THE MULTI BILLION DOLLAR DRUG TRADE - or, we don’t have a money laundering problem in T&T)

A report in The Observer newspaper in England from last Sunday says that the head of the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime, Mr. Antonio Maria Costa, is claiming that he has seen evidence that “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks that were on the brink of collapse last year when the worldwide economic crisis began was drug money. He said that the result was that the majority of the $352bn of drug profits was absorbed into the system and was thus effectively laundered. He is quoted in the report as saying that “…the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital in the second half of 2008, liquidity was the main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor.” He goes on to say that there is evidence that inter bank loans were funded by money from the drugs trade and there are signs that this is how some banks were rescued.

The article is well worth reading. For one thing it certainly highlights how enormously powerful the drug cartels have now become. If most of the $352bn in drug profits are now effectively laundered and that money is now in the world’s legitimate financial system, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realise that this makes the men running these cartels even more powerful … and more dangerous. The line from the old song that said something about money making the world go around is very, very true!

Well, this article got me to thinking: what is happening down here in our own little neck of the woods concerning drug profits and money laundering? A few years ago somebody in Customs and Excise told me that the annual profits from the Trinidad drug trade were almost as big as this country’s annual budget! Is this true? I have no way of knowing or even of finding out without probably getting myself killed. But the question is a very serious one. And what is also extremely worrying is that nobody is talking about it! It is as if the problem simply does not exist!

Put another way, one wag recently pontificated to me that we have neither a serious drug problem (as concerns big drug money) nor do we have any money laundering in good old T&T! When I looked at him with incredulous surprise he laughed at me and said, “When last did you ever hear of a major drug lord being arrested and charged? When last did you hear of a banker being charged … let alone convicted … with money laundering? And the very definition of money laundering requires that it be done through a bank! I rest my case.”

He had a point. But I don’t believe that there is no money laundering in T&T. I don’t believe that enormous amounts of drug profits are not being accumulated. I don’t believe that we have no really big drug lords in this country. Do you? If you have the same beliefs as I do in this matter, then I have two last questions for you: why isn’t the media highlighting this? Don’t you think that this is an issue that ought to be on the media’s ‘front burner’?

WHAT IF...?

What if your name was Basdeo Panday? What if you had “struggled” for more than 40 years in the political trenches and now as you are approaching the end of your eighth decade on the planet you find the political hounds nipping at your heels and the cloud of possible jail time hanging over your head. What if you did not want to “ride out into the sunset” but you found yourself facing a serious political challenge in just over a month from now that could easily spell the ignominious end of your long and battle scarred career? What would you do?

As I have said before, if ever you want to understand a problem...any problem... go back to basics. So, I found myself asking this question. What if I was Panday? What are my options? Well, as I see it the options facing the legendary ‘Silver Fox’ are as follows (incidentally, these options are those that I can see; if you can think of other options please let everybody know):

Option 1: Roll over and die; admit that I am at the end of my rope and give up.
Analysis: It is most unlikely that I would do this (remember that ‘I’ am Basdeo Panday). This would go against everything that I have stood for and would be completely out of character for me. We can probably safely discard this option.

Option 2: Go up against Kamla and Ramesh in a fair fight and marshall my still considerable strength to beat them.
Analysis: Risky. Polls show that I am not as popular as I used to be. While I could probably beat Ramesh fairly easily (he is the least of my problems), he is likely to take critical votes away from me, and Kamla, who is quite popular, could slip through. Further, there is a risk that the opinion polls are correct, which will mean that Kamla will trounce me and will find myself with no cards at all in my hand left to play, not even a Jack (pun intended)!

Option 3: Cheat.
Analysis: But that is also very risky. I could be caught out, and if the support for Kamla is really strong then her supporters will cry foul, and heaven alone knows where that could end up. They are already saying that I will cheat! So, what do I do? I have to think out of the box. But there is a fourth option that could allow me to stay in power and keep everything together. And it’s one that my opponents will not be expecting:

Option 4: I do not run for Political Leader of the UNC. I leave that for Kamla and for her to lick up Ramesh (which she will do). Instead, I do as I did before and go up against Jack Warner for the chairmanship of the Party. That way I could lick up Ramesh (well, Kamla will do that for me) and I will probably be able to beat Jack as well. The RamjackG faction will be dead like the proverbial ducks and I will be clear. I won’t have to resign as Leader of the Opposition and I can work with Kamla. Yep! This is a good “out” for me!
Analysis: It could work. Nobody will be expecting it and I will have the advantage of surprise. Further, Jack Warner is not as sympathetic a character as Kamla. He will be easier to beat!

