We have witnessed two grievous Constitutional outrages. We have to keep our eyes on the ball in this season of mass distractions. For the government, there is every reason for us to ‘move on’ and forget about these deliberate violations of our constitution.
The first was the State of Emergency – declared on August 21 2011 – with no proper reason ever being given for the suspension of our Constitutional rights. All the persons arrested were poor people. All of whom had to be released for lack of evidence, in a situation where the Police had the complete freedom to search for evidence. But what is worse, the suspension of our Constitutional rights was not used to gather evidence against the White-Collar bandits who have this nation by the throat. That State of Emergency would have been an ideal opportunity to gather evidence against this most evasive, well-advised and malodorous class of criminal.
The second was the S.34 scandal – on August 31 2012 – which I have called the Plot to Pervert Parliament. This abuse of our legislative process allowed high-profile White-Collar Criminals to escape justice.
An abusive double-attack, so how do we speak the Truth to Power?
According to Abraham Lincoln “…Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power…”
These scandals continue to echo in the mind of so many people that it is only a matter of time before we have a thorough Public Enquiry. We must record who abused their office. Also, we need to remember clearly, who are these apologists who are now insisting that nothing big happened and in any case, it is all over.
The Prime Minister explains her decision to fire the Justice Minister
On Thursday 20 September, the PM spoke to the nation about the S.34 scandal. That was a memorable address which placed the blame squarely with Minister of Justice, Herbert Volney, whose dismissal was then announced. Quite likely the administration thought that would have been the end of the scandal.
The blogosphere has been ablaze with emails from one Herbert Volney – sometimes he claims that he is angry and betrayed; other times he is still devoted to the PM; then again he is critical of the new Minister of Justice and wants to be re-appointed; he is wrongly identifying people in the public eye. It is like having a ringside seat at the implosion of a grown man.
One thing for sure is that Volney does not seem happy to continue taking all the blame for S. 34. So that means the complete collapse of the Official Version on S.34, which was that the Minister of Justice was largely responsible. It was always a doubtful strategy to build a case on the weakest strand of reasoning, but necessity is the mother of invention.
SIDEBAR: Minister of Justice vs the Chief Justice – Herbert Volney, MP, Sept 2010
This is Volney’s attack on the CJ here, followed by
Some of the many unanswered questions must include –
The quiet shift – In between the lower House and the Senate, the meaning of S.34 was changed so that instead of a 10-year period from being charged, accused persons could apply to the Court to be discharged 10 years after allegedly committing the offences. That was a huge shift in favour of those accused of White-Collar Crimes. So what was the real reason for changing the law? No one has ever said.
The Parliamentary assurances – We hear about public and private assurances over the proclamation of this Act. It is unacceptable that some assurances are never recorded in Hansard. All assurances must be registered, given the ongoing decline in the ethical standards of our Parliament – does anyone remember Volney’s insulting and bizarre ‘apology’ to the CJ, early in his Ministerial career? See sidebar. An enquiry must place those assurances onto the record so that the public can be informed.
Did the President seek or receive legal advice before signing-off on S.34? If he did, what was that advice? If he did not, should he have taken legal advice?
Having determined that Volney was to blame, did the PM enquire why he committed these acts of gross misconduct in public office? If the PM did enquire, what was Volney’s reply? If the PM did not enquire, we have every right to be skeptical about the entire Official Version.
We are now seeing that the agreed pre-conditions for S. 34 are not in place, so why the early proclamation? Was this just a ‘get-away-from-justice’ card for the Piarco Airport Accused?
The President’s request to the PM for a report under S.81 of the Constitution has now sparked a new wave of claims. Where does the truth lie?
The way the politics plays in our country, I think that it is a good thing that we no longer seem to be on a march to any early election over S.34 or anything like that. The political culture here is such that if the Peoples Partnership had won an early election called on this issue, however slight the margin of victory, we would have been decisively told to ‘move on’, as the electorate had spoken. This is exactly how a lot of the political nonsense endures.
We are now in a position to demand that the government put some serious effort into answering the many genuine questions which are buzzing on this issue. An independent examination of the facts would be a start.
Learned, Lying Leaders are the bane of our country. No public official in our Republic can be above review, not even the PM or President. Our upcoming discussions on Constitutional reform must balance these questions.
