Author: AfraRaymond

Managing Director, Raymond & Pierre Ltd. Past-President, Joint Consultative Council for the Construction Industry, Trinidad and Tobago- December 2010 to November 2015. Past President Institute of Surveyors of Trinidad & Tobago 2009-2010.

CL Financial bailout – Finding the Facts

Min of FInance, Colm Imbert, MP
Min of FInance, Colm Imbert, MP

On 10 August 2015, the then Minister of Finance and the Economy appealed the High Court’s 22 July 2015 judgment which ordered the release of the details on the CL Financial bailout. My protest at this action was published in this space as ‘Studied Disdain‘. Since then, the General Election of 7 September 2015 brought about a change of government – the People’s Partnership is now the official Opposition and the People’s National Movement is once again the government.

It is essential to now determine the areas in which we can expect changes in policy and the areas in which we can expect business as usual. Those perspectives informed my letter of 15 September 2015 to the new Minister of Finance & the Economy, Colm Imbert.

Imbert asked for more time to consider my request, so I consented to his application to the Appeal Court – the next hearing in this matter is therefore set for 25th January 2016.

My exchanges thus far with Imbert have been straightforward ones, but it is always important for us to be vigilant and aware.

15th September 2015
By email & hand
Mr Colm Imbert MP,
Minister of Finance & the Economy,
Ministry of Finance & the Economy,
8th Floor,
Eric Williams Financial Complex,
Brian Lara Promenade,
Port-of-Spain
Honourable Minister,
Request for Official Publication of Suppressed Details relevant to CL Financial bailout
The controversial CLF bailout is the largest payout of Public Money on a single project/issue in the history of our Republic. The entire operation has been conducted in conditions of complete secrecy with all the usual standards on transparency and accountability being ignored by the responsible public officials – a timeline showing the various official versions of the cost of this bailout is attached for ease of reference.
The PNM conducted its successful campaign for the recently-concluded 2015 General Elections on the commendable principles of Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance. I have been campaigning for the restoration of those standards to this CL Financial bailout and have gone so far as to sue the Ministry of Finance (CV 2013-00162) for the details of the bailout, at my own expense and in the Public Interest.

The High Court ruled in my favour on 22 July 2015 and ordered the publication of the requested details, but on 10th August 2015 the Ministry of Finance appealed that ruling (P201 – 2015). Our next hearing is set for Monday 19th October 2015, to argue the State’s application for extension of the stay of execution. It is my intention to strongly oppose that application for any extension of the stay of execution.I am formally requesting that you take the necessary actions to restore the Public Interest in the Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance in relation to this vast, opaque expenditure of Public Money.In specific terms, I am requesting three actions from you –

  1. Formal withdrawal of the State’s appeal in this matter;
  2. Urgent publication of the details of the CL Financial bailout to include the audited accounts for CL Financial 2008-2014 or any interim, preliminary, draft or unaudited statements of CL Financial Limited; the full details of the official briefing to Independent Senators in September 2011 preparatory to the debate on The Central Bank (Amendment) Bill and The Purchase of Rights and Validation Bill 2011 (to include copies of all slides. Power-Point slides, tables, charts, schedules, text or other information which comprised that presentation) and details of the funds paid in the bailout to include – a full list of creditors as at the commencement date of the bailout and at the date of my FoIA request (8th May 2012); the names of the EFPA holders; the dates of the repayments of the EFPA holders, together with details of the amounts received; the identities of all those who have received public money in the conduct of this exercise, together with details of the amounts received. These details are no doubt electronically stored, so I would request that the answers be provided in a searchable database;
  3. Refund of my reasonable legal fees in this matter – The High Court awarded 70% of my costs.

In anticipation of objections to disclosing these details on the grounds of the right of private investors to confidentiality, my response would be to point out that all other recipients of Public Funds are liable to having detailed information disclosed, upon request and without notice. A request for information on the details of a Public contract would include the identities of the parties; the contract itself; the dates and amounts of payments. Such requests are routinely handled without resort to attorneys or even the Courts, even if administrative delay is also a reality. That is the common and accepted practice in relation to all Public contracts and payments, which is fortified by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, under which my litigation was successful. There is no case made for any special status of financial investors to enjoy rights of confidentiality which are not available to other recipients of Public Funds.

