CL Financial – Bait & Switch

“They’ve got twelve Aces up their sleeve!
So who the Hell can we believe?”
—Rudder, David Michael. “Back to the Same Ole Same.” The Autobiography of The Now. Lypsoland, 2001. Used with permission

The CL Financial bailout seems to be entering its end-game, with repeated claims from the Minister of Finance that the recovery of the $25 Billion of Public Money spent is now on the cards. The consistent failure or refusal to publish any audited accounts and my ongoing research are telling. We are witness to yet another ‘Plot to Pervert Parliament’, this time it is the biggest project to ever hit this country. The CL Financial bailout.

Plots to Pervert Parliament

In January 2013, I identified the first of these, otherwise known as the ‘S.34 Fiasco’, which of course led me to the CLF Bailout Perversion, committed in January 2009 when our country was presented with its largest-ever public expenditure. The original bailout, presented to our Parliament, as a fait accompli, was the original Plot to Pervert Parliament.

I have come to the sobering conclusion, after much research and consideration, that the Colman Commission is not ever going to provide the details we were led to believe it would. I am now of the view that once again we have been misled and bamboozled by our Parliament. Yet another sick trick, a third ‘Plot to Pervert Parliament’.

The rationale stated for the Colman Commission of Enquiry is in serious conflict with the terms of reference for and consequently, the conduct of that Commission. This article will detail those assertions and show how the public interest is once again being subordinated to powerful private interests.

To understand this crime, one must take a stern view of dates and time.

30 January 2009 – The bailout is announced at a Press Conference on Friday 30 January 2009 at the Central Bank. At that time, we were told that the estimated cost was about TT$5 Billion.
12 June 2009 – Ministry of Finance signs the ‘CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement’ which, for the first time, discloses that shareholders’ interests were to be specifically protected.
8 September 2010 – Winston Dookeran’s first budget statement as Minister of Finance, following the Peoples Partnership electoral victory in May 2010, was notable since Dookeran announced a dramatic policy shift. The entire CL Financial bailout was declared to be the first of the ‘great uncertainties’ to be resolved. Dookeran outlined the problem before reducing the rate at which Public Money would be paid for this bailout. A huge storm of protest erupted, with several ‘Depositors and Shareholders groups’ emerging to represent those interests. With Dookeran isolated and the government under mounting pressure from these new protest groups, laws were swiftly drafted to stifle the protestors’ legal options.
1st October 2010 – The PM’s historic address to Parliament on 1 October 2010 at which the Commission of Enquiry was announced. Most notable was the PM’s outrage at the mystery of the bailout – at pgs 25-26 –

“…The $5 Billion has been spent—we are advised—to repay matured EFPA policies in an ad hoc and unstructured manner where payment arrangements were entered into based on levels of funds invested. What criteria did you use to repay investors? Whom did you choose to pay? How were they chosen? These questions need to be answered. Because if it is today after the $7.3 Billion, all these EFPA people, the policy group and so on, they are out there, where is their money? Where is their money? Did you have a priority listing of who should be paid? Why did you go—and you are now crying crocodile tears about trade unions, credit unions, the poor man and the small man—why did you not pay them first? Why did you not pay them first? Where did that $7 Billion go? We need those answers, Mr. Speaker. We deserve those answers. The taxpayers need to know. Because when a parent has to buy school books and bags to send his/her children to school but they have to pay tax out of the little money, they need to know where that money has gone…Where, how and why; we need to know…”

The main argument made by the PM was that this was a case which needed serious investigation to establish what had caused this huge collapse and where had over TT$7 Billion of Public Money gone. I could not agree more.
17 November 2010 – The Colman Commission with its Terms of Reference published in the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette. Those were divided into two limbs, causes and consequences. The first to examine the causes of the crisis and the second to make recommendations for prosecutions or other policy changes to prevent a repetition of the crisis.
In September 2011, the Parliament voted unanimously to pass two laws related to the CL Financial bailout. The first was to permit the Minister of Finance to borrow a further TT$10.7 Billion to fund the bailout and the second was to grant the Central Bank, which was administering the bailout on government’s behalf, immunity from any legal challenge. For those who consider these assertions of mine to be harsh, just look at Winston Dookeran’s closing words to the Senate on 16 September 2011 –

“…I just want to give you the assurance which I gave to the Lower House when we debated this, that already the Ministry, along with the Central Bank and Clico, have begun the preparation of a public document—many questions that are still to be answered—to provide the necessary information. In addition to that, we did present to the hon. Senators, for those who afforded us the opportunity to accept our invitation, a document that is in the vicinity of 57 pages as of now, outlining all the necessary information that led to the story that assess what is the current challenges and why the proposals to go forward have been put forward. This document, I assure you, along with the questions and answers, will be converted into a simple, easy to read, hopefully, document for the sake of establishing that this Parliament has mandated us to put this as an anchor document for the purposes of evaluating our performance in the future…”.

I requested that document via the Freedom of Information Act but it was not provided, which is why my litigation started.

In the course of recent research it became clear to me that the PM’s outraged demands for detailed information as to how the huge sums of Public Money spent in the bailout had been discarded, just like a flimsy Carnival Costume. At no point in its Terms of Reference was the Colman Commission required to examine the details of the actual Public Money spent on the bailout. A new species of lie is born here in T&T, once again…we used to have one called the ‘White Lie’ in those bad-old-days, now we have the ‘Bright Lie’. Right up in our face, as the Parliament is told one thing, with an entirely different thing being done. The Carnival was over, but the Ole Mas was now starting.

