Category: Public Procurement Reform

Letter to the Editor – Open Letter to our Finance Minister

26 Sept 2025

The Editor,

The appointment of Dave Tancoo as Finance Minister following the UNC’s electoral victory on April 28th, 2025, represents an opportunity for fresh perspectives in Trinidad and Tobago’s fiscal leadership. As Minister Tancoo prepares his inaugural budget presentation, the following strategic approaches merit consideration for strengthening the nation’s economic foundation.

Given the importance of this transition period and the complex challenges facing our economy, these three policy frameworks are offered as constructive contributions to the national dialogue on fiscal strategy and economic development priorities –

  1. Revenue Generation – At this time of decreased national earnings and steep declines in the availability of $USD, it is important to appreciate the crucial role of the Energy sector to our national prosperity. In 1974, the Permanent Petroleum Pricing Committee (PPPC) was established to combat the pernicious practice of Transfer Pricing in the Energy Industry. For reasons which remain unclear, the PPPC was effectively dismantled in the 2000/2001 period, so yet another ‘Legacy Policy’ was silently wrecked to our collective detriment, since that shift could only have benefitted the Energy Companies.  As explained over the past two decades by my peerless colleague and Energy Adviser, Anthony Paul, the fiscal losses to T&T have been tremendous. Ian Narine also highlighted this important issue in ‘Foreign Exchange and Economic Fantasies’ in the Business Guardian of 25th September 2025. It is therefore essential that the Finance Minister urgently re-instate the Permanent Petroleum Pricing Committee (PPPC) to safeguard our nation’s share of those earnings.

    In that connection, difficult as it may be for the UNC to contemplate, there must also be a sober re-assessment of its decision to repeal the Property Tax, as that was the most feasible window into significant untaxed earnings from Investment Property.
  2. Overseeing Transactions in Public Money – The Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (PPDPPA) was passed in 2015 during the People’s Partnership government, within which the UNC was emphatically the leading element. The previous PNM Finance Minister, Colm Imbert, removed legal, accounting/auditing, medical fees, and financial services, as well as Government-to-Government Agreements and “such other services as the Minister may, by Order, determine” from OPR oversight. Those exclusions kept huge transactions in Public Money from Independent oversight, which could only be to our collective detriment. I am calling on the Finance Minister to take bold and restorative action to ensure the urgent repeal of those damaging exemptions from the PPDPPA.
  3. Firm action against White-Collar criminals – I smiled while reading about Finance Minister Tancoo’s clarity on the recent Financial Action Task Force (FATF) bill –
    “…Tancoo highlighted measures criminalising bribery in public procurement and embezzlement of public resources […] ‘T&T must never again find itself in the position we were in over the last few years, when the Office of the Procurement Regulator, the Auditor General, and others sounded the alarm,’ he said. ‘Billions of taxpayers’ dollars were spent illegally on projects no one could verify.’ He added that the bills establish a robust legislative framework to address crime, cross-border activities, and white-collar offences that have already cost the nation billions and affected thousands of lives. ‘We promised the people we’d tackle these issues. With these bills, that promise is kept…’“

    So far so good, in relation to those international obligations, but we also need to see an equal determination to seek the Public Interest with local contractors, advisers, and suppliers. Given its position on FATF, the Finance Minister needs to ensure stern and prompt prosecution of White-Collar Crime up to and including those accused from within the UNC ranks. No more backsliding or late filing, case not ready or any of that, let these accused face the Courts and ‘tell it to the Judge’.

If UNC wishes to do better than the previous PNM administration, they must act differently.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor – Public Procurement Progress?

Fri, 12 Sept 2025

The Editor,

The second Procurement Compliance Plus (PC+) Lab on 10th September 2025 was focused on Procurement Governance, so it was a strong addition to this excellent training series for this important new legal arena. Although Procurement and Purchasing are long-established essential processes for any business, this is a novel field due to the significant changes arising from the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (PPDPPA) 2015. The PPDPPA established effective new rules to oversee transactions in Public Money, with heavily punitive provisions, its most important feature being that oversight and penalties are now applicable to both named Public Sector Officials and Private Sector Suppliers and Contractors.

