Tag: trinidad and tobago

Letter to the Editor – Open Letter to our Finance Minister

26 Sept 2025

The Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor – After one time is two times?

19 Sept 2025

The Editor,

When it comes to White-Collar Crime in our Republic, we are once again being forced to ask if Justice is truly blind and, more to the point, whether we are ever going to see that concept in effect.

During the PP government 2010 to 2015, we saw then-AG, Anand Ramlogan, investigating and launching lawsuits against the former Board members of UTT, e-Teck and Petrotrin for various breaches of Directors’ legal duties. While those were deeply political actions, taken by a politician, to the best of my knowledge those were pioneering cases testing the limits of Directors’ responsibilities under S99 of the Companies Act.   The targets were obviously the Chairmen of those State-owned Enterprises, Professor Ken Julien and the late Malcolm Jones, both of whom could be regarded as prime PNM operatives. Despite his political motivations, I respected then-AG Ramlogan’s actions as setting a new high-water mark in our public sector governance and accountability.  

The UTT case collapsed when the main State witness changed his testimony in July 2015. In September 2015, PNM returned to office for a decade, after which the Petrotrin case on the failed Gas to Liquids project was discontinued on the advice of the now-discredited Vincent Nelson, which then-AG Faris Al Rawi accepted. The e-Teck case on ‘Bamboo Networks Ltd’ never really got started since the former Board claimed that the legal action was started outside the four-year limitation period, but that defence was defeated by the State, at High Court, Appeal Court and the Privy Council, using the novel argument that the limitation period could only really have started running with a change of government. Despite the Privy Council’s 2018 ruling in favour of e-Teck, the case against those former Board Members was never pursued by the PNM administration; it simply slid into obscurity.

Those were truly deplorable episodes, both the alleged dereliction of Directors’ duties and the resulting high costs to the public. But the really reprehensible aspect is that the PNM administration effectively abandoned those cases against their political allies once they were returned to office after the 2015 elections. So what is the position now?

Steve Ferguson, a former UNC heavyweight and one of the Piarco Airport accused, just lost his case in the Appeal Court in Miami and was ordered to pay $131M USD, plus costs and interest. Ferguson reportedly plans to file a further appeal, so can we really expect the State to actively pursue this matter, now that a UNC government is back in power?

SIS reportedly just lost in its Arbitration with NGC over the Beetham Water Recycling Plant, so once again the question is whether NGC will press a UNC financier (Krishna Lalla of SIS) to pay that Award?

We have also seen recent reports of Justice Frank Seepersad resisting EMBD’s attempts to again delay the litigation in that huge 2017 case against the UNC’s political allies. Those include current UNC Energy Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, so I am watching this one with tremendous interest.  Could it be that the newly-appointed EMBD Board is trying to derail the case against its political allies without actually ‘filing’ to discontinue the action?

Of course there are so many more of these political prosecutions, including the SportTT Board and Eden Gardens cases, all caught-up in the turbid post-election flux. 

We must break this pattern of the political class constantly looking after their own, with the Public Interest being only a remote concern. Two wrongs could never make a right. If the UNC wishes to do better than the previous PNM administration, they must act differently and be seen to do so.

‘What ain’t meet you ain’t pass you‘ is a real long-time saying which greatly amused us when we were young, but look where we reach.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor – Public Procurement Progress?

Fri, 12 Sept 2025

The Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor – Freedom of Information?

Fri, 5 Sept 2025

The Editor,

The Freedom of Information Act 1999 (FoIA) is part of what I call the “RLM Suite” of Legacy Policy – reforms championed during the tenure of then-AG Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj. That suite included the FoIA, the Judicial Review law, the activation of the Integrity Commission, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. Together they represented a deliberate attempt to empower citizens and hold public institutions accountable.

I chose the phrase ‘Legacy Policy’ to denote a particular type of law which it is all but impossible to reverse, due to its manifest good sense and popularity. So, although our Courts have widely recognised the transformative concepts at the heart of the FoIA, with leading rulings now cited internationally, with approval, as examples of progressive jurisprudence, there is still a deep dis-ease with the very Freedom of Information, at the political level.

The Act requires that Annual Reports on the operation of the FoIA be laid in Parliament, so that there could be some proper record of how this important facet of our Republic was operating. Yet, notwithstanding its parentage, just after the 2010 elections, the Freedom of Information Unit was moved to the Office of the Prime Minister, then onto Foreign Affairs (?) then the Communications Ministry. So those Annual Reports were last published in 2009, and this switch took place during the PP government, within which the UNC was the leading element.

But PNM was not to be left behind in these tactics of delay and obstruction to the fundamental democratic rights of Freedom of Information, since in 2019 there was a short-lived attempt under then-AG Faris Al Rawi to dilute the Act by extending response times to six months and so on. A short sharp campaign was mounted to confront this threat, so those proposals were quietly withdrawn.