One can imagine the ebb and flow as these public promises were neutered in private discussions. Reasons are never given. I suspect that the influence of party financiers and voting blocks was a great element in this travesty. The public right to know how and why these vast sums of Public Money were spent is obviously of low priority for the highest public officials in this Republic.

Truth has a Power all of its own. At this point, in litigation against the Ministry of Finance for that information – the Ministry is represented by a five-member team headed by former AG, Russell Martineau SC and CL Financial is represented by three attorneys. Something resembling legal overkill to prevent publication of information which the PM told the Parliament it was her intention to unearth. Information which then Finance Minister Dookeran assured the Parliament he was compiling into a public document. Another writer has labelled the situation – ‘Afra, the Deviant‘. I tell you.

At every turn, the public interest has been subordinated to secretive private interests. The Courts are literally the last refuge to uphold the lawful rights of the public to obtain detailed information on these matters of the highest importance.

Accountability Calamity

Safeguard	Status of query
Audited accounts for CL Financial?	NONE
Details of Management accounts, Estimates, Drafts or any figures used by Ministry of Finance?	NONE
Details of official briefing to Independent Senators in September 2011?	CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT
Details of Public Money paid out to people and institutions owed money by CL Financial?	NONE
CL Financial is now under State control, so do its Directors comply with the Integrity in Public Life Act?	NOT ACCORDING TO MY EXAMINATION OF INTEGRITY COMMISSION RECORDS.
Do we understand why the CL Financial group is enjoying this beneficial exemption from the lawful obligation to file declarations?	NO WORD YET FROM THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION.

All of the usual integrity, accountability and transparency safeguards have been disconnected. All.

The Code of Silence rules.

For a Few Dollars More

Next Monday, 8 September 2014, is carded for the Finance Minister to deliver his 2015 Budget Statement to the country and of course speculation is great as to whether this will be an ‘election budget‘ or if a more restrained approach might be taken.

In preparing to write this column, I took a look at our budgets since 2005 and it was really striking that many of the key issues identified a full decade ago are still at the fore of the more recent budgets. Some of those issues were the imperative to reduce our dependence on the energy sector; the constant push to upgrade our infrastructure; the demand for more resources dedicated to national security and of course, the repeated statements about this or that program to reduce white-collar crime.

These expenditure and revenue figures were drawn 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.

Clearly, we are seeing a trend as to the constant increases in expenditure, with only one decline, in 2010. Given that background, it also appears that surpluses are rare, occurring only twice, in 2006 and 2009.

The reality that we are on the verge of a national election which is sure to be strongly-contested, leaves me in little doubt that the 2015 budget is also likely to be a deficit budget, with the State spending more than it earns.

The recent scandals at LifeSport, Eden Gardens, THA/BOLT, CAL, CL Financial and of course, the Beetham Water Recycling Project, all show the extent to which the Treasury is being targeted by well-connected parties.

There is a constant stream of allegations of ‘Grand Corruption’, which is little surprise in our society in which an unsupported allegation is so often used to discredit an opponent. There is no comfort to be had in that observation, since the other reality is that thorough investigations and prosecutions are only done against ones political enemies, inside or outside the ruling party. That is the sobering reality in our Republic, in which we should all enjoy equal rights and be held to common standards. Different strokes for different folks, just like back in the ‘bad-old-days‘.

It seems to me that the defining question, in terms of whether the various financial crimes are taken seriously, is whether the accused persons are ‘members in good standing‘, so to speak.

The extent to which our Treasury is protected from being plundered by criminal elements is a serious question which should concern every citizen, given that the Public Money in the Treasury belongs to us as citizens and taxpayers. The frequency with which these financial crimes are overlooked is nothing less than scandalous, as any of the Auditor General’s Reports in the previous decade would attest. Permanent Secretaries approving payments in breach of financial regulations; payments made with no documents (leases, contracts or agreements) on file; failure or refusal to produce documents as required by law upon the Auditor General’s request and so many other types of lawbreaking. The same types of conduct is also rife in State Enterprises, which is why so many of the larger ones are unable to produce accounts as required by the very Ministry of Finance which sets those rules and continues to fund them.

The wicked part is that these Public Officials are virtually never charged with breaking the law or made to face any other serious consequences for their misbehaviour in Public Office. We need a new beginning in terms of how we handle the reality of our country’s wealth and its intentionally-degraded laws for controlling how our Public Money is used. A big part of that would be a political dispensation in which full investigations and prosecutions were the norm, especially when key members of the ruling party are the target of allegations.

Our budgeting process now shows all the signs that our system of Public Financial Management is ineffective in dealing with the seasoned criminals who are hard at work helping themselves to our money, whatever the political party in power. At that level, at least, there is little evidence of discrimination.

The growing complexity of the budget is of no comfort. For example, the 2014 documents totalled some 2,997 pages, yet the Billion-Dollar-Plus Beetham Water Recycling Project (BWRP) was omitted. Despite questions as to what did he know and when did he know it, the Minister of Finance continues to ignore the fundamental requirement to provide for this huge project within our national accounts. There has been no attempt to give the public the necessary explanation as to how the BWRP is to be paid for, since the underlying commercial arrangements which are driving this project remain obscured. The BWRP also shows a strong theme as to the privatisation of our nation’s water supplies, which is a growing area of concern globally. Not the first one, it is true, since we had DESALCOTT before, but this second, huge project implies a trend, in my mind.