The only way for the required level of transparency and accountability to be achieved is by the responsible officials publishing all the details of all the payments of Public Money.

The equation for the reality check is –

         Expenditure of Public Money
Minus    Transparency
Minus    Accountability
Equals   CORRUPTION

I can appreciate that the impending 2016 budget would likely demand your attention for the next three weeks. I would like to know the State’s position in this matter before the next Appeal Court hearing on Monday 19th October 2015, so I would appreciate your reply by Friday 9th October 2015.

This request was made in the Public Interest, so I trust that it will receive your positive attention.

Yours sincerely,
……………………………………………….
Afra Raymond

c.c. – Dr. Keith Rowley MP, Prime Minister,
Mr. Faris Al Rawi MP, Attorney General

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

How much has the CL Financial bailout cost?’
TIMELINE

DATE

EVENT

SOURCE

with live hyperlinks

30th January 2009

Bailout announced at an estimated cost of $5.0 Billion

CBTT Statement of 13th February 2009

12th June 2009

CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement signed, which for the first time made it a priority to protect shareholders’ rights.

https://afraraymond.files.

– see Para ‘A’ of the Preamble at page two.

8th September 2010

Winston Dookeran’s first Budget Statement, in which he formally proposes to drastically reduce the rate of payout of Public Money in the bailout.

2011 Budget Statement –

pages eight through ten.

1st October 2010

Then PM confirms that $7.3 Bn had been spent and that a further $7.0 Bn needed to be spent (pg 31). The burning need for an explanation of where the $7.3 Bn went…(pgs 25-26)

Hansard for 1st October 2010 –

pages 19 through 34.

3rd April 2012

Then Finance Minister Winston Dookeran confirms that $12 Bn had been spent.

Affidavit to High Court in Percy Farrell & Ors vs AG –

para 21.

1st October 2012

New Finance Minister Larry Howai confirms that $19.7 Bn had been spent, which is an additional $7.7 Bn in six months.

2013 Budget Statement –

page six.

17th May 2013

Formal confirmation of bailout cost “…over $25 Bn…”

Formal Press Release from Office of the AG –

para eight.

2nd April 2014

Then Finance Minister Howai confirms bailout cost as – “… the cost to the country of the CL Financial bailout—the actual cash that has been put out—is approximately$20.8 billion...”

Hansard for Senate sitting of 2ndApril 2014 –

page 35.

7th August 2015

Then Finance Minister Howai confirms bailout cost as ‘not quite $20 Bn‘.

CNMG interview

Setting the Table

TAGThe PNM’s successful election campaign placed strong emphasis on the critical need to restore proper standards of Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance. That was a commendable and necessary stance in the face of widespread public disgust at the falling standards of morality in public affairs as experienced with successive political administrations.

The new PNM government was installed about a fortnight ago and we expect the 2016 budget to be delivered in about another fortnight, so this is a good time to set out our position. This column will be a simple list, with notes of what are the main priorities to be pursued with the new government in relation to our industry –

  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act 2015

    This law was partially-proclaimed, but the government has proposed amendments, so we would be available for discussions if those are needed. The public interest requires that this new law be swiftly implemented so as to properly control transactions in Public Money. We have to bring the era of epic waste and theft of Public Money to a close.

  • Planning & Facilitation of Development Act 2014

    This law is intended to control physical development in our country. It was partially-proclaimed at the end of July 2015, so there is some work to be done to have that important law implemented. Its companion law, the Urban & Regional Planning Profession Bill (2014), also needs to complete its passage through Parliament so that there would be proper regulation to control the professionals in that field.

  • Building Codes

    Our country has never had a legally-enforceable building code to govern the standard of construction. That is a serious gap in terms of our physical development, given that we live in an earthquake-prone island, together with the risk of flooding due to occasional tropical storms and ineffective drainage systems. The PP administration established a multidisciplinary National Building Code Committee which the JCC participated in. That Committee completed its preliminary work about two years ago but was unable to secure the required money to prepare a draft building code and do the necessary consultations. This is an important item to be completed.

  • Registration Acts

    We are seeking updates to the laws controlling professional practice of Engineers and Architects (planners are mentioned above) as well as our long-term efforts to secure an effective Licencing system for Building Contractors.