Well, what do you think? What if you were the old ‘Silver Fox’? What would you do?

THE UNC INTERNAL ELECTIONS – More Important Than You May Think!

The UNC internal elections are attracting an understandable amount of attention. The UNC is after all the official opposition Party and, some might argue, the only realistic alternative to the ruling PNM. I use the word “realistic” deliberately and in the political sense in that I honestly don’t believe that given its present configuration that the Congress of the People can attract enough voters to win a single seat. Of course, a week in politics (to quote former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson) is a long time and I suppose that the boys and girls in the COP are hoping that something might happen to change their political fortunes, but frankly, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The COP has been unable to attract any new voters to its cause, and looks as if it has in fact lost quite a few who voted for it in the last elections.

In any case, I don’t think that a lot of people realise that despite the COP’s intervention in the last election the UNC came remarkably close to winning it outright! Something like 9,000 votes separated the UNC from a victory at the polls in the last election. Surprised? Take a look at the difference between the UNC votes and the PNM votes in six marginal constituencies (St. Joseph, Tunapuna, San Fernando West, Chaguanas East, Barataria/San Juan and Pointe-a-Pierre) and add them up. The total difference between the 2 parties comes to about 9,000 votes. Now, if you take, say, half the COP votes in each constituency and “give” them to the UNC you will begin to understand the dynamics and electoral strategies of the various UNC players from Panday to Ramesh and back through Kamla. If you had added half of the COP votes in these constituencies to the UNC’s votes in the last elections we would have had a UNC government with 21 seats to the PNM’s 20! That is one of the reasons that Panday is so bitter towards Dookeran. Panday’s argument that Dookeran’s intervention cost the UNC the election is not without some justification.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what the Corridor thinks of Panday or whether the people in the “PNM till ah dead” strongholds believe that he is the worst thing in the world. The truth is that the UNC can reasonably count on 15 seats in every election; the PNM on 20. The real battle is in the six marginals. They represent the difference between ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’; government or opposition.

That is why Mr. Panday defies his critics who all say that he is past it, too tainted to continue, and not acceptable to the country. He knows that they are wrong. He knows that all he has to do is hold his base and win back some of the voters who deserted him for Dookeran in the last election. Of course, the key is in the phrase “he has to hold his base…”. But there is a very real chance that he will be able to do so (i.e. hold the base together) in the next elections if he wins in January. And if he can hold his base together his chances of being able to grab the “missing” 9,000 odd votes is pretty good, or put it this way, quite possible (as opposed to probable). So, don’t write off the old man yet!

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Ramesh is mounting what he hopes will be a strong challenge. Ramesh incidentally also understands the electoral maths and therefore is not as concerned as one might expect as to his general country wide acceptance or lack of it. And, of course, there is Kamla. She is due to give a press conference tomorrow in which it is widely expected that she will declare her candidacy for leadership of the Party. What has been interesting to see is the number of callers on the call-in radio shows in the last few days who have been suggesting that they “know” that she is not going to run after all. She appears to have a lot of support and if the “jungle drums” are any indication she might even beat out Mr. Panday. Well, we’ll see soon enough, won’t we!

And finally, there is the ubiquitous Jack Warner. Although both he and Ramesh are denying that there is a split their respective words and actions certainly seem to contradict this. What happened between them? Nobody seems to know, but clearly they aren’t as close as they were before. Now, I do have a question: what does Jack want? Does he want to be “kingmaker” or does he want to be “king”. His words suggest that he wants only to be the “kingmaker” but his actions seem to suggest that what he really wants is to be “king”.

As you will appreciate, all of this is important. The United National Congress is the only (at this time) credible political Party that has a chance of resting the government from Manning’s grasp. The truth is that if the Party were able to get its act together that chance could easily become a real chance. But, as I said earlier, a week in politics is a long time and the truth is that there are many, many numbers still to play in the game before the next general elections. The message today is simply, pay attention. The UNC is more relevant than you might think!

NUGGETS FROM THE COMMENTS SECTION

A reader named "Marlon" made a valuable contribution on the message boards and asked some relevant questions. I want to get into the habit of answering some of these contributions on occasion to foster a constructive public debate on The Rag. Without further ado, here is the unedited version of what "Marlon" wrote:

I am trying to follow you and I see your point somewhat, I makes no sense but I see your point. May I then ask sir, as a lawyer, are you saying then that you cannot, or anyone for that matter, be impartial to issues. You have made a point of apparent bias on the part of TI's Victor Hart. You have made out a case of case of apparent bias on the part of Prf. John Uff and another commissioner in the CoE, but I am finding great difficulty in following your argument. I must say, if I am to make the assumtions that you have, that you too may be seen as being biased against those opposite to Udecott, considering that you have represented the Harts. I am just following logic and making the very assumptions that you have.