The inescapable question is ‘To what extent can we rely on our national accounts, if huge projects like BWRP are omitted?‘

All of which brings us to the continuing and unexplained delay in passing the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Bill. That new law would play an important part in greatly reducing the scope for waste and theft of Public Money. The JCC and its Kindred Associations in the Private Sector Civil Society group continue to call for this law to be passed without any further delay.

Of course all of this is driven by the political parties’ imperative to raise money from various financiers to fund election campaigns, so Political Party Financing laws are essential to control those influences. The Parliament recently unanimously approved a Private Members’ Motion laid by Independent Senator, Helen Drayton, to appoint a Joint Select Committee (JSC) to start the long-overdue process of agreeing just what are the new laws we need to deal with this influence, described by President Carmona, in his inaugural address as a ‘veritable juggernaut‘. The JCC continues to call for the JSC to be appointed so that this critical work can be started to control Political Party Financing.

Having observed the two-week spectacle of prolonged debate in the Parliament on the recently-approved Constitutional Amendment Bill, one can only wonder as to the priorities which are being displayed.

Hence my title – ‘For a Few Dollars More‘.

Reality Check

After a flurry of attempted explanations from the Minister of Planning & Sustainable Development, Dr. Bhoe Tewarie, as to the real meaning of the High Court’s 14 July ruling on the Invader’s Bay matter, the State has now appealed that ruling and applied for expedited hearing of the matter while having the judgment stayed.

What that means is that the State is asking the Court to agree an extension of the Stay of Execution until the appeal is decided, so that the requested information could be withheld while the case is being heard. Presumably, the State has asked for a speedy hearing so as to avoid any impression of them encouraging needless delay in this matter of high public concern.

This article will focus on the three critical findings in the judgment. I will be examining Dr. Tewarie’s statement to Parliament on Friday 18 July, alongside the facts and the actual High Court ruling.

Legal Professional Privilege

The very first point to be made in relation to this is that the reason given by the State for refusing the JCC’s request for this information was not originally ‘legal professional privilege’.

That reason for refusal was only advanced after the litigation started, literally arising out of the very briefcase of the State’s attorney, on his feet before Justice Seepersad on 4 December 2012.

We contested the State’s late introduction of these new reasons for refusal, but the Court ruled at para 37 –
1. The Court…is of the view that the Defendant is entitled to rely upon additional reasons with respect to the refusal to disclose the said information…
The question of whether the legal opinions are privileged was ruled-upon by Justice Seepersad –
1. It cannot be disputed that the said information requested, is information that would ordinarily attract legal professional privilege…
So that issue is not in dispute, in the Court’s mind at least. I continue to hold the view that it is highly-questionable to easily accept this notion of client confidentiality, given that the State ought to be acting on our common behalf.

In fact, no evidence was tendered nor was any real case made by the State as to the difficulties which would result from publishing the requested information. None. It is only now, with a ruling in the JCC’s favour, that we are getting these positions being advanced.

For the record, the JCC’s original request under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) was for the legal advices and the letters of instruction.

Consider this, from Dr. Tewarie’s opening statement –

The very first point that I wish to make with regard to the high court ruling is that there is no issue of disclosure here. There is no issue of failing to disclose or of wanting to withhold disclosures. The Government is not seeking to prevent disclosure of any matter nor is the Government fearful of making any disclosure of fact.

The only issue we are contesting is whether the advice of an Attorney to his/her client, which is generally regarded as privileged information, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act or whether, since it is a privileged exchange of information between Attorney and Client, it is exempt from the Act…”

If that is truly the case, with the State’s only concern being the possible adverse impact of releasing the legal advices, the question has to be – ‘Why not publish the letters of instruction now?’
Waiver of Privilege

A significant aspect of the case was as to the impact of Dr. Tewarie’s statement to the Senate on 28 February 2012, in reply to a question by then Independent Senator Dr. James Armstrong – see pg 716 of Hansard –

The answer to (c); the publication of the request for proposals was not the subject of nor required to be in conformity with the Central Tenders Board Act. Advice to this effect was received from the Legal Unit of the Ministry of Planning and the Economy, and subsequently from the Ministry of the Attorney General…

The point being advanced by the JCC was that a statement like that one, which purports to publicly disclose the very essence of the advice, has the effect of extinguishing the State’s right to suppress the document as being exempted.

The Court ruled clearly on this –
1. The gist and nature of the legal advice was in fact revealed when the Minister’s response was made and this amounted to conduct that is inconsistent with the stance that the said legal advice is exempt from being disclosed under the Act by virtue of section 29(1)…
So, the High Court found that Dr. Tewarie’s statement to the Senate neutralized the State’s ‘legal professional privilege’. That is an important aspect of this ruling, given the frequency with which legal opinions and names are brandished by our leaders, always when convenient, of course.
The Public Interest Test

This ruling is significant in that Justice Seepersad weighed the existing ‘legal professional privilege’ – making a clear ruling on that at para 41 – against the ‘Public Interest Test’ set out in S.35 of the FoIA.

At one point it was widely reported that Dr. Tewarie was insisting that the ruling had nothing to do with transparency, but was only on the narrow issue of legal professional privilege.