  • Bernard Report

    This is the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Piarco Airport project which was completed at the end of August 2003. Of course that project and the allegations of grand corruption within it actually triggered the collapse of the UNC government in its previous incarnation. US-based persons who were involved in this international criminal gang which successfully targeted our Treasury have been arrested, tried, convicted and have completed their terms of imprisonment. Here in T&T we suffered the ‘Plot to Pervert Parliament’, which is what I call the entire S.34 fiasco, intended to engineer a loophole through which the Piarco Airport Accused could lawfully evade the Courts. That is bad enough, but despite the fact that the legal right to suppress the Bernard Report has expired, the previous administration refused to publish it. Apart from the Bernard Report, I would really like to know the exact time at which S.34 was taken to then President Max Richards and at what time it was signed on Friday 31st August 2012, the 50th Anniversary of our country’s Independence. That kind of detail will bring real clarity to this sordid chapter. We will soon see the position of the new government on this matter.

  • Uff Proceedings

    These comprise the witness statements and transcripts of the hearings which were available on the Enquiry’s website, together with TV footage of the hearings which was stored by GISL. The Enquiry website disappeared at the end of 2010 and our constant efforts to have that information re-published were all effectively ignored. That is fundamental primary information on how our society handles its large-scale affairs and it must be republished.

  • Beetham Water Recycling Project (BWRP)

    This project is an unconventional Public Private Partnership to process wastewater for subsequent sale for industrial cooling. BWRP is stated to cost in excess of $1.0 Billion yet it has never been properly shown in any budget. BWRP represents just the kind of ‘off-balance-sheet’ project of which we need to be cautious, especially at this time of budget constraints with the consequent temptation of our public officials. Quite apart from our stated concerns on the tendering and evaluation process, the JCC has made the point that no business case has ever been made for this huge PPP. Does the BWRP improve WASA’s financial position? Does it improve or diminish the financial position of NGC? The ultimate destination of these 10 million daily gallons of water is Point Lisas industrial users – are they prepared, in terms of their own plant, to receive that supply? Have they agreed to pay the necessary charges? In terms of opportunity cost, what are the other uses to which those funds could have been put? If one includes finance, maintenance and other charges, what is the total cost of the BWRP? Given our country’s high level of annual rainfall and the degree to which our pipe-borne water is wasted via leaks, is this the most cost-effective way for WASA to have ‘harvested’ an additional 10M gallons (daily) of potable water? I am sure the answers to those questions will be of great public interest.

  • State Land

    The Minister of Agriculture, Lands & Fisheries, Senator Clarence Rambharat, has already announced his intention to do an audit of State Lands. We support that initiative as an essential step in establishing the true position with our State Lands. It would be a very important strategic step if that audit were followed by a thorough review of National Land Policy, which dates from 1992, and the UWI’s 2003 study of the role of Caroni Lands in National Transformation. It would also be critical for that review process to be broad-based and consultative.

  • Invader’s Bay

    This huge, ambitious project to develop 70 acres of State-owned reclaimed waterside land in west POS was mired in serious controversy from the very beginning due to the improper RFP process adopted by the State. The JCC went to Court and won an order forcing the State to publish the fundamental legal advice supporting the RFP process. The State has appealed, but it is time for a new start at Invader’s Bay.

These are the main areas of concern which we would want properly addressed.

AUDIO: The Power Breakfast Show interview on 102.1 FM – 14 October 2015

Power 102 FMAfra Raymond is interviewed on the ‘The Power Breakfast‘ show along with Peter Permell on Power 102 FM by Richard Ragoobarsingh talking about the ongoing CL Financial bailout saga now that there is a new government. 14 October 2015. Audio courtesy Power 102 FM

  • Programme Date: Wednesday, 14 October 2015
  • Programme Length: 29:42

2016 Budget Review

The 2016 budget statement was made on Monday 5 October 2015 by newly-appointed Minister of Finance & the Economy, Colm Imbert MP. Imbert is a professional engineer, so the fact that he lacked any formal certification in the financial field sparked much debate. The budget proposals have been made, so we are well past that point now.

These expenditure and revenue figures are from the Budget Statements, so no account has been taken of either actual outcomes or supplemental appropriations – this is the process used by the Government to obtain authorisation from the Parliament to exceed the approved spending limits in the national budget.