Equally damaging are the quieter, ongoing tactics of delay and obstruction. Ministries and state agencies routinely frustrate and delay requests. In terms of my own ongoing research, since February 2025 I have been dealing with an ever-retreating timeline from NGC for information on legal fees and technical/commercial details for the Beetham Water Recycling Plant (BWRP). Partners at expensive law firms are engaged to explain the delays and promise the requested details, but those were to have been delivered over 3 months ago. While deploying the delaying tactics, NGC published details of those BWRP legal fees with this astonishing quote from NGC Chairman, Gerald Ramdeen –  “There will be no secrecy under this board,” he added. “Any request for information will be met and information disclosed.” Well I tell you eh.

It is precisely at this stage that the FoIA ought to be revised and strengthened. The law must be modernised to ensure compliance, curb abuse, and enforce real-time accountability. But revision must avoid the errors of the past. If a newly elected UNC government wishes to do better, it must act differently from the PNM before it.

The promise of the “RLM Suite” was never meant to gather dust. It was meant to anchor transparency in our democratic life. Whether we advance or abandon that legacy is now the question before us.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor – The HDC’s program paradox

22nd August 2025

The Editor,

The State’s provision of affordable housing to low and middle-income applicants has been delivered primarily by the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and, to a lesser extent, the Land Settlement Agency (LSA).

The current Housing Policy—”Showing Trinidad & Tobago a New Way Home“—was established in 2002 with the ambitious target of producing 100,000 new homes within a decade. Before the HDC was established in 2005, that role was fulfilled by the National Housing Authority (NHA), which was established in 1962. Despite allocations of public money and private sector borrowings exceeding $20 billion since 2002, the NHA/HDC completed less than 25,000 new homes.

T&T Housing PolicyDownload

Beyond the gross totals and their serious implications lies a more insidious issue: the actual effectiveness of this large-scale public housing program when we consider the human element. The HDC Act stipulates that its purpose as a statutory agency is to facilitate affordable housing for low and middle-income applicants. Yet over 90% of applicants on the HDC waiting list cannot qualify for a mortgage because they are simply too poor, while only 21% of new HDC homes are available for rent. Given the amounts of public money invested in this program and the desperate housing needs of our poorest citizens, this represents a tremendous misallocation of scarce resources.

The HDC’s low output compared to original targets, combined with its failure to serve the majority of applicants for affordable housing, constitutes a serious indictment of its performance.

Since 2003, NHA/HDC has not had audited Financial Statements, so there are substantial financial accountability issues in addition to those noted earlier. HDC stated that the financial statements for 2003 to 2009 were audited, but those financial statements were accompanied by Independent Auditors Reports, issued by KPMG Chartered Accountants, every one of which was subject to a Disclaimer of Opinion. The Disclaimer of Opinion is many times worse than a mere qualified audit since it means that the auditor has so little confidence in the records that it is impossible to form a responsible professional opinion.

During the recently concluded election campaign, I was astonished by Jearlean John’s promise to deliver 500 new homes per week and “…we are looking to build at least 10,000 houses per year…” if the UNC were elected. Ms. John served as HDC’s Managing Director from November 2009 to March 2016 and provided serious assistance to my public housing research during that period. There is no doubt that she is well-informed on these matters.

The Housing Ministry now has a Minister and two Ministers of State—a considerable commitment of political capital to this important public policy area.

We must avoid the errors of the past if we are to do better. If the newly elected UNC Administration wishes to succeed where others have failed, it must act fundamentally differently from the previous PNM government.

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

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

15th August 2025

The Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afra Raymond
afraraymond.net

Letter to the Editor on proposed restart of Tobago Sandals talks

Friday 4th April 2025

To the Editor,

Following Dr. Rowley’s statement on 15th March 2025, we now know from our newly-selected Prime Minister, Stuart Young SC, that Adam Stewart, Executive Chairman of Sandals, is scheduled to visit Tobago on Monday 7th April 2025 to resume discussions on the Tobago Sandals project.

According to PM Young, “We need to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not allow a few misguided naysayers to stop the potential development of the economy of Tobago. This is for Tobago.”

In response to Dr Rowley, THA Chief Secretary Farley Augustine remarked, ‘‘…Tobagonians rejected the Sandals project because it was undemocratic and did not make proper economic sense, that MoU that was signed by the current MP for Tobago West (Shamfa Cudjoe-Lewis) and it did not meet the environmental best practices or standards that we wanted…” (The emphasis is mine, as I entirely agree with those comments.)

This is the same Government that resisted all attempts to release that MoU, even as Dr. Rowley and Stuart Young repeatedly insisted there was no secret agreement. Sandals itself joined that refrain until my lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act forced the disclosure of that troubling document.

If we are to truly “learn from the mistakes of the past,” we must confront the fact that the MoU contained highly unbalanced commercial terms, so advantageous to Sandals that one wonders whether proper legal and financial advice was ever taken. In my professional view, it remains the most one-sided agreement I’ve seen in this sphere. No surprise that Sandals officials were beaming in every photo until the MoU became public and I explained its implications. At the January 15, 2019, press conference announcing Sandals’ withdrawal, both CEO Gebhard Rainer and Stuart Young looked markedly less cheerful. As always, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The MoU obligated the State to design, build, furnish, and fit-out the resort at public expense and on publicly-owned land. Beyond that, Sandals was to enjoy unlimited work permits for non-nationals, sweeping tax holidays, duty concessions, and even facilitation of transfer pricing.