The substance of Justice Seepersad’s ruling was at paras 85 & 86 –
1. The nature of the project in this case and the process adopted by the Defendant to pursue the Request for Proposals process without regard to the provisions of the Central Tenders Board act, requires disclosure of all the relevant information that was considered before the said decision was taken and the refusal to provide the requested information can create a perception that there may have been misfeasance in the process and any such perception can result in the loss of public confidence. Every effort therefore ought to be made to avoid such a circumstance and if there is a valid and legally sound rationale for the adoption of the Request for Proposals process, then it must be in the public interest to disclose it and the rationale behind the process adopted ought not to be cloaked by a veil of secrecy.
2. The public interest in having access to the requested information therefore is far more substantial than the Defendant’s interest in attempting to maintain any perceived confidentiality in relation to the said information…”
The real point here is that Justice Seepersad has carried out the Public Interest Test, as mandated at S.35 of the FoIA and ignored by the State in this matter, to find that the ‘legal professional privilege’ is subordinate to the Public Interest in this case, given all the evidence submitted to the Court.

The entire process possesses all the ingredients for corruption, I maintain that view.

Dr. Tewarie has repeatedly claimed that the process was transparent because he disclosed the assessment rules for the Invader’s Bay development at the T&T Contractors’ Association Dinner on Saturday 5 November 2011. That assertion is perfectly tautological, in that it is entirely true that the rules were revealed for the first time on that occasion, but it does not explain anything of substance. The decisive fact is that the closing-date for the Invader’s Bay RFP process was 4 October 2011, a full month before the rules were disclosed. That fact alone renders the entire process voidable and illegal.

What is more, we have to consider the widely-advertised public consultations on the redevelopment of King’s Wharf in San Fernando; the South-Western Peninsula development; the issue of ‘City-status’ for Chaguanas; Constitutional Reform and of course, the latest one, the Civil Society Board. The glaring question has to be – ‘When is the State hosting the first in its series of Public Consultations on the Invader’s Bay development?’

Finally, will this development process continue, while the legal arguments continue?

Public Secrets?

It seems to me that we are entering a sustained and hard-fought Information War, global in extent, but with local flavour. The main features of this are the attempted redefinition of Privacy as a defunct notion, right alongside the State’s duty to know all about us, but tell us as little as possible of their own operations. That is the name of the game, so these issues are going to be challenged strongly as we go forward.

The High Court ruled on 14 July 2014 that the Minister of Planning & Sustainable Development must provide the legal advice which was said to have justified the development process at Invader’s Bay. This case was brought by the JCC after the Ministry refused to publish the legal advice obtained in response to our challenge that the Invader’s Bay development process was in breach of the Central Tenders’ Board Act. Given the repeated statements that the legal opinions supported the State’s actions in relation to the CTB Act, the obvious question is ‘Why the secrecy and refusal to publish those opinions?‘

The JCC requested the legal opinions and the letters of instructions under the Freedom of Information Act and the judge applied the ‘Public Interest Test’ in deciding that the public right to that information eclipsed the accepted point as to the existence of ‘legal professional privilege’. There have been many comments on what has been described as a landmark ruling and it appears that the question of just what is an official secret is once again up for discussion.

We are now being told that the right of the client to maintain the confidentiality of legal advice is now under threat, so the State is reportedly considering an appeal of that High Court ruling. Continue reading “Public Secrets?” →

Money is the Problem

One of the big unanswered questions arising out of the recent ‘grand corruption’ cases in relation to the Public Sector remains – ‘How can we lawfully punish those wrongdoers who are looting our country?‘

Most discussions proceed along the lines of what I call the ‘bag of money‘ idea, in which we are looking for the actual stolen money. The belief being that the stolen loot can actually be located and linked to the thieves, who will then face a harsh penalty. My preferred solution is for full disgorgement of all the stolen monies as a starting-point, even if that is a remote goal.

In re-examining the issue practically, one has to ask “Why do we persist in these ‘pipe-dreams’, while ignoring the ‘low-hanging fruit’ all around us?” So I am considering a new strategy for action on these critical issues.

‘Public Money’ is the term used to describe money due to or payable by the State, including those sums for which the State would be ultimately liable in the event of a default. Public Money is sometimes called Taxpayers’ Money, it is our Money. Continue reading “Money is the Problem” →

What Lies Beneath

The public is being told that the CL Financial bailout is being resolved, while at the same time the Minister of Finance & the Economy is withholding the fundamental information which any prudent person would need to make a decision. So, what is the secret?

Apart from the details I have been asking for, there are other questions which occur to me –

Directors’ Fees – What is the comparative level of Directors’ fees before and after the bailout on 30 January 2009? In particular, what are the fees & expenses payable to CL Financial Directors? Have those increased? If so, to what level and on what rationale?
Related Party dealings – We were told that one of the main causes of the CL Financial collapse was excessive related-party transactions. Has that pattern of dealings has really changed? What are the contracts between the group and companies in which Directors hold an interest? Does the group, or the Minister of Finance, keep a record of these connected contracts? Does the group have a robust procurement procedure which would ensure value for money in all its significant transactions?
Asset disposals – Which of the group’s assets have been disposed-of since the bailout and on what terms? Were proper valuations obtained before these disposals?

The original complaint is here –

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Subject: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
To: registrar@integritycommission.org.tt

To – Mr. Martin Farrell, Registrar of the Integrity CommissionDear Sir,
The Integrity in Public Life Act requires that “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest” are required to file returns and declare interests with the Integrity Commission.

Clause 3.1. of the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement of 12th June 2009 – see https://afraraymond.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/mou21.pdf – specifies that the Board of Directors of CLF shall consist of seven Directors, four of which shall be nominated by the Government. The GORTT has a controlling interest and it is public knowledge that the GORTT has exercised those rights, amounting to strong influence evidencing control.