Marlon, your points are all valid, but I would say the this:

Apparent bias is not the same as actual bias. However, in law the effect is the same, i.e., that where there is apparent bias or actual bias the judicial officer must step down or the findings of the court/tribunal will be thrown out. The case that you might say is “the grand daddy” in all this is the Pinochet case. You will recall that in the case General Augosto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator was arrested in London on an extradition warrant from Spain. He appealed the Order of the High Court that he be sent to Spain to stand trial. The Court of Appeal turned him down. He then appealed to the House of Lords (the Privy Council). The House of Lords held that because one of the three judges had a connection with Transparency International (the judge’s wife had been a director of TI) that there was the possibility of apparent bias and that as a result Pinochet could go free! (You will remember that TI had been extremely critical of Pinochet’s regime). The apparent bias of one judge was enough to “contaminate the entire panel.
The House of Lords said that they were absolutely satisfied that the judge in question was a most honourable person and that they believed that he was not biased. But they readily admitted that there could be an argument of apparent bias! And that is my point!
And, yes, you are right. If I had been asked to be a Commissioner in this Enquiry I would have had to turn it down as I once upon a time acted for Calder Hart (though I am not his attorney today). Further I was a lawyer in the Scarborough General Hospital Commission of Enquiry and played no small part in that Enquiry where it was directed that the police should investigate NH International Caribbean with a view to seeing whether or not NHIC should be prosecuted for larceny. (Incidentally, this police investigation has yet to take place!) My comments in that Enquiry would also probably preclude me from sitting as a Commissioner in this one because it could be argued that they show an apparent bias against NHIC. And it would be irrelevant to my protesting that I consider myself to be a fair minded person who would deal with the facts as presented. That may very well be true…….But there could easily be an argument that I had an apparent bias even if (assuming but not accepting) it could not be shown that I had an actual bias.
Having said that, I am not sitting in judgment of any of the parties in this Commission. Further, what I have been trying to do is to alert thinking people like your good self of what I perceive from my knowledge and experience to be the very real dangers of the Uff Commission becoming a monumental waste in every meaning of the word! I have studiously avoided, or tried to avoid, defending either UDeCOTT or Calder Hart. In fact, if you re-read my blog you will see that I have said several times that I believe that there are serious questions that need answering.

Either way, this is the kind of debate that is worth encouraging and I appreciate anyone who takes the time to contribute in a constructive manner.

Robin

RADIO INTERVIEW - December 10, 2009

Dear Readers,

I will on the radio tomorrow, sharing my views on the latest developments regarding the Uff Commission of Enquiry.

What: Morning Panchayat
Who: with Dr. Suruj Rambachan, Ken Ali and Shamoon Mohammed
Where: Sangeet FM106.1
When: 6AM-9AM

I expect to be on between 6am and 7am.

I hope you will tune in.

Robin

JUSTICE WILD WEST STYLE (or Things aren’t always what they seem)

In order to understand a problem, a wise old Queen’s Counsel once told me when I was a brand new lawyer, always go back to basics. I mention this because, no doubt like everybody else, I was more than a little surprised to see the headlines in all three daily newspapers this morning saying that the evidence of Carl Khan, the former husband of Mrs. Sherrine Hart, was being admitted without any kind of challenge from UDeCOTT or Calder Hart. All three newspapers presented this as if it were an admission by UDeCOTT, Hart, etc. that what Carl Khan was saying was in fact true.

But then I read all three reports again and noted that nowhere in any of the reports had any reporter bothered to find out why this rather (on the face of it) extraordinary decision had been taken by the UDeCOTT etc. team. Put another way, if any reporter had indeed tried to find out, such efforts did not form part of the story. And again, I had to ask why? One of them had bothered to contact Dr. Rowley, who unsurprisingly was only too happy to put in his own two cents worth, which was (of course) anything but flattering of Team UDeCOTT. But nowhere had anybody apparently tried to find out why the decision been made not to challenge the evidence?