The interactive sessions were hosted by a cadre of outstanding professionals, led by the estimable Dr Margaret Rose, a long-time campaigner and educator in this field. I was a panellist, but it was also an opportunity for me to learn from and engage with a range of practitioners in this multi-faceted professional field.

The PPDPPA established the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR) as the Statutory Oversight Agency with responsibility to ensure that these transactions are conducted in accordance with that law. Public Bodies and their Private Sector counterparts will continue to contract with each other, but in this new arrangement all of those decisions are under the oversight of the OPR.

Given the importance to our Public Interest of maximising the value obtained for every dollar of Public Money, the complexity of the PPDPPA with its various intersections with other laws, the heavy penalties and the high political stakes, there is every good reason for the professionals engaged in this arena to support this outstanding series of educational conferences.

I am also told that the OPR was invited to deliver the keynote speech at the inaugural PC+ event on 2nd May 2025, so I am very disappointed that the OPR has not attended either of these pivotal conferences. I am reliably informed that the OPR declined that invitation due to a stated fear of being accused of conflict of interest, given that it is that office which would have to rule on any complaints, challenges or other disputes. I will not stand aside while the OPR becomes yet another of our ineffective Oversight Bodies, like the Auditor General or the Integrity Commission. There is simply too much at stake here.

Apart from the over-arching point that the OPR could participate in such events without any loss of its neutrality, impartiality or fairness and more importantly, would certainly gain tremendous understanding of the challenges facing practitioners. All in all, the further bonus from OPR participation in these events would be a far greater general understanding of the issues and their context. The OPR must urgently reconsider its reluctance to attend these PC+ events, especially since its reasons appear quite rickety when one considers that  the Chief Justice gave the keynote at the inaugural event and there were three Appeal Court judges in attendance at the entire second event.

Justice and its Officers should not be so cloistered and in this new dispensation that must now include Procurement Regulators.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor – Repeal all Exclusions/Exemptions to the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act NOW

15th August 2025

The Editor,

Since the UNC’s election victory on 28 April 2025, we have had several official statements on allegedly excessive legal fees paid by the State during the previous PNM administration from 2015 to 2025.

Some details of those legal fees paid have now been published, which is good, since transparency on the expenditure of Public Money is essential if we are to have an informed engagement with these issues.

The ongoing ‘CEPEP case’ is also a serious concern, as the parties appear to be battling over the existence and content of various Cabinet Notes and Board Resolutions, not to mention who said what to who and WhatsApp messages and so on. At issue is the legitimacy/legality of the April 2025 renewal/award of various CEPEP contracts said to total $1.4 Billion in Public Money. Having read those articles, I am staggered that the reported defence of the ex-CEPEP Chiefs does not seem to be citing their compliance with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act (The Act). What is more, the plaintiffs, as reported in the press, also seems to be silent on such compliance, which is what is required by The Act since April 2023. As interesting as those reported details are, the decisive point in this matter is CEPEP’s compliance with the Act in awarding those contracts.

In the ‘bad-old-days’ of the previous PNM administration we saw the then-AG, Faris Al Rawi, making a meal of the serious allegations of massive legal fees fraud against former PP AG Anand Ramlogan SC and newly-appointed NGC Chairman, Gerald Ramdeen – the sum allegedly mis-appropriated was in the $1.0 Billion region. Yet, at the very same time, the then-Finance Minister, Colm Imbert, was exempting expenditure on legal fees from the oversight of the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR). Incredible, but that is what really happened in this country.

I am referring to the fact that on Friday 4 December 2020 our Parliament passed the third set of amendments to the Act. Those exemptions were a serious blow to the long-term campaign for proper control over transactions in Public Money and are extremely detrimental to the public interest.