Afra Raymond chats with Fazeer Mohammed on the Morning Edition show giving a year end wrap up of issues including the Colman Commission and The CL Financial bailout. Video courtesy TV6
We are entering the endgame of the Colman Commission, so we need to maintain full vigilance. We must bear witness in a sober manner.
The PNM element
Former PNM Ministers Danny Montano, Conrad Enill and Mariano Browne were recently named by Commission Chairman Sir Anthony Colman as having declined to testify.
“It is noticeable that there has been a remarkable lack of cooperation from others, who were responsible for political decision-taking — to mention a few names: Mr. Enill, Mr. Browne and Mr. Montano in particular — have not offered to come and give evidence,” Sir Anthony said at Winsure Building, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain.
“It is surprising perhaps that those who were the political representatives of the people of Trinidad and Tobago have not been able to provide assistance to the Commission in circumstances where it might have been expected of them,” he added.
Colman then named three former Cabinet ministers who had been previously named in testimony at the enquiry in relation to the HCU.
“To mention but a few names Mr (Conrad) Enill, Mr (Mariano) Browne and Mr (Danny) Montano in particular have not co-operated to come and give evidence,” Colman said.
That refusal to appear before a Commission of Enquiry amounts to a kind of contempt of court, since it is wilful disrespect for a lawful enquiry. These are PNM Seniors, whose testimonies would have been invaluable in unraveling this series of financial collapses.
Here is why those missing testimonies are so important –
Mariano Browne is a Chartered Accountant who left a successful career as a Banker – including a significant part of that career spent at CLF, Browne was the first head of Clico Investment Bank and CLF’s Barbados Banking arm – to become Minister of Trade and Minister in the Ministry of Finance after the 2007 general elections. In addition, he is PNM Treasurer, so he could have given a rare insight into the linkages between these collapses and the large-scale donations made by both the CL Financial Group and the Hindu Credit Union (HCU).
Conrad Enill comes from a Credit Union background, was also Minister in the Ministry of Finance up to the 2007 general elections and served as PNM Chairman up to their 2010 election loss. Enill called for an investigation into the finances of HCU as far back as mid-2002, but swiftly withdrew from that course of action after reportedly being pressured by then PM Manning.
Danny Montano is also a Chartered Accountant, who was Minister of Labour at the time of the HCU collapse (that Ministry has supervisory responsibility for Credit Unions).
“…THE Hindu Credit Union (HCU) financed Karen Nunez-Tesheira’s successful campaign to become the Member of Parliament for D’Abadie/O’Meara in the 2007 general election.
However, Nunez-Tesheira was not the only People’s National Movement (PNM) candidate who secured campaign financing from the HCU during that election.
This was revealed yesterday as the commission of enquiry into the collapse of CL Financial and the HCU resumed at the Winsure Building on Richmond Street in Port of Spain.…”
“….THE Hindu Credit Union (HCU) financed the campaigns of the country’s two major political parties—the People’s National Movement (PNM) and the United National Congress (UNC)—in the 2007 general election, former HCU president Harry Harnarine said yesterday….”
It is clear that the testimony of these three former PNM Cabinet Ministers would have been crucial to the Colman Commission unravelling this financial fiasco. I am convinced that the matter of what Cabinet knew at the time it took the bailout decision is crucial. For one thing, was Cabinet told that the beleaguered CL Financial group had paid a dividend on 16 January 2009, three days after they had written to the Central Bank for the bailout? If the Cabinet knew of the illegal dividend payout, why were no provisions made in the MoU of 30 January 2009 for the recovery of those monies? If the Cabinet were not told, then we are contemplating what might be a prior case of a senior Minister misleading colleagues to get the required result. A kind of pre-S.34 situation.
Both Browne & Montano are Chartered Accountants, so this reported refusal to give evidence seems to be a case of ‘conduct unbecoming a professional’.
The PNM is now making serious efforts to market itself as a party which stands for good values in terms of Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance. Given the PNM’s track record that is a great challenge. These reported refusals are doing great damage to those efforts.
Ironically enough, at this moment Dr. Bhoe Tewarie and Karen Nunez-Teshiera, are both looking better than these three former Ministers, given that they have appeared before the Commission. Just imagine that.
Sir Anthony Colman was reported to have issued subpoenas for certain missing witnesses in the HCU matter and held them in contempt of court when they failed to appear. I am waiting to hear whether the same treatment will apply to these PNM Seniors.