It seems clear that the directors of CL Financial Ltd are therefore persons who should file declarations, and therefore also the directors of subsidiaries under their influence and control, but having visited your offices earlier today to examine the Register of Interests it seems that these Directors have not been filing returns with you.

For your information, your staff confirmed to me today that none of these people have filed declarations or been required to file such for 2009, 2010 or 2011 –

Gerald Yet Ming (CLF’s current Chairman)
Hayden Charles (CLICO Director)
Ronald Harford (Republic Bank’s Chairman)
Dr Euric Bobb (former CLF Chairman)
Rampersad Motilal (Managing Director of Methanol Holdings Limited)

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.

I await your early reply.
Yours faithfully,

Afra Raymond
B.Sc. FRICS

http://www.afraraymond.com

IC-response2013-full — Click image to enlarge

SIDEBAR: Integrity and the CL Financial bailout – the nexus as noted by Afra Raymond on 28 May 2009

There is an interesting nexus between the Integrity in Public Life Act (2000) and the CLF bailout.

The Act obliges that public officials make a declaration of their income, assets, liabilities and interests to the Integrity Commission on or before 31 May of each year. There are penalties for non-compliance. We have seen high-profile investigations and prosecutions with the proposed amendments to the Act now being debated in the Senate.

The Integrity Commission website lists ten classes of persons in public life who must file declarations with them. That list can be found at http://www.integritycommission.org.tt/whofile.html. The ninth class of person is “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.”

CL Financial has already signed over its shareholdings in Republic Bank Ltd. (55%) and Methanol Holdings Trinidad Ltd (56%) to the State under the MoU, and the State has taken complete control of CLICO. Will CLICO, MHTL and Republic Bank Directors be filing returns on or before 31 May?

From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2014 09:56 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Fwd: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act

Dear Mr. Farrell,

I am seeking an update from you on your progress in relation to this formal report made to the Integrity Commission on 10th September 2012.

Apart from a brief telephone conversation we had a few days after its submission, I have had neither acknowledgment or reply to this report.

I await your early reply.

Regards

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:

Dear Mr Raymond

Our recollection in the office is that a response was sent to you and we are examining our records.

In any case, a response will be sent to you.

Registrar

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com> wrote:Hello Mr. Farrell,

I appreciate your early attention to my query.

Regards

Afra Raymond

From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
To: “Registrar, Integrity Commission” <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt>

Hello Mr. Farrell,

I wrote to you on 20th March 2014 seeking an update to my formal report of 10th September 2012 to the Integrity Commission on this matter. You replied the next day indicating that you thought that a reply had already been sent but that in any case a reply would be sent to me.

To date I have had no response to my formal complaint or the request for an update as to its status. In the interim, I have carefully examined the Commission’s 2012 and 2013 Annual Reports and found no mention of my complaint in the sections which provide an outline of the various investigations being undertaken. According to those Reports, the status of those investigations seem to fall into three categories – ‘Closed’ – denoting those matters which have been effectively dismissed, due to lack of evidence or irrelevance; ‘Completed’ – denoting those matters which have been investigated or ‘Continuing’ for those matters which are still under investigation. I am starting to wonder if my formal complaint has been relegated to some new, as yet undisclosed, category.

I am also going to point out that, according to the Integrity Commission’s Public Notice at pg 49 of the Sunday Express of 6th October 2013, the Integrity in Public Life Act 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 Appeal Court ruling in #30 of 2008, you state that State Enterprises are companies which are controlled by the State, so I would again invite your attention to the particulars of my original complaint in this matter. As you would appreciate from my published analysis, the position taken by the Commission in that Public Notice is one with which I strongly disagree, nonetheless, that position is the Integrity Commission’s formal statement on the matter.

For ease of reference, that Public Notice is here –
https://afraraymond.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ic-response2013.pdf – since I was unable to locate it on the Commission’s website.

I am closing by pointing out that this is a matter of the gravest possible public concern, since CL Financial has been the recipient of over $25 Billion TTD in Public Money and its affairs remain shrouded in an intentional obscurity which does violence to the modern notions of Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance. That obscurity includes the channelling of those huge sums of Public Money via the Central Bank which is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act; new laws to approve the exemption of the Central Bank from any judicial review of its actions in this matter (that has now been ruled as unconstitutional by the High Court in #4383 of 2012, of course the State has appealed that, so the fight is on); the failure/refusal of CL Financial to publish audited accounts and the failure/refusal of CL Financial’s Directors to comply with the Integrity in Public Life Act.

That is the factual background against which I lodged my formal complaint. The delay and ambiguity with which the Integrity Commission appears to be treating my complaint on this most serious matter is sobering, to say the least.

I trust that you can give this matter your early attention, in the meantime, I will be publishing this as a record of these developments.

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

Registrar, Integrity Commission

May 22

to me

Dear Mr. Raymond

On behalf of Mr. Farrell I do apologize for not responding to your query. Please note that your query was not classified as a compliant so you would not find it in the complaints section of the 2012 or 2013 Annual Report. With respect to your query we have sought and obtained legal advice. 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.

In the interim I would appreciate if you can provide us with a copy of the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement.

Yours respectfully

Lisa Phillips

Acting Registrar

Integrity Commission

From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2014 05:12 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity inPublicLife Act

Hello Ms. Phillips,

I thank you for your swift reply and trust that this matter can now receive proper attention.