Let me state very quickly that I do not know. I have no hotline into Team UDeCOTT and not being an accredited journalist I don’t really feel that I can call up and ask anybody questions. (Maybe I can, but I think/hope that you understand my point). But having regard to all that has gone before and having regard to the fact that the Uff CoE is being challenged very seriously in the High Court by way of Judicial Review (JR) it would be surprising to say the least if Team UDeCOTT was just going to roll over and die and allow this kind of knock to go unchallenged.

Carl Khan’s evidence could easily be challenged (even if, assuming though not accepting, any or all of it was true) and from his statement published in the papers it would not be difficult for a skilled cross examiner to attack his credibility. So, I for one, refuse to accept that Team UDeCOTT is just rolling over and dying. You remember the saying: ‘It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings’… and she ain’t singin’ yet!

Readers of this blog will be aware that I have been at pains to point out mistakes that Uff & Company have been making in this CoE. I have been warning all who would listen that the whole enquiry could go down the drain and become a total waste of taxpayers’ money if attention is not paid now to correcting these mistakes. I have also warned about the question of bias or apparent bias and how there is a lot of evidence to support Team UDeCOTT’s allegations in this regard.

So, why has there been no response and why is Team UDeCOTT nowhere around right now? The answer could lie in the JR proceedings coming up early in the New Year. Depending on a number of factors a good lawyer might advise his client in these type of circumstances that it would weaken his case for the JR proceedings if he were to continue to take part in the enquiry. So, the advice would be don’t take any further part. Leave Carl Khan alone. There is no profit in dealing with him, and in fact dealing with him could hurt the (JR) case. Conversely, Uff & Company might be well advised (for reasons which hopefully are obvious) to halt what they are doing and wait on the High Court before proceeding further. Of course, waiting might not suit some people even though it would ensure that justice was in fact done! Of course, it could be argued that “justice” Wild West style is still justice… but I don’t think that many fair minded people would buy into that argument!

CALLING TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL: State Capture is Not Only a Danger for Jamaica

The Trinidad Guardian carried an interesting article today (December 4th) coming out of Jamaica concerning a warning from Transparency International (Jamaica, unlike Trinidad and Tobago does not have a local chapter) that Jamaica is in danger of succumbing to what TI calls “State capture”. The report says that the term “is used to describe a situation where powerful individuals, institutions, companies or groups within a country use corruption to influence policies, the legal environment and economy to benefit their own private interests”. The report goes on to highlight the lack of transparency and accountability in the funding of political parties.

Now, everybody who has been reading this blog knows that I have had serious concerns with the Uff Commission of Enquiry into the Construction Sector. And those who have tried to keep a fair and open mind will also recall that I have had serious concerns with Commissioner Sirju’s connections with the Construction Industry and in particular with NH International Caribbean (NHIC), the very large, profitable and powerful construction company.

You see, Professor Uff and his fellow commissioners have appeared to be concentrating only on UDeCOTT and appear to be ignoring completely the very real concerns that reasonable citizens had or ought to have had with the behaviour of the construction industry, which some would say was taking a cartelized character.

Before UDeCOTT came on the scene with its design/build philosophy I cannot think of a single major project carried out by any of the big ‘players’ in the construction industry that came in on time and within budget using the much criticised design/tender process. UDeCOTT does have at least to its credit the waterfront project as coming in on time and within budget. That there are questions (and serious ones at that) to be answered, for example, the Tarouba stadium, by UDeCOTT does not take away from this fundamental point. That being said, the Tarouba stadium was managed as, ...yes, you guessed right a design/tender project.

[You should really read the hyperlinked Wikipedia entries on the two processes, they are very helpful in understanding the pitfalls of design/tender and how a developer can, in the worst case, fall hostage to the construction contractors].

Further, there is the as yet unexplored question by the Uff Commission (at least, if they are exploring it this has not been widely publicised) concerning funding of political parties and politicians. Wasn’t it Emile Elias who admitted that he had “contributed” to Dr. Rowley’s campaign? Or was it Dr. Rowley who made that revelation? Either way, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have had a public admission that Mr. Elias has made political contributions to a politician with whom he has had a close personal relationship and with whose wife (I am referring to the “Landdate affair”) Mr. Elias through his company has had a business relationship.

Now, I would be the first to agree that any person or entity has the right to make any political contributions to anybody they like and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with political giving, whether the recipient is a personal friend or not. But, life is never that simple. The obvious question that arises is how much did he give? A dollar? A hundred dollars? Thousands of dollars? More?