Continue reading “2016 Budget Review” →

AUDIO: The Breakfast Roundtable interview on Sky 99.5FM- 7 October 2015

sky995fmAfra Raymond, as JCC president, is interviewed on the ‘The Breakfast Round Table‘ show on Sky 99.5 FM by Eddisson Carr and Jessie May Ventour giving a post-budget analysis from his perspective. 7 October 2015. Audio courtesy Sky 99.5 FM

  • Programme Date: Wednesday, 7 October 2015
  • Programme Length: 17:04 and 22:31


Dismantling the Code of Silence

This letter was published in Sunday Express on 27th September 2015.

From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Subject: Dismantling the Code of Silence
To:

The Editor,

lasalturas-signNoel Garcia served as General Manager of the Housing Development Corporation during the period in which critical decisions were made on the Las Alturas housing project. That project, in which two apartment buildings failed, is now the subject of a Commission of Enquiry. There have been several reports in the press (see below) that Mr Garcia was unwilling to testify to that Enquiry. We have been unable to locate any published responses from Mr Garcia to those reports.

Noel Garcia has now been appointed as Chairman of the UDECOTT Board. The JCC’s position is that the penalties for the failure or refusal to appear as a witness to a Commission of Enquiry must be increased sharply so as to discourage this deplorable behaviour. The present fine for non-attendance is only $2,000, which is why so many persons can show open disdain for a request to testify at a Commission of Enquiry.

The prospect of the Chairman of a State Enterprise declining to testify at a Commission of Enquiry is unacceptable and of course any continuing ambiguity can only feed suspicion.

The Las Alturas Enquiry resumes its evidence hearings on Monday 28th September 2015 and it would be a refreshing change from the ‘bad old days‘ if Mr Garcia, or his attorneys, were to promptly confirm his willingness to appear as a witness.

Afra Raymond
President
JCC

Noel Garcia responded via a media release, which was copied on social media on Sunday 27 September 2015 as follows:

Getting the Facts Right

I refer to a letter to the editor from Afra Raymond entitled “Dismantling the code of Silence” published in the September 27, 2015 edition of the Express Newspaper.
In his letter, Mr. Raymond, in reference to me and the Commission of Enquiry into the Las Alturas Project, speaks disparagingly of “the prospect of the Chairman of a State Enterprise declining to testify at a Commission of Enquiry”.

I wish to categorically state that I have never refused to give evidence before the Commission of Enquiry into the Las Alturas Project. Despite what Mr. Raymond claims to have read (and what he erroneously plainly believes), the Commission has never at any time contacted or subpoenaed me on the matter of the Las Alturas Project. This, although my postal address, email address and telephone number have remained unchanged for years.

For the record, I have never shirked my duty or my responsibility to give evidence before any court or any tribunal with respect to matters within my knowledge as a former employee of the HDC. I have previously given evidence in the High Court on behalf of the HDC and I have only recently filed an affidavit in support of the HDC’s position in another High Court matter. I am no stranger to and have given evidence repeatedly at Commissions of Enquiry including in the Piarco Airport Enquiry, the Landate Enquiry and the UFF Commission.

I wish to make my position abundantly clear that, were I to be subpoenaed or contacted to give evidence at the Commission of Enquiry into the Las Alturas Project, I would have absolutely no difficulty in assisting the Commission.

In his self-appointed role as guardian of the public conscience, Mr. Raymond ought to be more careful about permitting his officious zeal to lead him into making what can be considered to be defamatory imputations about others. Mr. Raymond’s self-confessed inability to locate any published responses from me to press reports he has read is no licence for him to do so.

Noel Garcia.

This clarification was all we were seeking, so I responded later that night, on social media, as follows –

“…Noel Garcia’s post ‘Getting the Facts Right’ is very helpful, it is the first public response I have seen to the several articles earlier on this issue – I thank him for it…as I said elsewhere on FB yesterday, one of the Officials in the Las Alturas Enquiry told me that they had been ‘unable to locate’ Mr Garcia, to which I responded that as he was the new UDECOTT Chairman, it was now impossible to sustain that claim…”