The Ministry of Finance made a Press Release on 12th June 2009 -http://www.afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/minoffin_pr_12jun2009.pdf – which I received prior to the actual Shareholders Agreement being released to me pursuant to my Freedom of Information request. As requested, the actual CL Financial Shareholders Agreement of 12th June 2009 is here – https://afraraymond.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/mou21.pdf – for your consideration.
I await your reply.

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

On Friday, May 23, 2014, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:

Dear Mr. Raymond

Thanks for your understanding. However used the link provided but most of the pages of the Agreement are blank.

Regards

Lisa Phillips

Acting Registrar

From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 09:06 AM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in PublicLife Act

Hello Ms. Phillips,

The Shareholders’ Agreement is showing ok at my end, the scanned copy I was sent seemed a little faded, that was all.

The link I sent you yesterday was included in my original email of 10th September 2012, so it’s not clear whether that actually received proper attention.

I suppose that the Finance Ministry would provide a copy if you asked, seeing that they sent it to me.

Thank You

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

Registrar, Integrity Commission May 23

to me

Mr. Raymond

Noted. Thanks

Lisa

Everything but the Truth

On 1st June 2014, my former colleague and Business Guardian Editor, Anthony Wilson, made a call for a ‘national debate’ on the proposed disposal of CLICO’s traditional portfolio of insurance business. This is the first of my responses.

We are now entering the chaotic endgame of this epic CL Financial bailout fiasco. Some of the recent official statements are –

CL Financial’s other assets, including majority shareholdings in Republic Bank Limited and Methanol Holdings to be sold;
Full repayment of Public Money advanced in this bailout is expected.
CLICO’s traditional insurance policy portfolio is being professionally valued prior to its intended disposal;
Atrius Ltd., set up in 2013 as an alternative vehicle for CLICO’s continuing business, is to be effectively abandoned;
All of CLICO’s sales agents are to be terminated by the end of this month, June 2014;

jwala-howai The recent statements of both the Minister of Finance, Larry Howai, and the Governor of the Central Bank, Jwala Rambarran, could give the public an impression that this financial disaster has now been mostly resolved and we are on some kind of smooth track to a complete solution.

I remain sceptical as to the extent to which these problems have been resolved. The complete lack of detailed information, despite many requests by myself and others, leaves one to wonder just what is the basis for these serious decisions.

So, why am I saying this?

The money being used in the CL Financial bailout is ‘Public Money’, which we sometimes call tax-payers’ dollars. The leading learning from which we have to draw serious lessons is Lord Sharman’s 2001 Report to the British Parliament ‘Holding to Account‘, which was a thorough examination of the definition, role and need for control of ‘Public Money’. In the Public Procurement campaign we expanded on Sharman’s definition of ‘Public Money’ so as to capture the full range of possibilities, but we have accepted his key finding as to the requirement that ‘Public Money’ is to be managed to a higher standard of Accountability and transparency than Private Money – see 2.23 on pg 15.

The contemporary, best-practice position in respect of the management of and accountability for Public Money being that the private sector rules are the bare minimum.

CL Financial Ltd. is a holding company for the Duprey empire, comprising major companies such as Republic Bank Ltd.; the Angostura Group; Methanol Holdings Trinidad Ltd; Home Construction Group of Companies; British-American Insurance Company Ltd; Lascelles-Mercado Ltd. (the Jamaican owners of Appleton and Wray & Nephew rums).

The last audited accounts for the CL Financial group were published on 18 November 2008, for the financial year ending 31 December 2007. The function of consolidated audited accounts is to give investors and management the necessary information with which to make decisions as to the future of the company.

Since 2009 I have been making requests under the Freedom of Information Act for these items of information –

Audited Accounts for the CL Financial group, or the basis of the various statements by successive Ministers of Finance;
Senate Briefing – details of the high-level briefing given to Independent Senators in September 2011 prior to the vote on the two new laws – one to allow the State to borrow an additional $10.7 Billion to settle the bailout and the Act to shield the Central Bank from the supervision of the Courts;
Payments – details of the payments to the various claimants under the terms of the bailout, in particular EFPA-holders;
Integrity Commission – confirmation of whether the Minister of Finance was requiring the CL Financial Directors to file declarations as required by law.

I have effectively withdrawn the last of those requests and am now in litigation against the Minister of Finance & the Economy for the first three items. The State has resisted those claims and the litigation continues. I have continued my quest on the compliance of CL Financial’s Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act with the Integrity Commission, despite the serial delays and unresponsiveness which have beset those requests.

The question before us now is, “How can the State and our government be making these serious, long-term decisions in the absence of the basic information?” Put another way, “How can we continue to allow these serious decisions to be made in our name on our behalf and supposedly, for our benefit, while the State continues to withhold the basic information?”

We have now entered the unimaginable territory of unexamined State power being exercised on an unprecedented scale in the pursuit of an unknown agenda.

This is the big picture and it is an ugly one.

Try to imagine the Board of a major, privately-owned, holding company proposing to its Shareholders that its major assets be disposed-of without the basic information, such as audited accounts or details of meetings with major stakeholders. Such an action would be seen as a gross violation of elementary norms of corporate governance and quite likely be rejected with swift, high-level dismissals. Yet, here we have our government (the Board of Directors) proposing these actions while refusing the reasonable requests of shareholders (citizens such as myself and others) for the rationale for and basic information underlying this process.