Why does this matter you ask? Because while there is nothing illegal or intrinsically wrong with X making a political contribution to Y’s campaign, nobody would really be concerned where the contribution was small, say, a thousand dollars, whilst serious questions ought to arise if, say, the amount was a million dollars.

In other words, large contributions from wealthy and powerful persons who are in a business that involves bidding for government/public contracts need to be able to withstand the kind of scrutiny that they demand of those who hand out the contracts. What is sauce for the goose!

Let me be clear: there is no innuendo of possible wrong doing by Mr. Elias or NHIC in this post and none is intended. As of today there is absolutely no evidence of this at all. But that does not mean that we cannot ask questions or pay attention. Whether we will ever get answers is, of course, another story.

And we have to be vigilant on this and related issues to ensure that the spectre of ‘state capture’ does not become a Trinbagonian haunt.

GO WEST YOUNG MEN (AND WOMEN)!

On a less politically charged note than you are likely used to by now from my blog, I wanted to share my concerns on an issue that is near and dear to me: Air travel to and from Venezuela.

Let me right away declare my interest in this particular post: my wife is Venezuelan and as a result I have a clear and obvious interest in being able to travel to Caracas easily and inexpensively. That however is nowhere near as simple as the premise of the question would suggest! You see, it costs about TT$3,500 to get from Port of Spain to Caracas and back... a distance, one way, of merely about 500 miles. One can get to New York or Miami for almost half that cost! Why?

The answer is because there is little or no competition on this particular route. Caribbean Airlines can fly their little Dash 8 planes that they use to go to Tobago for this route, charge a pound and a crown, make a huge profit and not bother with the needs of the travelling public between the two countries. Aeropostal used to fly the route, but they ran into financial difficulties which I am not certain that they have survived. If you have the time and the inclination (neither of which I really have), you can fly from Port of Spain to Miami and then down to Caracas, back to Miami and then back to Port of Spain for more or less what you will pay for a direct flight from here to Caracas. Crazy!

And this leads to another point. If you think that there is no real need for more aircraft or bigger aircraft to ply the route you would be wrong. Try and get a ticket to go to Caracas and come back to Trinidad in December or the first two weeks of January. You will be shocked to know that it would be extremely difficult... not impossible, but as difficult as a snowball’s chances of surviving on Maracas Beach on a sunny day!

Clearly there is a great deal of transit between Trinidad and Venezuela. Equally clearly neither of the two governments are paying much attention (at least they don’t appear to be paying attention) to the traffic between the two countries nor do they seem particularly keen on expanding it. And again, the question is why? Or more aptly, why not? Venezuela has (in comparison to ours) a huge population and therefore a large captive market just next door. Why aren’t we looking to the west as much as we look to the north?

I am not here trying to promote Mr. Chavez, nor am I trying to put him down. As far as I am concerned from a Trinidadian perspective it is for the Venezuelans to deal with their own internal politics, just as it is for us Trinbagonians to do the same. Countries don’t have friends, they have interests. And surely it is in our interests to have better and easier access to Venezuela than we have now? Surely it is in our best interests to have more and better trade with our Latin neighbour than we do now? What do you think?

Heavyweight Fight: NIPDEC vs. NHIC

With the Uff Commission about to resume, we are certain to be bombarded next week by further allegations against UDeCOTT some of which may be fair, while others may not be… the real shame however then as now will be that we will not be able to assess any of these allegations properly because of the apparent bias of Professor Uff and Commissioner Sirju about which I have complained before.

(http://robinmontano.blogspot.com/2009/11/uff-has-serious-questions-to-answer.html)

In the mean time, since the Uff CoE last sat, there has been a most interesting development concerning one of the parties of this particular CoE, Northern Hemisphere International (Caribbean) Limited (NHIC), which has received scant publicity in the national media.

I am referring to the National Insurance Property Development Company Limited (NIPDEC) legal victory against NHIC in the High Court on October 21, 2009. In broad terms the High Court confirmed an international arbitrator’s ruling that dismissed a $238 million claim that NHIC had filed against NIPDEC and to make matters worse for NHIC even ordered them to pay NIPDEC $9.1 million related to interest derived from overpayment.

One would think this is big news seeing as this company, which is the “Contractor of the Year 2009” according to the TT Contractors Association (which was co-founded by NHIC’s Chairman), has itself be subject of a CoE (related to the Scarborough hospital), and is one of the main (and loudest) proponents of action to be taken against UDeCOTT along with the JCC (which you might have guessed, was also founded by NHIC’s Chairman).