“…THREE witnesses have been held in contempt of court for not responding to subpoenas issued by the Commission of Enquiry into the collapse of CL Financial and the Hindu Credit Union.
A commission of enquiry has the same status as that of a High Court.
Those deemed to be in contempt of court yesterday by commissioner Sir Anthony Colman are former chief executive officer of HCU Communications, Gawtam Ramnanan, former HCU financial consultant Jameel Ali and Dave Jagpat…“
It seems like this is yet another episode of inconsistent behaviour which serves to reinforce my belief in this potent ‘Code of Silence’. Let me explain with these facts set out above. One group of witnesses have offered weak excuses of the familiar kind – questionable medical certificates and so on – they were served with orders compelling their attendance (those are called subpoenas) and when they failed to respond, Colman made a ruling that they were in contempt of court. That group was HCU witnesses.
Another group of witnesses took a different approach….they actually have decided not to testify and communicated that to the Colman Commission as described above. Why has Colman not issued subpoenas or made any adverse rulings against these reluctant witnesses?
They are former member of the PNM cabinet, so I have to ask myself if there is a tacit agreement as to areas which will not be ventilated in this Enquiry.
Those areas which are seemingly off-limits now seem to include serious questions as to whether the Cabinet was misled. This is a sobering example of the channels of power. We have to bear witness.
Roger Gaspard, SC, DPP“…I am particularly concerned that an otherwise credible prosecution might be stopped by the court on the grounds that a defendant’s right to a fair trial had been fatally compromised by the publicity attendant upon your enquiry. As such, I shall be issuing a press release warning the media against the publication of any material which may jeopardise the police investigation and any potential criminal proceedings…”
We also read that “…Gaspard also issued a stern warning to media houses last night to cease publication of “anything which might jeopardise, hinder or otherwise prejudice the investigation or any possible proceedings which might result from it…“.
The Colman Commission has maintained the modern standard of Public Enquiries in that the public can choose from attendance in person, live TV, streaming webcasts, online transcripts and online witness statements. It seemed to me that the position being taken by the DPP could jeopardise the public interest in having this information broadcast in the widest possible terms.
On 10 November, my mind churned as I read this – “…Meantime, the Commission of Enquiry is set to restart on December 3 with former Central Bank Governor Ewart Williams and Inspector of Financial Institutions Carl Hiralal expected to take the witness stand…”
At this stage we are expecting to hear the testimony of the Chiefs in this series of disasters – Lawrence Duprey, Ewart Williams, Carl Hiralal, Robert Mayers, Ram Ramesh, Faris Al-Rawi, Amjad Ali, Anthony Rahael, Andre Monteil. I am very concerned that we are now seeing what appears to be a detrimental development in terms of complete transparency.
“I remain mindful of competing public interest factors including the fair trial rights of potential defendants, the freedom of the press and the requirement of open justice.”
This is definitely an aspect which needs our most intense scrutiny.
The former CLICO CEO
Gene Dziadyk
Finally, we come to the matter of former CLICO CEO, Gene Dziadyk, with whom I have been in correspondence, writing and offering to tell the inside scoopon what went wrong inside CLICO.
I have read his material and he takes a completely opposite view to me as to what has happened here.
My own view is that the CL Financial group was able to use its track-record of huge political donations and other links to obtain full State support on favourable turns when the inevitable crisis emerged. The CLF group was able to use its links to take advantage of the State. Dziadyk’s view is that the State used the crisis to take advantage of the CLF group in general and the CLICO policyholders in particular.
I cannot see any way that we could both be right. The critical point is that only the publication of the audited, consolidated accounts and other details I have been pursuing will allow us to see the truth of this matter.
But the fact that Dziadyk is a trained actuary, who was at the centre of the scene for so long, makes his testimony invaluable for the insights it will allow the Colman Commission. I was therefore very surprised to read that he is not going to be called as a witness.
Readers who are interested in having the testimony of Gene Dziadyk form part of the Colman Commission to state their support for that to happen – the Secretary to the Enquiry is Judith Gonzales and her email address is comsecclfhcu@gmail.com.
These kinds of issues are exactly the ones on which the public input of Seenath Jairam, SC is sorely missed. Having decided to take the Ministry of Finance brief and later deciding to return it, any of Jairam’s subsequent public utterances will be coloured by those decisions.