For ease of reference – these are the previous press reports –

  1. Trinidad Guardian of 7th April 2015 – ‘Las Alturas Hearing resumes today‘
    “…Singh also assured Ibrahim that efforts were being made to locate former executive chairman of the Urban Development Corporation of T&T Calder Hart, and former HDC general manager Noel Garcia, to have them appear before the Commission…” then “…Garcia is said to be living and working in Ghana. HDC’s attorney Vincent Nelson, QC, had previously indicated that Garcia had declined to provide a witness statement when asked, following which they lost contact with him. Seemingly dissatisfied with Mohammed’s answer that every effort was being made to have Hart present himself before the Commission, Ibrahim suggested that there were legal means which could be employed to compel him to appear.”Ibrahim has promised that accommodations would be made not to keep Hart unduly when he does appear, while there was also the recommendation that an offer be made to pay Garcia’s travel expenses back to T&T, in order for him to testify. Both Hart and Garcia have been deemed “important witnesses” in the enquiry. During the 13-day enquiry four witnesses have so far testified before the Commission…“
  2. Trinidad Express – 20th March 2015 – ‘HDC lawyers ‘lost all contact with Garcia’‘ –
    “…Attorneys representing the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) have lost all contact with former HDC managing director Noel Garcia. This was revealed yesterday during the sitting of the commission of enquiry into the Las Alturas housing project at the Caribbean Court of Justice in Port of Spain.“Garcia, who was expected to be called as a witness in the enquiry, is said to be currently residing in Ghana.“Junior counsel for the commission Jagdeo Singh told the commission all attempts by HDC’s legal team to locate Garcia had been unsuccessful. “Every effort has been made thus far to locate Mr Garcia and at some point in time Mr Garcia was in communication with the legal team for the HDC, but he has since ceased all communication with them,” Singh said.“Nelson had said at a previous hearing that Garcia did not appear to be willing to testify in the proceedings.

    “Chairman of the commission Mustapha Ibrahim noted Garcia’s participation in the enquiry was necessary, as he was a “very important witness”…“

  3. CTNT News – 5th March 2015 – ‘QC: Garcia’s presence crucial to Las Alturas Enquiry‘ –
    “…The absence of former HDC Managing Director Noel Garcia at the Commission of Enquiry into the Las Alturas Housing Project was raised by the company’s Attorney on Day Four of the proceedings. Mr. Garcia is one of the key persons who would be best able to add the pieces to the already puzzling situation which led to the partial demolition of two towers at the million dollar housing complex due to shifting soil.”At Thursday’s session, the Attorney representing the Housing Development Corporation, Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson, mentioned that Mr. Garcia currently works and lives outside T&T.”The position there is that Mr. Noel Garcia, who is a pivotal person in the project at the time, is someone who really, although it is difficult because he is outside the jurisdiction for the Commission to summon him, he is an important and pivotal person in terms of what occurred at the time.”Mr. Nelson was then asked by the Commission Chairman Mustapha Ibrahim if any efforts were made to bring him back to T&T for the Enquiry, including offering to pay his airfare.

    “No. We haven’t done so but obviously that is something that I could take instructions on. I am told we lost communication with him at the moment. So that is the position but we will make further efforts but in the meantime, the position is the Commission may consider whether to call the Board at the time and/or see when Mr. Garcia is available.’…” There is also a TV clip here.

  4. Newsday of 6th March 2015 – ‘Noel Garcia not willing to testify‘ –
    “…NOEL Garcia, former managing director of the Housing Development Corporation (HDC), has indicated to lawyers for the HDC, that he is unwilling to testify at the Las Alturas Commission of Inquiry, attorney Vincent Nelson QC said yesterday…“

I have not seen any responses from Noel Garcia before his response on Sunday 27th September 2015.

Our Land – The Review

“…A small State such as Trinidad & Tobago must accord a very high priority to the judicious management and utilization of its land resources or perish. All elements of land policy must be designed to ensure that these finite resources are efficiently utilized and husbanded in such a manner as to serve the long term interests of the national community…”
—Conclusion of “A New Administration and Policy for Land” (19 November, 1992)

The PNM won national elections on 7 September 2015 by 23-18.

Two key themes emerged during the PNM’s successful campaign –

  1. Firstly, there was a strong emphasis on the critical need to restore proper standards of Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance;
  2. Secondly, a commitment was given to ‘keep the various promises made by the PP government’.

When one considers the various promises, policy changes and actions of the PP in relation to land and property, it seems clear to me that those two campaign commitments made by the PNM are entirely incompatible.