Considering that the full financial burden was to be borne by the State and Sandals was to carry no financial obligations, not even local employment, it is entirely fair to ask: what was in this for us?

This was an exploitative arrangement by any reasonable standard. Any new agreement must reflect a significantly improved balance in the national interest. Unfortunately, my expectations remain low, given that the original promoters, Dr. Rowley and Stuart Young, have never defended the terms of that flawed proposal.

I have long called for an open, transparent approach to large-scale projects, including widespread public and stakeholder consultation before commitments are made. This principle remains unfulfilled.

This concern was clearly articulated as Recommendation 17 of the Uff Report (2009):

“User groups and other interest groups should be properly consulted on decisions regarding public building projects, to ensure that relevant views can be expressed at the appropriate time and taken into account before decisions are made.” (My emphasis)

In addition, projects of this scale demand open-book accounting to safeguard the public interest.

It is also important to emphasise the environmental and social risks inherent in a project of this scale. The originally proposed site at No Man’s Land is a Ramsar-listed wetland and coastal zone, which raises serious questions about ecological sensitivity. While it is unclear whether the same location is being reconsidered, there has been no public disclosure on this point. Related stakeholders — including those in environmental management and technical consultancy — have privately expressed significant concerns about the weakening or bypassing of environmental safeguards in this process. Issues such as the treatment and disposal of wastewater, the outfall from a potential desalination plant into shallow coastal waters, and the disruption to local ecosystems remain unresolved. These concerns are not peripheral, they are fundamental. A resort development on this scale must meet rigorous environmental standards, not circumvent them.

If the State is again expected to fund this mega-project, then Sandals must contribute appropriately—paying proper taxes and fair wages. Tax holidays and concessions are indefensible if public funds are underwriting the entire enterprise.

As stated at the outset, there must be extensive public and stakeholder consultation before decisions are made. That is fundamental in any democracy.

Afra Raymond
Managing Director, Raymond & Pierre Ltd,
Chartered Valuation Surveyors, Real Estate Agents and Property Consultants

JAMP Citizen Perspectives: Fighting Corruption via Parliament webinar: 1 April 2025

JAMP Citizen Perspectives: Fighting Corruption via Parliament webinar: 1 April 2025

JAMP (Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal) presented the findings of its citizen survey on parliamentary accountability in the fight against corruption. Afra Raymond was invited to be a guest speaker at this webinar hosted by Jeanette Calder, Executive Director, JAMP, to give a Trinidad and Tobago perspective on accountability and transparency. Video courtesy JAMP

  • Programme Length: 00:32:09
  • Programme Date: 1 April 2025

No tax holiday for Sandals – Trinidad and Tobago Guardian

The T&T Guardian newspaper interviewed Afra Raymond on the issue of the renewed engagement of the Sandals hotel group to develop a resort in Tobago. The following article, written by Andrea Perez-Sobers and published on Friday, April 4, 2025, is presented below. Click here to read the complete article on the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian website.

If the State is to revisit and fund the Sandals mega-project in Tobago, the hotel must pay proper rates of tax and rates of pay to its staff.

There ought to be no tax holidays or concessions if the entire complex is to be funded by public money and on publicly owned land.

That’s according to former head of the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) Afra Raymond, responding to former prime minister Dr Keith Rowley’s statements on March 15 that he has personally reached out to the Sandals’ owner with a plea to take another look at the island.

“I didn’t give up after all that (first failed attempt). Recently, I spoke to the leadership at Sandals, and I asked them to come look at this again, and if I was the problem, I wouldn’t be there moving forward,” Rowley said, at the commissioning of Tobago’s new terminal of the ANR Robinson International Airport..

Continue reading “No tax holiday for Sandals – Trinidad and Tobago Guardian” →

PROPERTY MATTERS – the role of the Valuation Roll

The implementation of the controversial Property Tax is now underway in Trinidad and Tobago, marked by a series of official announcements and the issuance of revised Notices of Valuation to an estimated 400,000 residential taxpayers. While these revisions are necessary, there is a critical flaw in the system that must be addressed: the restricted access to the Valuation Roll database. This column explores the implications of this restricted access, argues for the necessity of transparency, and identifies who stands to gain from maintaining the status quo.

The new Property Tax system in T&T aims to deliver equitable taxes through a crowd-sourcing approach, which promises transparency and low operational costs. Property owners were asked to submit detailed returns – about 60,000 of which were sent – which were then analyzed by the Valuation Division of the Finance Ministry. Selected properties were inspected and measured, leading to provisional tax assessments. Taxpayers have the right to object to these assessments, which would be refined through this iterative process of public feedback, ensuring fairness and accuracy.

Continue reading “PROPERTY MATTERS – the role of the Valuation Roll” →