Anyway, let’s return to the matter at hand. In simple terms what happened was this:

(1) In May 2002 the NIPDEC tenders committee awarded the contract to build the Scarborough General Hospital to NHIC, whose winning bid for the project was for $135,9 million (Vat inclusive). Documents submitted to the court showed that the estimated profit margin at that time was relatively standard 12.5%. Completion of the project was scheduled for March 2005. Work started in March 2003;

(2) Because this was a so called design tender (as opposed to a design/build) bid that meant that one contractor (Stantec, an engineering consulting firm with over 10000 employees in 130 offices worldwide – http://www.stantec.com/) would develop all design and architectural elements of the project, while another (NHIC in this case) would be responsible for the actual construction. NHIC almost immediately began putting in claims for variations in the initial soil investigation and site survey, re-location of the building, re-alignment of the perimeter access road, construction of 2-tier retaining walls and importation of fill material. NHIC further flagged disputes in respect of the suitability of designs and drawings as well as the lack of utilities at the site;

(3) NIPDEC sees the cost for the project exploding over time and starts to ask questions rather than just to continue to sign blank checks for NHIC. At that point NHIC suspends work accusing NIPDEC of breaching the contract by failing to provide it with sufficient funds to do the project works (this is September 2005);

(4) In 2006 NHIC submitted a revised figure of $474.2 million to complete the project. Please note that this revised figure is more than $338 million over the original agreed sum of $135.9 million! This is 3.5 times the original estimate!!! The court documents also show that over the same time the revised cost estimates submitted at the arbitration by NHIC represented a percentage profit increase of more than 300%.

This brings us to a point where NHIC is no longer tenable as a contractor for NIPDEC, is asked to cease and desist and now claims payment for works performed (which of course is the right of a contractor, regardless of how bad the work performance is). That is usually when the lawyers get involved and this case was no different...

To make a long story short an international arbitrator, in November 2008, rejected NHIC’s claim of $283 million in works performed and found that the actual value of the work completed was $133.2 million. NHIC however had already been paid $135.9 million! Subsequently arbitrator further ruled that NHIC had to pay NIPDEC the sum of $9.1 million (exclusive of interest and cost). And finally this brings us to the appeal by NHIC to the High Court, which was dismissed on October 21st.

It has not been reported if NHIC has as yet paid the $9.1 million that it owes to NIPDEC and as such the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

A complete and much more detailed account of the affair can be found in form of Jerry Narace’s statement to Parliament from November 14, 2009, which can be found here:

(http://www.news.gov.tt/index.php?news=2467)

Did you understand all of this before reading this blog? Do you think that this is received the proper attention in the media? Incidentally, did you know the Chairman of NIPDEC is none other than Calder Hart, and that the Chairman of NHIC is, …you guessed it: Emile Elias? And do you believe Uff Commission will deal with this issue? Should they? And where is Transparency International in all of this? I haven’t heard a peep out of them!

THE (IR)RELEVANCE OF THE COMMONWEALTH

Now, with CHOGM upon us, it might be a good time to think about the relevance of the Commonwealth, especially to us here in the Caribbean. After all, the Commonwealth is the successor to the British Commonwealth, which in turn was the successor to the British Empire... that global community owned by Great Britain upon which the sun never set! The Empire existed solely for the benefit of the mother country: England. The wealth of the various colonies was systematically transferred back to England, much to the chagrin of many colonists who for a very long time could do absolutely nothing about it.

When after the Second World War the Empire started to fall apart and important colonies like India began to demand (and receive) their independence, the clever British set up the British Commonwealth essentially as a closed market in which goods from the member States would be traded within the system at preferential rates and tariffs. Later on many of the newborn independent States felt that the term “British” ought to be dropped, but that everything should stay the same as regards trade.

So said, so done, until the end of the twentieth century/beginning of the twenty-first. You see, by this time Great Britain (which now preferred the appellation “United Kingdom”) had joined the European Economic Community, which morphed into the European Community, and eventually ended up as the European Union (or ‘EU’). The boys and girls in the EU’s headquarters together with European politicians from every major country including the UK decided that they needed to have a strong internal free market where goods and services from member countries of the EU could cross borders easily and with a minimum of fuss and trade tariffs. It was essential therefore to restrict access of goods and services to the EU from non-member States.

And this is what has spelled the effective death knell of the Commonwealth; for goods and services from Commonwealth countries no longer enjoy preferential access to British markets and the EU rules and regulations for trading with that community have made it harder and harder for small States, especially those in the Caribbean, to survive. Trinidad & Tobago, with its oil and gas, is probably the best placed of all the islands to withstand the changing gale force economic winds that have been blowing around the world because of the world economic meltdown and the recent EU rules that have forced us to open our markets to very unfair competition from European goods and services (and that is another story).