Our country has a very high population density and the previous Minister of Land and Marine Resources estimated that some 63% of our country’s land belongs to the State. It is therefore a cardinal State responsibility to properly manage those critical resources so that short and long term interests can be reconciled in a sustainable manner. The present situation is so serious and damaging to our collective interests that I am calling for a halt to any attempt to keep promises with respect to land and property while a fact-finding and policy review is conducted.

landpolicyThe opening quotation is from the National Land Policy 1992, which is now a virtually unknown document since its very existence is denied by all the relevant agencies. This Policy provides critical guidance for how this scarce resource should be best managed in the Public Interest.

The severe crisis now evident in relation to our State Lands resembles a ‘Tragedy of the Commons‘ in which this crucial resource which should offer long-term collective benefits is effectively abused by self-seeking individuals. The pattern of abuse is facilitated by gross mismanagement, in profitable partnership with deliberate obscurity in how the State Land system actually operates.

Food Security

foodplan-2012-15This remains elusive since in March 2012 the Ministry of Agriculture, Land & Marine Resources published its Food Production Action Plan 2012-2015. The major goal of that Action Plan was to halve the country’s annual $4.0 Billion food import bill. Yet in March 2014, the Food Production Minister, Senator Devant Maharaj, stated that the food import bill had been reduced by only 2% since 2010.

The significant reduction of our food import bill will require a flexible plan, with dedicated implementation and continuous monitoring. The one inescapable requirement is for farmers to have access to land of suitable quantity, quality and location. Without a good supply of land, no food security plan can succeed.

Land for the Landless

The proposed revisions to the State Lands Act 1998 were approved by the Lower House of Parliament on 3 June 2015 and withdrawn after the JCC raised certain objections. The proposed change in the ‘Land for the Landless’ policy were approved by Cabinet on 19 March 2015 with these main elements –

  • Occupation Date – Was moved from January 1998 to June 2014, which means many more persons would qualify.
  • Income Limits – Previously the maximum monthly family income was $8,000, this was now revised to $30,000.
  • Definition – the 1998 Act defined a landless person as one who was ‘disadvantaged’ according to the Ministry of Social Development, that word was deleted from the revised proposals.
  • Designated Areas – these were specified in an extensive list of over 400 areas covering the entire country.
  • The Numbers – The total number of persons identified was 250,000 and a commitment was given to regularise some 60,000 of those.

A policy which was originally intended to alleviate the plight of our poorest citizens has now effectively been extended to offer ‘Land for Everybody’. The existing commitment in respect of 60,000 lots will consume about 8,000 acres of land.

EMBD

https://vimeo.com/7987617
embd logoThe EMBD website states that it is responsible for the development of the former Caroni lands – some 7,500 residential lots are being prepared for ex-Caroni workers as part of their retrenchment package, with a further 8,400 agricultural leases of 2-acre parcels reportedly being processed. That means about 940 acres are to be used for the residential lots, with at further 18,500 additional acres for the agricultural plots. The total land area to be used would be about 19,420 acres, which is about a quarter (26%) of the estimated area of the Caroni lands.

Caroni Lands

caroni1975_logo_smallCaroni Lands were leased to ex–Caroni workers as part of their retrenchment compensation – they were entitled to one residential lot and a two-acre parcel for food-crop farming. The use of those lands for those purposes was intended to be controlled by the restrictive covenants in those leases. For instance, the residential lots were to be developed by a residential building within three years and the agricultural lots were to be held by the ex-workers for food-crop farming. In the 2015 budget, the restriction on sale of those agricultural lands was removed (pg 14). In addition, Cabinet Minute 3093 of 6 November 2014 approved the removal of the restrictive covenants in the leases to ex-Caroni workers – both agricultural and residential. No restriction on sale and no requirement to build on the lots.

This is tantamount to the State entirely gifting the development and transactional rights to these lessees, with no effective means of ensuring the originally desired results.

Housing Development Corporation (HDC)

hdc-logoThe HDC sells new homes at heavily-subsided rates to middle-income families, subject to restrictive covenants which prohibit open-market sale within the first ten years. Under the terms of that clause, the owner of one of these homes is required to offer the property to the HDC at the original price. It now seems that the HDC has relinquished those restrictive covenants. I have seen several letters signed by the HDC which authorise the open-market sale of those homes within the ten-year embargo period. I am not aware of any policy decision which supports that pattern of approvals and none of the vendors I have spoken with have paid any penalties of profit-share to the HDC.