The fundamental, best-practice principle that Public Money is to be managed to and accounted for to a higher standard than Private Money has seemingly been rejected. Rejected by the Minister of Finance & the Economy and the Governor of the Central Bank.

That is the scale of this ‘thing without a name’. I tell you.

We, the citizens and taxpayers of this Republic, are being told that this unprecedented expenditure of Public Money of $25 Billion is to be resolved by a questionable process. The long-time saying is buzzing through my head – ‘What eh meet yuh, eh pass yuh‘.

Some points to remember in thinking about this issue –

CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement expires at the end of June 2014;
Asset Sales have continued with the unadvertised sales of Valpark and Atlantic Plazas;
No Interest was charged on the huge sums of Public Money spent to settle the indebtedness of the CL Financial group. The Board of Inland Revenue is a Division of the Ministry of Finance & the Economy and annual interest of 20% is charged to taxpayers who are late in their payments.
‘Fit & Proper’ regulations have never been applied to this CL Financial collapse, as mandated by Central Bank’s regulations, despite my continuing calls. One has to wonder if the stage is being set for a return of Lawrence Duprey & his cohorts to our country’s high-level corporate lifestyle.

On 28 May 2014, the Business Express ‘Opinion‘ was entitled ‘Bringing closure to the CLICO debacle‘ and one of the statements in that editorial was stunning –

“…Thus far, Rambarran and Finance Minister Larry Howai have been forthcoming in their handling of the CLICO issue…”

I could not agree less. The taxpayers and citizens of Trinidad & Tobago are being abused in this entire process.

Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act – a correspondence

Dear Mr. Farrell,

I am seeking an update from you on your progress in relation to this formal report made to the Integrity Commission on 10th September 2012.

Apart from a brief telephone conversation we had a few days after its submission, I have had neither acknowledgment or reply to this report.

I await your early reply.

Regards

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

==================================================================================

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:

Dear Mr Raymond

Our recollection in the office is that a response was sent to you and we are examining our records.

In any case, a response will be sent to you.

Registrar

===================================================================================

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Mr. Farrell,

I appreciate your early attention to my query.

Regards

Afra Raymond

===================================================================================

From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>

Hello Mr. Farrell,

For ease of reference, that Public Notice is here –
https://afraraymond.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ic-response2013.pdf – since I was unable to locate it on the Commission’s website.

I trust that you can give this matter your early attention, in the meantime, I will be publishing this as a record of these developments.

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

===================================================================================

Registrar, Integrity Commission

May 22

to me

Dear Mr. Raymond

In the interim I would appreciate if you can provide us with a copy of the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement.

Yours respectfully

Lisa Phillips

Acting Registrar

Integrity Commission

===================================================================================

From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2014 05:12 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity inPublicLife Act

Hello Ms. Phillips,

I thank you for your swift reply and trust that this matter can now receive proper attention.

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

===================================================================================

On Friday, May 23, 2014, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:

Dear Mr. Raymond

Thanks for your understanding. However used the link provided but most of the pages of the Agreement are blank.

Regards

Lisa Phillips

Acting Registrar

===================================================================================

From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 09:06 AM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in PublicLife Act

Hello Ms. Phillips,

The Shareholders’ Agreement is showing ok at my end, the scanned copy I was sent seemed a little faded, that was all.

The link I sent you yesterday was included in my original email of 10th September 2012, so it’s not clear whether that actually received proper attention.

I suppose that the Finance Ministry would provide a copy if you asked, seeing that they sent it to me.

Thank You

Afra Raymond

http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com

===================================================================================

Registrar, Integrity Commission May 23

to me

Mr. Raymond

Noted. Thanks

Lisa

The original complaint is here –

To – Mr. Martin Farrell, Registrar of the Integrity Commission

Dear Sir,

The Integrity in Public Life Act requires that “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest” are required to file returns and declare interests with the Integrity Commission.

For your information, your staff confirmed to me today that none of these people have filed declarations or been required to file such for 2009, 2010 or 2011 –
Gerald Yet Ming (CLF’s current Chairman)
Hayden Charles (CLICO Director)
Ronald Harford (Republic Bank’s Chairman)
Dr Euric Bobb (former CLF Chairman)
Rampersad Motilal (Managing Director of Methanol Holdings Limited)

I await your early reply.

Yours faithfully,

Afra Raymond
B.Sc. FRICS

http://www.afraraymond.com

The Elephant in the Room – part 2

The recent announcements as to the upcoming completion of the ‘Government Campus Plaza’ offices in POS and the relocation of significant State agencies to central Trinidad are charged with meaning for the office sector. The previous article on this topic examined the huge quantity of State-owned incomplete office buildings in greater Port-of-Spain, the impact of that on the incomplete private office projects and the role of the ongoing process of decentralisation. For the purposes of this discussion, greater POS is the area bounded by the sea to the South, the WestShore Clinic to the West, the Queen’s Park Savannah to the North and the Lady Young Road to the East. This is going to be a closer look at those aspects, so that we might discern how this issue is going to be settled. There are interlocking issues which have created the Elephant in the Room –

the incomplete State offices, which will impact on the private office rental market as they are completed;
the existing offices leased by the State, which need to be re-examined;
the trend towards decentralisation, with its own profound implications.