The removal of legal, accounting/auditing, medical fees, and financial services, as well as Government to Government Agreements and ‘such other services as the Minister may, by Order, determine’ from OPR oversight was risible when one considers the strong and repeated statements as to concerns over the alleged legal fees and other scandals. The over-stated concerns as to speed and efficiency could have been addressed by approval limits for ‘Procuring Entities’ and an obligation to make quarterly reports to the OPR. At that time, it was remarkable that the Opposition UNC, as it then was, seemed unable (or was it merely unwilling?) to make those points or advance any counterproposals.

We now have a freshly elected government, with its AG making loud claims about excessive legal fees paid by the previous PNM administration, with a troubling silence on the UNC position on those damaging 2020 exemptions from the Act. I am not at all inspired by the disclosure of this or that legal fee, since what we need is a clear position from the UNC on the repeal of those damaging exemptions from the Act. Those detrimental exemptions must now be repealed so that the public interest could be well-served by comprehensive and independent oversight by the OPR, as intended when the People’s Partnership (PP), of which the current ruling UNC was the leading element, passed the parent legislation – Act No 1 of 2015.

We must avoid the errors of the past if we are to do better. If the newly-elected UNC govt wishes to do better, it must act differently from the previous PNM govt. It would be a serious blow to our Republic if the OPR were to become yet another toothless/ineffective oversight body, like the Integrity Commission or the Auditor General.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Press Release on Afra Raymond vs PS in the Ministry of the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs

For immediate release

On 1st June 2023, The Honourable Justice Ramcharan ordered that I be granted access to the previously undisclosed correspondence between the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, together with payment of my costs. This ruling affirms the principles of accountability, transparency and open governance and upholds the public’s right to information vital to the functioning of our society.  The PS in the AGLA was ordered to provide the 12th April 2022 letter from the AG to the CJ requesting a checklist prior to proclamation of the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (the Act) and the CJ’s 25th May 2022 letter in reply.  That Order was subject to a 42-day stay, to allow the AGLA the opportunity to file an appeal.  That 42-day stay ended on Friday 14th July 2023 without any appeal from the AGLA, so my attorneys wrote to the State yesterday and the requested documents were provided promptly.

 I must thank my attorney, Kingsley Walesby, for his high-quality advice and representations, as well as to acknowledge the professional approach of the State’s attorneys at the close of this matter.

The CJ’s 25th May 2022 letter accompanied the Judiciary’s 29-page commentary which was largely devoted to criticising the Act, its scope, likely effect and arrangements.   When the AG hosted his first Media Conference on 22nd June 2022, he labelled the Judiciary’s concerns as ‘traffic-stopping’, such was the seriousness of those comments and he announced that as his justification for delaying proclamation of the Act.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, I requested those comments from the AGLA and then the Judiciary.  On 5th October 2022 the Judiciary published its 29-page commentary, but the ‘letters of transmittal’ between the AG and the CJ remained undisclosed, so I filed this lawsuit on 22nd October 2022 against the AGLA.

There is a synchronicity in the disclosure of this important exchange at this juncture with the 29th May 2023 Judicial Exemptions and the reconvening of Parliament to rectify the 2020 Amendments with respect to Exemptions.  I will be advancing those arguments very soon.

Copies of the documents obtained via the lawsuit are attached.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

ATTACHMENTS

Ruling of Honourable Mr. Justice Kevin Ramcharan

Letter to Chief Solicitor’s Department requesting mail exchange

Mail exchange between the Attorney General and the Chief Justice

Letter to the Editor – Emergency Excuses Explained

The Editor,

#TheTruthEatsLies

The PM’s welcome decision to reconvene Parliament to rectify the Exemptions provisions of the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (the Act) needs to be carefully scrutinized to defend the Public Interest.

There are two interlocking grounds for concern – 

  1. ‘Emergency Procurement’
    Both the PM and the Finance Minister have repeatedly stated that the Act takes a one -size-fits-all approach to Public Procurement, which effectively does not cater for Emergency Procurement.  Those assertions are being used to advance the case for further diluting the Act, but those assertions are absolutely untrue.