That is the point I was making in the previous column on the sacrifices which leadership demands.
“Blind man’s buff [or Blind man’s bluff] is played in a spacious area, such as outdoors or in a large room, in which one player, designated as “It”, is blindfolded and gropes around attempting to touch the other players without being able to see them, while the other players scatter and try to avoid the person who is “it”, hiding in plain sight and sometimes teasing them to make them change direction.”
The entire ‘section 34 fiasco’ is churning in my mind, so I am calling it the Plot to Pervert Parliament.
The way in which the country, its significant institutions and its legislature have been misled for the benefit of political financiers has given me pause. The entire episode is truly revolting, even for those of us who have little faith in our political rulers.
Having listened to the PM’s address on this S.34 fiasco there are now more questions than answers. The silence by the PM and other leading MPs on these documented facts during the Parliamentary debate on the repeal seems to amount to a calculated decision to withhold information.
The main questions for the PM are along two limbs –
Firstly, how does the AG’s absence overseas for a few days exonerate him? We need to stay with this line, given that it is the principal one advanced by the PM after her research into the issue.
Secondly, there is the burning question of what is Volney’s true role in all this? Did the PM ask him why he misled his Cabinet colleagues and the Parliament? If so, what did Volney say? If the PM did not ask Volney for his reasons, one has to be deeply skeptical about the idea that this single Minister outwitted the entire Cabinet.
The fact that this episode centred on the actual 50th Jubilee weekend was a powerful wake-up call to us all. History is rich in irony.
For my part, there is no way we are lightly ‘moving on’ from this tragic place…this is the occasion to resolve a lot of this nonsense and put us on the road to a much improved system of governance. It is going to be a hard campaign, but we must have a realistic appreciation of our situation if we are to have any chance at prevailing.
After the PP’s election victory, the Steve-Ish issue presented a conundrum since the USA wanted them and the public wanted to see them face justice. The Extradition request was refused so that they can be tried here. That ruling was not appealed by the AG, who stated that the reason is to allow them to be tried here.
The result of the sudden reversal in the face of mounting protest, is that the Piarco Accused can now say to the Court that Parliament exercised its powers to repeal legislation upon which they were relying to seek freedom. Parliament acted to reduce the rights of two individuals and the Court may be asked to rule that those actions of the Parliament have oppressed these men. The recent repeal of this section seems to have fortified the case of the Piarco Accused in seeking freedom.
Sidebar – Was S.34 the first time?
I am now recalling that the CLF bailout and shareholders agreement were never debated, they were both declared as fait accompli. What is more, as I wrote in this space recently, the Ministry of Finance is claiming that the contents of the presentation to Members of Parliament on the new bailout laws is secret. The S.34 fiasco involved an alleged stealing of $1Bn in Public Money and we are all now seeing the extent to which these white-collar criminals and their servants will go to cover their tracks. It is truly revolting. So, the question is ‘‘Given what we now know and the fact that the CLF bailout involves many billions of dollars in Public Money, is it reasonable to assume in good faith that our Parliamentarians and Public Officials will be responsible and honest in their dealings?’ I will be returning to this, it is turning in my mind.
Proper Priorities of our Parliament
Our Parliament has been on holiday since 11 July, but it has been reconvened twice in that period. The first occasion was in mid-August to satisfy an upcoming evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force of our Financial Intelligence Unit. All members voted in support of that Bill. The second occasion was for the repeal of the controversial s.34 and that raised a question for me. Why did the government agree to reconvene to repeal? Was it because of our objections and criticisms, or was it the stated concerns of the USA? In our 50th year of Independence, did the concerns of the USA outweigh our strong concerns? A sobering reflection.
The Title of this article is a kinda medley, when you study that, in Whe Whe, #34 is ‘Blind Man‘, we have been outwitted. One of my favourite moves, in those well-plotted spy thrillers, is the ‘Double-Bluff‘…This S.34 episode is a real cynical game of Blind Man’s Bluff….you see?
The CL Financial bailout continues to be a major failure on any scale, both in the causes of the fiasco and especially the manner in which it has been handled.
This is my update on what has been the progress in this campaign.
The equation for our reality check is –
Expenditure of Public MoneyMinus Transparency
MinusAccountabilityEqualsCORRUPTION
In May 2009, I wrote that the Directors and Officers of the CL Financial group should be required to file declarations under the provisions of the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA).