This is yet another example of the State or its agents abandoning its fundamental duty to properly manage the public property rights within its remit.

Property Tax

The proposed Property Tax would require a live, open-access database which would allow anyone to examine the details of any property in the country. Those details would include land area, building area, number of bedrooms/bathrooms and other facilities, transaction history, ownership and assessed taxes. One of the strongest sources of opposition to the Property Tax is persons who would wish to keep the details of their property holdings and dealings as secret as possible.

The new Property Tax system and the modern database is in fact a key element in unearthing the facts of our country’s property ownership and occupation.

Property Tax must therefore be a priority in this arena.

The unrealistic policy of homes with gardens consumes too much land and will jeopardise our country’s sustainable future.

Is the Integrity Commission being willfully blind towards CL FINANCIAL?

Afra Raymond
#14 Highsquare Condominiums,
1a Dere Street,
Port-of-Spain
868 625 8168
afraraymond@gmail.com

5 May 2015
The Registrar,
Integrity Commission of Trinidad & Tobago,
Level 14, Tower D,
International Waterfront Centre,
1A Wrightson Road,
Port of Spain

Dear Sir,

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Non-compliance of Directors of CL Financial Ltd and its subsidiaries

with the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA)

I am once again seeking your update on the Integrity Commission’s handling of my complaint of 10th September 2012 in this matter. Please note that the public statement by the Governor of the Central Bank on Friday March 27th 2015 to provide details of the ‘Resolution’ of the CL Financial bailout, brings this matter of high public importance into prominence.

One of the most instructive lessons from the Wall St/City of London Financial Crash, is the true impact of ‘Regulatory Forbearance’ on allowing the incipient crisis to grow to the devastating extent to which it did.

‘Regulatory Forbearance’ refers to the situation in which the Regulator with responsibility for a particular set of participants in the financial market decides to disregard the clear signs of breaches in the pursuance of some other objectives, usually unspecified. This irregular practice effectively screened reckless participants from the degree of examination and control to which they were supposedly subject. That pattern of erroneous judgment, to use a charitable phrase, wreaked immense damage on the financial system and the many millions of unsophisticated investors who mistakenly relied on the Regulators to safeguard their essential interests. The fact that the affected financial markets were located in advanced jurisdictions should give us pause when we consider that in our minuscule country we seem to be beset by many examples of ‘Regulatory Forbearance’.

For all practical purposes the Integrity Commission is self-governing, in effect outside the purview of any monitoring authority. Redress against it to force prompt and proper action is beyond the resources of all except the wealthy. After repeated attempts I now have to go back to the Integrity Commission itself with the recorded history of this matter (all detailed in this letter) which speaks for itself. This cannot be what the Parliament intended or what the public expects from the operation of the IPLA.

These points are to be considered –

Priority

There are repeated reports, from the most senior Public Officials, that the CL Financial bailout has consumed in excess of $25 Billion of Public Money over the last six years. Those Public Officials include the present Prime Minister, two Ministers of Finance and two Governors of the Central Bank. The Ministry of Finance Press Release of 12th June 2009 declared that the CL Financial group of companies was under State control consequent on signing the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement earlier that day. Given that this vast sum of Public Money was expended within this group of companies which remain under State control, there is an irresistible case that this entire matter ought to have been of the utmost priority for the Integrity Commission.

Complaint

My original communication to you in this matter was sent on 10th September 2012 and clearly stated, as its final sentence “…I am therefore requesting, in the public interest, your confirmation that Directors of CL Financial and the companies within its control are required to file declarations or your confirmation that those Directors are not required to file or such other informative response that will satisfy this complaint of apparent non-compliance…”. Yet when, on 22nd May 2014, I questioned the fact that the Commission’s Annual Reports for 2012 and 2013 made no mention of my complaint, you informed me, via email of even date, that my query was not classified as a complaint. For the second time and for the avoidance of any doubt, mine is a formal complaint, so your records should now be rectified accordingly.

