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

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.

The previous article dealt with the sudden unexplained shift from the supposedly-defective Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (the Act) to the welcome announcement of its proclamation, so long-overdue. I called for an official explanation for this sudden shift, but there has been no response thus far.

The silence of our Learned friends on this issue is as echoing and eerie as it is eloquent. These colleagues have opinions on so much else. Yes, Power is defined by those things you are not allowed to speak about, so self-censorship is as real as the nose on your face. Well I tell you eh!

This article will challenge the basis for the 2020 exemptions to the Act (via Act #27 of 2020), which included Government to Government Agreements (G2G are usually the hugest projects); matters of national security; legal services; debt financing services for the national budget; accounting and auditing services; medical emergency or other scheduled medical services. The Government decided that these transactions in Public Money did not require the oversight of the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR) which the Parliament approved. I think that inimical to the public interest.

Continue reading “What is the gap in our new Public Procurement law?” →