According to the IPLA, the Schedule detailing those persons is at page 31 – one of the classes of person required to file declarations to the Integrity Commission is –
“Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.”
I have put the last part of the sentence in italics to emphasize the deliberate choice of language by the legislators. The drafting of legislation is a painstaking exercise of strategy, debate and sometimes compromise…my point being that the inclusion of that last phrase must mean that the legislators intended to go beyond merely saying ‘Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises’, which would be the obvious, to specify that the IPLA must also apply in situations where the State has a controlling interest.
The CL Financial Shareholders Agreement (the Agreement), of 12 June 2009, which I obtained by using the Freedom of Information Act, specifies at clause 3.1 that the Board of Directors of CLF shall consist of seven Directors, four of which shall be nominated by the Government. The government has been exercising its rights under this clause, so it is clear that the State’s controlling interest in the CL Financial group is effective.
Quite apart from the four companies named in the bailout Memorandum of Understanding of 30 January 2009 and the Agreement – i.e. CL Financial, CLICO, British American Insurance and Caribbean Money Market Brokers – it is also clear that CL Financial controls the other companies in the group. This effective State control therefore extends to include enterprises which are majority-owned by CL Financial, such as Home Construction Limited, Angostura Holdings Limited, Republic Bank Limited and Methanol Holdings Trinidad Limited.
This very issue of the meaning of the IPLA in relation to state-controlled companies was ruled upon by the High Court in HCA1735 of 2005, in which one of the two issues being determined was –
“…(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?…”
The written judgment of Justice Judith Jones states in its conclusion –
“…Conclusion
248. In my opinion therefore the words “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest” as found in the Act must be taken to mean:
‘the members of the management or decision making body of:
all organisations or bodies established by Statute;
all businesses or companies controlled by or on behalf of the State’.
249. Further for the purpose of determining control by or on behalf of the State a business or company shall be taken to be controlled by the State if the State exercises or is entitled to exercise control directly or indirectly over its affairs; if the State is entitled to appoint a majority of the directors of the Board of Directors or holds at least fifty percent of the capital of that body.
250. This interpretation to my mind is in accord with the purpose and intention of the legislation as expressed by the Constitution and the Act, that is, to preserve and promote the integrity of persons exercising executive or legislative functions on behalf of the State…”
I am advised that TSTT appealed that High Court decision and that judgment is awaited since mid-2010.
I confirmed that key CL Financial Directors have not been filing declarations under the IPLA. On Monday 10 September, I consulted in person with Integrity Commission staff who confirmed to me 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)
According to the 3 April 2012 affidavit of then Minister of Finance, Winston Dookeran, the public money committed to this colossal bailout is –
Para 21 (a) $5.0Bn already provided to CLICO;
(b) $7.0Bn paid to holders of the EFPA and
Para 22 $12.0Bn estimated as further funding to be advanced.
That is a total of $24Bn in public money being paid to satisfy the creditors of the CLF group.
I wrote on Monday 10 September to both the Integrity Commission and the Minister of Finance & the Economy to report my serious concerns on this unacceptable state of affairs. It simply cannot be right that the Directors of this huge state-controlled group are allowed to escape the provisions of the IPLA. There must be proper transparency in matters of this kind, if good order is to be preserved in our society.
CL Financial accounts and if those are not available, the figures on which the Minister of Finance has been relying – The reply is to ask me to provide further information as to what I mean. The Minister of Finance is making analyses and justifying his positions in public, including proposing legislation to Parliament – he must therefore be relying on some figures or estimates to proceed in this way. When I ask for those details, the Finance Ministry is mystified and needs me to explain what I really mean. Just imagine that!
The presentation made to Members of Parliament in September 2011 to brief them prior to the debate on the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill and the Purchase of Certain Rights and Validation Bill 2011– The reply is to claim that the presentation is an exempt document which the Ministry is therefore unable to provide. The official presentation made to our Members of Parliament in this matter is deemed secret, which seems incompatible with the notion of a free, democratic society, so it will not rest there.