    The ‘Emergency Procurement’ provisions are at Procurement Methods & Procedures Regulation 14(2)(c): “Sole source selection may be used…where, due to reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseen events…the subject matter of the procurement cannot be obtained in a timely manner…”

    There are also adequate provisions for other types of emergency and urgent situations, etc, but I have just included the main citation to demonstrate that it is not a one-size-fits-all set of arrangements, as its detractors have been saying.
  2. Affirmative Resolution
    The Parliament agreed on 8 December 2020 that the Ministerial Exemptions would be approved by Affirmative Resolution, yet the draft Amendments tabled for debate on Wednesday, 19 July 2023 provide for approval of those via Negative Resolution.  That is contrary to what was agreed when the 2020 amendments were debated in Parliament and this is being advanced on the false basis of the lack of ‘Emergency Procurement’ provisions.

We need the utmost vigilance to defend our collective interests as these convulsions will intensify.

Sunlight is the best Disinfectant.

Afra Raymond,
former JCC President

VIDEO: CNC3 interview on the Ministerial exemptions in TT Procurement legislation

This is an interview with news anchors Ria Rambally and Ryan Bachoo on the controversial Ministerial Exemptions to the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act, which was broadcast on 7:00 pm news on CNC3 Television on Friday, 14 July 2023. Video courtesy CNC3.

  • Programme Date: 14 July 2023
  • Programme Length: 00:07:18
Video courtesy CNC3 TV

Letter to the Editor – Egregious Exemptions Explained

The Editor,

The 2020 suite of amendments to the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (the Act) removed oversight from some significant types of public spending and created the option for the Finance Minister to create new exemptions.  That Ministerial discretion to create new exemptions is now the subject of considerable controversy and threatened lawsuits.  

These issues have emerged from two three-month Ministerial exemptions – the Judiciary on 29th May and the 50th CARICOM Anniversary/Diplomatic matters on 29th June.  The first of those exemptions came as no surprise, given the Judiciary’s bizarre and still unexplained objections to the Act.  The second set came to the attention of the Opposition and triggered the PM to promise that the Act will be accordingly amended/rectified at a special Parliamentary sitting next week.

It is really important to pause at these moments to take our bearings and record exactly what has taken place.

It is clear from the Hansard that Parliament intended and agreed that these Ministerial Exemptions would be subject to  ‘affirmative resolution’, meaning that the proposed Amendment had to be tabled/listed in Parliament for Public notice, Debated and then Voted upon by both Houses.  The purpose of that arrangement being that although the Govt will naturally hold the majority of votes in the Parliament, the Public and the Opposition can have proper Notice of any intended Exemptions and take the necessary steps to deal with it politically. 

For whatever reason, that intention is not in the text of the 2020 Amendments, so the literal reading is that the Minister can create those exemptions via an Order without any reference to Parliament.  Of course, the proper interpretation of that law would require a Court to examine Parliament’s debates to decide, so one can only wonder on what advice was the Finance Minister proceeding.

The Finance Minister has been in office since 2015 and his agreement to the affirmative resolution provision (Hansard of 8 December 2020 – pg 202), as well as his recognition that this error had arisen and needed to be rectified (Hansard of 11 December 2020 – pg 43) are both on the record.  The compelling and inescapable issue being that the Finance Minister knew of the typo in the text and took full advantage of it in a manner which is unbecoming and in my view, quite contrary to his Oath of Office.

Finally, we should all remain alert as these are just a few of the bizarre convulsions from players who are accustomed to the lights being off, or at least suitably dimmed.  Sunlight is the best Disinfectant.

Afra Raymond
former JCC President

ADDENDUM

The Trinidad and Tobago Guardian published a overview written by Kejan Haynes of the situation based on the letter to the editor and concerns from others.

AUDIO: CNC3 interview on procurement

Afra Raymond did a short interview with Dareece Polo of CNC3 Television and Guardian media on the legality of the new exemptions to the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act. This is an extension to a series of questions arising from the “emergency exemptions” arising from the CARICOM 50th anniversary celebrations in Trinidad and Tobago.

  • Programme Date: 11 July 2023
  • Programme length: 00:08:48
Dareece Polo and Afra Raymond