability, transparency and sound Corporate Governance in its operations and to determine whether these are being adhered to…“

It is my considered view that TSTT has engaged in a series of determined and long-range legal manoeuvres to place itself outside two of our Republic’s principal accountability and transparency laws. Those two laws are the Integrity in Public Life Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

The Integrity in Public Life Act

The Integrity in Public Life Act established the Integrity Commission, which states its role to be “…to promote integrity, particularly among “persons in public life” – from the level of Ministers of Government and Members of Parliament to Permanent Secretaries, Chief Technical Officers and members of the Boards of Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises…”

In 2005, the Integrity Commission applied to the High Court for an interpretation of its remit, the particular aspect of that matter which has a bearing on this Inquiry was specified at para 1. (2) of the Court’s ruling in that case –

“(2) What is the meaning of the expression ― “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest” in paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Integrity in Public Life Act as amended?”

TSTT was granted leave to be heard on the application, according to paras 3 & 4 of that ruling.

In 2007, the High Court ruled, in relation to that aspect that the IPLA applied to Directors of State Enterprises and bodies in which the State had a controlling interest. The plain meaning of which was that TSTT’s Directors were required to comply with the provisions of the IPLA.

TSTT appealed that ruling, once again seeking to place its Directors outside the remit of the IPLA. That appeal was part of the deliberate, long-term series of legal actions by TSTT to challenge the stated intent of the Integrity Commission in relation to its Directors. The fact that the legal action proceeded that far is ample testimony to the support extended by the government (the Executive) to TSTT in this endeavour.

On 27 June 2013, the Appeal Court ruled that –

“CONCLUSION

54. TSTT is not a State Enterprise. The members of its Board are not subject to the Integrity Provisions.”

That ruling marked the successful completion of the TSTT campaign to remove itself from oversight by the Integrity Commission.

One could view these events as being the lawful exercise of various parties’ rights to seek the Courts’ interpretation of the law and the result as being the product of due deliberation.

That view is too limited, since the wider constitutional question is begged as to the true intent of Parliament in creating the IPLA. This situation represents nothing less than an open dismantling of the clear intentions of Parliament by the concerted actions of the Executive and its agents, together with the independent Integrity Commission.

On 6 October 2000, the Parliament passed the IPLA, but on 13 October 2000, the Parliament passed an amendment to the Schedule of the IPLA. The clear intention of the Parliament in approving that amendment was to include members of the Boards of State Enterprises and those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.

The intended result of this TSTT litigation was to remove its Directors from Integrity Commission oversight and that was achieved. The intended will of the Parliament was effectively frustrated by these legal manouevres.

The Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act 1999 is intended to give the public the right to obtain information about Public Authorities. The Freedom of Information Unit (within the Office of the Prime Minister) provides a list of Public Authorities which are subject to the provisions of the FoIA. TSTT is listed as the 145th on that list of 199 No. Public Authorities.

On 17 January 2006, Magdalene Samaroo filed suit against TSTT under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain publication of a copy of “…the letter from the Integrity Commission to the Directors of the Board of TSTT informing them that they are not required to give annual declarations…in accordance with the IPLA as amended…”.

The requested letter is itself astounding, given that it would appear to be a formal undertaking from the Integrity Commission intended to subvert the law requiring that Directors of State Enterprises submit declarations to the said Commission. As far as I know, the existence of that letter has never been officially denied.

On 19 July 2010, the High Court ruled that TSTT is a Public Authority (para 18) and further, that it was required to provide the requested documents (para 25).

TSTT filed an appeal against that ruling, which ended in a final hearing before the Appeal Court on 28 October 2013.

The appeal was compromised by consent, meaning that the parties agreed to end the litigation, so costs were not awarded by the Appeal Court. The Court, having accepted that the matter was at a close, went on to set aside the 2010 ruling by the late Justice Carlton Best. To cite the transcript of that final hearing –

“…we can say that the appeal is compromised, we can set aside the decision of Justice Best and enter the Order that there be no Order to costs which does three things, or two things, at least: it meets your agreement; it removes the precedent that is creating some difficulty for you…” (emphasis mine)

The action of the Appeal Court in removing the difficult precedent facilitated TSTT in achieving its desired outcome of no transparency or accountability in relation to these issues.

Here again, we are witness to another determined effort by TSTT to seek the assistance of the Courts to frustrate the proper intentions of the Parliament.

I asked the Inquiry to recommend to Parliament that it –

• Rectify the contradiction arising from the Appeal Court judgment in #30 of 2008 with respect to TSTT’s obligations under the IPLA. The Parliament must ensure that TSTT is formally and conclusively brought within Integrity Commission oversight, as is the case for all State Enterprises.
• Ensure prompt publication of the Integrity Commission’s letters to the TSTT Directors exempting them from compliance with their obligations under the IPLA.
• Ensure TSTT’s compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as lawfully required for all Public Authorities.

There is now the unacceptable contradiction of a JSC of our Parliament convening this Inquiry into TSTT’s operations, in the proper exercise of its supervisory responsibility for that State Enterprise, while the Appeal Court has ruled that TSTT is not a State Enterprise for the purposes of the IPLA. As I complete this column, TSTT officials are live on the Parliament channel giving evidence to this Inquiry on Friday 9 May.

To add to the brew, Cable & Wireless, the 49% shareholder in TSTT, is proposing that the State relinquish 2% of its shareholding into an arrangement which would effectively end State control of this important national asset.

How can we find out what is the true position of TSTT in our nation’s affairs if our lawful rights to accountability and transparency into its operations are being eroded in this fashion?

This unacceptable situation is a challenge to the Parliament to reassert its proper authority in this matter.