The recent revelations about the Plot to Pervert Parliament in relation to the S.34 debacle and the way in which the country, its significant institutions and its legislature have been misled for the benefit of political financiers have given me pause. I am now reflecting that the bailout and shareholders agreement were never debated, they were both declared as fait accompli. What is more, the new 2011 laws I am writing about here have a similar flavour of Abuse of Office in that we are being told that the contents of that presentation to Members of Parliament are secret. The S.34 fiasco involved an alleged stealing of $1Bn in Public Money and we are all now seeing the extent to which these white-collar criminals and their servants will go to cover their tracks. It is truly revolting. So, the question is ‘‘Given what we now know and the fact that the CLF bailout involves many billions of dollars in Public Money, is it reasonable to assume that our Parliamentarians and Public Officials will be responsible and honest in their dealings?’ I will be returning to this, it is turning in my mind.
Details on the composition of the creditors of the CL Financial group, in particular EFPA holders. I was asking who was owed money and who got paid. That is at the centre of this issue – The reply states that the information requested is likely to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. That is another aspect of this to be challenged.
Declarations filed by Directors and Officers of the CL Financial group under the IPLA – The reply points out that those declarations are secret, which is correct, but also goes on to state that this is not to be construed as an admission or denial that the IPLA applies to those Directors and Officers. Well I tell you.
The region’s largest privately-held group of companies is now under State control, in a situation of huge insolvency, with no proper accounts and no declarations being filed by the Directors.
It is as if the sheer size and power of this CL Financial event is warping all the usual rules – like a black hole or anti-matter – to the extent that it seems like the Freedom of Information Act is now being used for the Incarceration of Information!
This development is a serious peril to our Treasury. It must be a matter of the gravest possible concern to all right-thinking people that our fundamental Integrity safeguards appear to have been circumvented or ignored in a matter of this size and consequence.
These are my emails to formally raise the issue of the applicability of our Integrity in Public Life Act—which requires Public Officials to file declarations of their interests and assets as an Integrity safeguard—to the Directors of CL Financial.
This is an issue I first wrote on in May 2009 and the questions remained unanswered, so the questions have now been put directly to the relevant officials.
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.
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.
From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Subject: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
To: [email hidden by author]
To – Senator Larry Howai, Minister of Finance & the Economy
Honourable Minister,
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.
In addition, the CL Financial bailout has consumed large amounts of public money, in which connection I would invite your attention to the 3rd April 2012 affidavit of then Minister of Finance, Winston Dookeran, in which the public money committed to this bailout is detailed as –
Para 21 (a) $5.0Bn already provided to CLICO
(b) $7.0Bn paid to holders of the EFPA and
Para 22 $12.0Bn estimated as further funding to be advanced.
That amounts to an estimated $24Bn of public money to be expended in bailout exercise and it is my contention that our country’s Integrity safeguards must be firmly in place to reduce any potential for improper behaviour or the suspicion of such.
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 the Integrity Commission offices earlier today to examine the Register of Interests it seems that these Directors have not been filing returns.
For your information, Integrity Commission 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 being required to file or such other informative response that will satisfy this complaint of apparent non-compliance.
This downloadable document is the 3rd April 2012 affidavit of then Minister of Finance Winston Dookeran, filed as the key evidence in the government’s case in reply to the High Court challenge mounted by Percy Farrell on behalf of a group of CLICO policyholders.
It is an important document since it is the official attempt to deal comprehensively with the claims that the new laws passed in 2011 to control the bailout were unconstitutional – those laws were the Central Bank (Amendment) Act, 2011and the Purchase of Certain Rights and Validation Act, 2011. [To read the separate Bills progress in the House of Representatives, you can click here and here respectively.]
The most interesting ones are the paragraphs in which Dookeran states –
Para 16 at which CLICO is identified as holding 53.6% of the insurance industry’s total liabilities in T&T. That is a clear statement as to the extent to which this company was allowed to become literally ‘too big to fail’ and it also seems to me to comprise grounds for preventing this kind of over-concentration of risk to ever emerge again.
Para 21 which details some $12Bn of public money already spent on this massive bailout.
Para 22 which estimates that a further $12Bn of public money is needed to meet the creditors’ claims.
Para 76 which confirms that the quarterly reports on the restructuring of CLICO for December 2011 and March 2012 have been filed in the High Court as required by the new laws cited above.