But the real question for us to ask today is: what benefits exactly do we get from the Commonwealth today (as opposed to what we used to get)? How does being a member of the Commonwealth help the little shopkeeper in San Fernando or Mayaro? Does it really provide a forum for our voices to be heard, or is it just a big “talk shop” where the big countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc., simply get together and let the little boys talk and then they (the big boys) go and do what they like? For example, the big thing internationally right now is climate change. Will the views of the small island States really be taken on board and be represented at Copenhagen next month?

What is all this costing us and what are the bench marks that we ought to be using to see if we are getting value for money? Or, put another way, is membership in the Commonwealth really worth our while? Why? We should be looking at this……but we are not.

Problems of Transparency - Is the pot calling the kettle black?

Trinidad and Tobago Transparency International (TTTI), the local chapter of Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) held a news conference Tuesday to brief the assembled media on the release of TI’s 2009 Corruption Perception Index, which ranked Trinidad and Tobago 79th out of 180 countries.

The setting would have been an appropriate one for TTTI and in particular its Chairman, Victor Hart, to take a good long look in the mirror and explore some of the transparency and bias issues in TTTI’s own backyard.

On Monday the local newspapers were filled with pictures of an ebullient Mr. Hart mingling at the Trinidad and Tobago Contractors Association’s (TTCA) “Contractor of the Year Gala Banquet” with Winston Riley, President of the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) and Mickey Joseph, President of the TTCA. The award that night for contractor of the year going to NH International (Caribbean) Limited.

In and of itself I would deny no one a pleasant evening with friends, but this becomes problematic when one considers that both JCC and NH International are parties, alongside UDeCOTT, to the UFF Commission of Enquiry into the Construction Sector. And while there are no signs of impropriety on its behalf, it can hardly be expected that an industry organization (TTCA), representing an interest group (contractors) against another organization (UDeCOTT) can be impartial or unbiased.

Bottom line, it is entirely inappropriate for Mr. Hart as a representative of TI to attend this event and then proceed to hold a news conference two days later in which he labels the main opposition of his hosts that evening (UDeCOTT) as the primary source of perceived corruption in Trinidad and Tobago. Much less while a CoE is underway, to which all of the above are parties!

These problems are not new to TTTI as an organization. In 2005 the then Chairman of TTTI, Emile A. L. Valere noted in his report of the Sixth Annual General meeting of TTTI, that “we [TI] are still part of the problem, not part of the solution”. Asking rhetorically, “how many of us will “pull a string” when needed?”

He reported that members of the TTTI Board had “vicious fights for power and their own personal differences proved to be problematic.” An incident in which a TTTI Director had made “politically biased” and “agenda motivated” comment against then Minister of Housing Dr. Keith Rowley prompted a public apology to Mr. Rowley and a formal complaint to TI headquarters in Berlin, Germany. Mr. Valere’s damning conclusion was that “during my tenure, I was a witness to broken promises, self promotion and failure of the directors to follow basic protocol.”

Seems TTTI ought to learn some of its own lessons. The full Report can be found at www.transparency.org.tt.

Opposition Unity

An unquestionably desirable goal for all those persons opposed to the PNM and yearning for a change of government, because, let's face it, in the first-past-the post system that we have here in good old T&T there is no way that either of the divided camps of the UNC and the COP will see the corridors of power before snow falls in Trinidad if they don’t unite.

But, unity is a long way off. You hear both sides saying “we will unite if that’s what the people want!” Well, I have news for them: that is EXACTLY what the people want. The truth, though, is that the leadership in both camps are the ones who do not want unity and they are only paying lip service to the concept because they realise that any opposition politician who comes out frankly (and honestly) and says “I don’t want to unite with them!” (whoever “them” might be) will be punished by the electorate which understands full well that the PNM cannot be defeated by a divided opposition. So, the opposition leaders (Panday, Dookeran and their respective followers) speak in code. They say things like “we want unity “from the ground up” when what they really mean is that “I have no problem with unity provided always that I am in charge and the rest of you will follow under my leadership.” Once you understand that you will understand why there can be no unity. Neither Dookeran nor Panday is prepared to step down. And what happened to the people’s interests and what is best for the people? Do they really care? Forget their words; look at their actions. What has either leader done specifically in the last twelve months to convince you that he cares about you?