To understand the issue requires the reconciliation of these large, seemingly-conflicting, elements. The first is of course, the ‘sunk capital’ in terms of the State-owned, incomplete office buildings in POS. The second is the existing leases the State holds from landlords of office space in POS. The third element is the ongoing programme to relocate significant Ministries and State Agencies out of POS, generally to Central Trinidad. I am also of the view that we need to enquire into the progress of the ongoing decentralisation process. The details we need are – Which Ministries/State Agencies are to be relocated from POS? What are the preferred locations for these offices? What progress has been made on those relocations? Has land been purchased/leased? Has State land been allocated? Has a building been identified? If a new building is to be constructed, what progress has been made in terms of project scoping, design, tendering and construction? When are these new non-POS State offices anticipated to be occupied? The key enquiries in this matter would be –

State Leases

We need to know exactly what offices the State is leasing and that info would include – the Ministry or State Agency in occupation; the addresses of the buildings; the size of the office space and its facilities; the number of carparking spaces; the rent paid; the service charge paid; the parties; the extent of the lease/tenancy agreement (when did the lease start and for how long was it agreed). Apart from the info being presented in that type of detail for each rental, the overall picture will be instructive, as it will show the amount of space occupied and at what cost. That information will in turn disclose the average (mean) rent per square foot paid. Without details on the present arrangements for State offices, we cannot properly judge the alternatives.
Empty Buildings

An additional enquiry has to be raised on the particular instances where the State is paying a rent for property which remains unoccupied. The same details listed above need to be sought in those cases, but in addition, we need to be told why those properties are still unused. A great concern was raised recently on #One Alexandra, which concern was mostly justified in my opinion, but the fact is that it is not the only one. The public needs to be told the full extent to which the State pays rent for unoccupied offices.
Re-location progress

On 2 April 2014, Minister of Planning & Sustainable Development, Dr. Bhoe Tewarie, gave some details in the Senate on these relocations –
- Ministry of Tertiary Education and Skills Training and some of its portfolio agencies are to be relocated to an ‘integrated administrative complex‘ 15-acre site north of the Divali Nagar on the eastern side of the Uriah Butler Highway. No size was given for the complex and construction was noted to have started in April 2014.
- Ministry of Community Development is to be relocated to new offices at a 10-acre site near the Divali Nagar on the eastern side of the Uriah Butler Highway. No size or start-date was given for these offices.
- Ministry of Food Production is considering relocating out of its long-established offices at St. Clair Circle, at the northern end of the Magnificent Seven strip, to either Chaguanas or Farm Road in Curepe. That decision is pending.
In the last week we have been told that the headquarters of COSTAATT, which is a part of UTT, is to be relocated from Melville Lane in POS to a location near the new Chaguanas Administrative Complex. The main building occupied by COSTAATT is said to comprise 86,000sf, which is rented for $13.00psf – the total annual rent is $13.473M. We were also told that COSTAATT’s POS operations require further rental space to the annual amount of $1.64M. The new building is costing $168M inclusive of VAT, but no details were given as to its size or proposed completion date. There are other relevant questions as to the convenience of the new location for students and faculty, but the fact that Chaguanas remains the fastest-expanding town in the country for the past 20 years is a part of that issue.
UDECOTT’s rollout

Government Campus

As per the previous article in this series, the State has built, but not completed, a total of 1,329,000sf of offices in POS. According to Minister of Finance & the Economy, Larry Howai, on 5 May 2014 – “Cabinet has approved a sum of approximately $1.5 billion to complete the Government Campus buildings in downtown Port-of-Spain,” said Howai. Once this is completed in the next 12 months I expect that the OSH problems being complained of at the BIR will be a thing of the past.”

That Cabinet approval equates to $1,129 per sq ft, which seems high unless one considers that a significant part of that money is stated to be for remedial works and not strictly for fittings and finishes. The impending completion of those offices will be a sea-change in the fortunes of POS, since their occupation will force the landlords who were renting to the State to seek other tenants. In my estimation at least half the rented offices in the capital are occupied by the State, so that office market is largely driven by the public sector.

I have heard many colleagues attempting to rationalise the coming change by reference to OSHA requirements which require more office space allocated to each worker and therefore those requirements would ease the impact of the impending new offices. Another rationalisation I have heard is the one about how some landlords would be leaving their places locked-up so they will not actually be offering those on the market, so there will be no real effect and so on.

All of those are coping mechanisms for dealing with the reality of change on an epic scale. This is the Manning Plan, in full effect. To quote the CEO of leading private sector office developer, RGM, Gerard Darcy, in a May 2013 interview – “…The Government Campus is still the 800-pound gorilla in the room because it is too large to ignore…”. I expect a significant adjustment in office rent levels in POS in the medium term. The financial sector, especially those who have expanded their loan portfolios on the basis of the property boom, will need to take careful stock of the extent to which these rapidly-approaching changes imply severely impaired assets.

TSTT Inquiry

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 –

“ 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

ictt-vs-tstt 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

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.

AfraRaymond.net

A Thinking Man's Weblog

Tag: conflict of interest

CL Financial – Bait & Switch

Plots to Pervert Parliament

Accountability Calamity

For a Few Dollars More

Reality Check

Legal Professional Privilege

Waiver of Privilege

The Public Interest Test

Public Secrets?

Money is the Problem

What Lies Beneath

SIDEBAR: Integrity and the CL Financial bailout – the nexus as noted by Afra Raymond on 28 May 2009

Registrar, Integrity Commission

Everything but the Truth

Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act – a correspondence

Registrar, Integrity Commission

The Elephant in the Room – part 2

State Leases

Empty Buildings

Re-location progress

UDECOTT’s rollout

TSTT Inquiry

The Integrity in Public Life Act

The Freedom of Information Act

Menu