I only starting to talk about it in the last little while, but this season is always one of reflection and re-dedication for me, with the two month transition from Emancipation Day on 1st August to Independence on the 31st August, then onto Republic Day on 24th September…I always spend this spell in some sober reflection, in between the life. It seems to me that the very sequence of events and the consequent holidays in the season imbue it with an inner meaning in terms of a national transition to some kind of depth and purpose…Emancipation to Independence to Republican status…maybe that is just sentimental of me, but let us see…
So there has been a growing campaign to challenge the presence of Jack Warner in our Cabinet – the leading people in that effort have been Lasana Liburd of Wired868 and Kirk Waithe of Fixin’ T&T – The effort is a necessary one as it raises questions as to the proper role and functioning of the Cabinet in our Republic…I have gone a little further in calling for a higher standard in terms of who is eligible to be admitted to our Parliament…I believe the minimum test should be the ‘Fit & Proper’ rules as established by the Central Bank, in which case Dr Bhoe Tewarie would also be ineligible…Now we have had people being scandalized that Jack Warner was made acting PM after he resigned from FIFA and this morning the place is buzzing with talk about Collin Partap’s dismissal from Cabinet for allegedly refusing to give a specimen of his breath to the police after partying.
At this 50th year or Jubilee Juncture, the burning question in this arena is how are we doing? Have things improved on that governance aspect?
Eric WilliamsPatrick Solomon
What is interesting is that amidst all the sound and fury, we can sometimes miss the lessons history can offer us as to the roots of some of these issues…I am saying thank you here to Judy Raymond – yes, she is my cousin – who has started a series of fascinating articles which are using the Guardian’s extensive archives to show some situations from earlier days…I did resign from the Guardian, but the edition of Sunday 26th August had a real classic, “PM: Who don’t like it…Could Go!” which recalled the infamous 1964 episode in which the ‘Father of the Nation’ defied his critics by re-appointing and promoting Dr. Patrick Solomon…also see “Solomon Acts as PM,” and “Minister Took Stepson From Cops.”
Of course, every right-thinking person knows that ‘Two wrongs do not make a right‘ – so that is not what I am saying.
I think that our ongoing concern over arrogant and irresponsible behaviour in high office has serious roots, so we need to dig deep to end this nonsense.
‘King’ David Rudder, used the opening stanza of his 1996 classic “The Strange Tale of Madame Occohantas and the Westminster Dreadlocks” on the virtual silencing of our Parliament by the growing rift between the then PM, Patrick Manning, and the Speaker of the Parliament…all of which lead to a messy climax with a bizarre State of Emergency being imposed so as to virtually imprison the Speaker of the House. I tell you…Rudder’s first verse is something our children should learn in school…
Rudder was telling us about all then and now…in fact is Sparrow who gave Rudder the 1986 acclamation of dubbing him ‘King David’…which leads right back to the start…
Yes, the title of this post is from the Mighty Sparrow’s biting classic on that scandal – you can hear it here. The fight for betterment is a part of our lives now and we must keep it up! Listen to Sparrow…yuh think it sorf?
The ‘ole-talk’ at the time was that Solomon slapped a policeman when he went to have his stepson ‘released’ – he was the then Minister of Home Affairs, with responsibility for the Police Force.
Afra Raymond chats on the show ‘State of the Nation‘ with Hans Hanoomansingh on Heritage Radio 101.7 FM about the issues and other topics leading up to the 50th anniversary of Independence. 31 July 2012. Audio courtesy Heritage Radio 101.7 FM
The CL Financial bailout continues to be a major failure on any scale, both in the causes of the fiasco and especially the manner in which it has been handled.
This downloadable document is the 3rd April 2012 affidavit of then Minister of Finance Winston Dookeran, filed as the key evidence in the government’s case in reply to the High Court challenge mounted by Percy Farrell on behalf of a group of CLICO policyholders.
So there has been a growing campaign to challenge the presence of Jack Warner in our Cabinet – the leading people in that effort have been Lasana Liburd of Wired868 and Kirk Waithe of Fixin’ T&T – The effort is a necessary one as it raises questions as to the proper role and functioning of the Cabinet in our Republic…I have gone a little further in calling for a higher standard in terms of who is eligible to be admitted to our Parliament…I believe the minimum test should be the ‘Fit & Proper’ rules as established by the Central Bank, in which case Dr Bhoe Tewarie would also be ineligible…Now we have had people being scandalized that Jack Warner was made acting PM after he resigned from FIFA and this morning the place is buzzing with talk about Collin Partap’s dismissal from Cabinet for allegedly refusing to give a specimen of his breath to the police after partying.
AfraRaymond.net 