Composition of Commission

On 22nd May 2014, in explanation for the delay in handling my complaint, you wrote – “…However the Commission is not properly constituted ( a Commissioner having resigned and not yet replaced by his Excellency the President) at this time and therefore cannot make decisions. As soon as the Commission becomes properly constituted the matter will be placed before the Commission for a decision…”. The appointments of Pete London (Chartered Accountant) as a member of the Integrity Commission on 25th September 2014 and Mr Justice Zainool Hosein as its new Chairman on 21st November 2014 filled the Commission’s vacancies. The Integrity Commission is therefore now properly constituted and capable of making decisions as prescribed under the IPLA.

The request for legal advice

“…Directors of…bodies in which the State has a controlling interest…” is one of the types of ‘Public Officials’ under the remit of the Integrity Commission, according to the ninth item of the Schedule to the IPLA. As noted earlier, the Ministry of Finance Press Release of 12th June 2009 declared that the CL Financial group of companies was under State control consequent on signing the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement earlier that day.

Your reply of 22nd May 2014 states “…With respect to your query we have sought and obtained legal advice…”. In light of that statement, I am seeking your clarification as to whether the advice sought ‘with respect to my query‘ was the first advice you sought in this matter. If your reply is in the negative and advice was sought in response to the Press Release of 12th June 2009, that advice could not have relied on the Appeal Court ruling in #30 of 2008, which was not delivered until 27th June 2013.

In addition, I would emphasise that the Integrity Commission’s Public Notice at pg 49 of the Sunday Express of 6th October 2013, states that the IPLA applies to State Enterprises. At the fourth para of that Public Notice, which was intended to clarify published concerns as to the implications of the aforementioned Appeal Court ruling, State Enterprises are defined as companies which are controlled by the State.

In the alternative, if the answer is in the positive and my September 2012 complaint was in fact the first trigger of the Commission seeking legal advice on this point, we would collectively be at a strange and awkward place. A place in which the Integrity Commission, which is vested with the sole legal responsibility to seek declarations from this exact species of Company Director, took no action between 12th June 2009 and 10th September 2012, for whatever reason. We would be contemplating ‘an appalling vista‘ to quote the haunting words of a late, leading jurist.

Please consider these two closing points before moving on from this aspect of this matter –

  1. Firstly, the Integrity Commission is intended to be guided by the provisions of the IPLA, so there could have been no expectation of guidance or instructions from the Executive in relation to the scope of its remit. At least one should hope not.

  1. Secondly, your email of 22nd May 2014 requested from me a copy of the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement and the implications of that request are sobering. My original complaint of 10th September 2012 is rooted in the juxtaposition between the provisions of the IPLA and the purpose of the said Agreement (which was embedded in that complaint). In any case, the said Agreement would have been readily available from the Ministry of Finance, which published it on 11th March 2010 in response to my Freedom of Information request of 16th November 2009. It is entirely reasonable to conclude, from your request of 22nd May 2014, that you did not, prior to that request, have the said Agreement in either your possession or contemplation. It seems impossible to rationalise how relevant legal advice on the question of the applicability of the IPLA to the Directors of companies within the CL Financial group could be sought in the absence of the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement.

In conclusion, I would again request your urgent, diligent attention to this most important matter. As any reasonable person would appreciate – ‘Justice delayed is justice denied‘ and there has been too much delay in this matter, for one reason or the other. Given the high public importance of this entire matter, I would at this stage request publication of those instructions and legal advices on the issue of the applicability of the IPLA to the Directors of CL Financial and it subsidiaries.

It is impossible to really challenge runaway elites and wayward public officials without dismantling the impunity which these people enjoy due to the failure or refusal of our Regulators and oversight bodies, Law Enforcement officials and the Judiciary to act promptly and properly. In the words of the older generation of teachers and parents – ‘The Upholder is worse than the Offender‘. The thing must not only be done, it must appear to be done.

In the circumstances, I am calling on the Integrity Commission to carry out the necessary investigation to establish the facts according to the Commission’s standards. I am also calling upon the Commission to ensure that, if that investigation establishes the allegations contained in my complaint as being factual, formal Reports will be made under the provisions of S. 31 (1) of the IPLA “…to the appropriate Service Commission, Board or other Authority and to the Director of Public Prosecutions setting out such details and particulars as it thinks fit…”

I await your early, substantive reply.

Yours faithfully,

………………………………..

Afra Raymond

www.afraraymond.wordpress.com