Perhaps you will understand the point if you look at it another way: a person joins or supports a political party because he/she agrees with its philosophies and policies. (At least, that’s what is supposed to happen when you take the racial agenda out of the mix.) So, what are the philosophies and policies that the UNC and the COP agree on? What are the philosophies and policies that they disagree on? Can’t tell me? Not surprised. I don’t know the answer to that either, and when I asked this question on the radio of a COP deputy political leader he couldn’t say either. Conclusion? It’s all about who will be King Rat, and nothing else.

Don’t you think that we should demand more honesty from all of our politicians? Until we wake up and smell the coffee those who would be our leaders will continue to mouth platitudes and treat us like idiots.

When the Transparent become opaque…

It is clear for all to see that there is a great deal more below the surface in this ongoing UDeCOTT/ Uff Commission of Enquiry (CoE) than has come out in the press. On one side there is UDeCOTT and its embattled chairman Calder Hart, and on the other side is the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) backed by Emile Elias and his company NH International (NH).

Mr. Elias and NH have been locked in various disputes in Court and Arbitration with UDeCOTT, all of which NH has lost. But Mr. Elias appears to have an unlikely ally on his side, the Trinidad Chapter of Transparency International which is currently headed by Mr. Victor Hart, who is the head of a well known firm of Quantity Surveyors, Hart & Leonard. Hart (Victor) has been very critical of Hart (Calder) and UDeCOTT but has been strangely silent in criticizing either NH or Emile Elias. And there is much to be concerned about in that the Commission of Enquiry into the Scarborough General Hospital recommended that NH be investigated for a possible breach of the Larceny Act in removing materials from the Hospital site without the knowledge or permission of the engineer and in breach of its contract with NIPDEC (headed by Hart/Calder).

This, coupled with the fact that Hart (Victor) is on record as trying to defend NH’s unauthorized removal of the materials and his seeming reluctance to question why the police have refused to investigate the matter, led me to write to Transparency International to find out for myself whether that organization holds its own people to the same standards that it seeks to hold everybody else. If it does, well, there should be a serious shake-up in the Trinidad Chapter. If it doesn’t…well, it’s a “work in progress”.



As you can see Transparency International Headquarters in Germany are taking the concerns I raised quite seriously. I’ll will keep you all updated as things develop on the TI front.

Below, you can find my complete submission to TI Headquarters in Berlin, Germany and their response.



My Letter


Ms. Zoe Reiter “Program Coordinator Americas Department Transparency International” letter

Uff has serious questions to answer


“I would like to share with you my recent interview with the Guardian which was published yesterday. In the interview Ken Ali asked me about my thoughts on the ongoing matter of the Commission of Enquiry into the TT Construction Sector, UDeCOTT and media bias. However, you should be aware that the interview was edited. The words in red in the interview were those which Ken Ali deleted. You should also know that I have had many conversations with Mr. Ali in which I have questioned him (and received no satisfactory answers) as to why my views on a host of matters ranging from how the operations of the Trinidad and Tobago Chapter of Transparency International are not in conformity with those of Transparency International to why nobody is questioning why the Police are not investigating NH International for possible larceny as was recommended by the Commission of Enquiry into the Scarborough General Hospital are not being published and why he is not inviting me onto his radio program to inform the public of these matters.”


Montano: Uff has serious questions to answer
Ken Ali





Q:You have a lonely position on Udecott. You are insisting that the State Corporation did not get a fair shake from the Uff Commission of Enquiry. What is the evidence of bias?


A: When the chairman of the Commission, before hearing the evidence from Udecott, says words to the effect, “It seems as if Udecott was operating as a law unto itself...,” there is a strong presumption that he has made up his mind without hearing the other side.

How would you like to be in a matter before a judge who makes that kind of comment about you before you had a chance to put your side of the story?
Why did Uff allow attorneys for the other sideno time limit to make their opening submissions, but seek to put Udecott’s attorneys under manners by” giving them under 45 minutes to make their opening submissions?

Why did Uff get certain written submissions from ex-employees of Udecott and, at first, refuse to show them to Udecott’s lawyers and then agree only on the condition that they do not show itto their client?
How can a lawyer deal with evidence from the other side if he is not allowed to find out from his client what the client has to say about the evidence? There are lots of other examples, but hopefully you get the point.

Was there also media bias?
Why has the media not reported on any of the matters that show bias by the Commission?
Why has the media not reported, or explained with sufficient clarity, as to why Udecott’s lawyers have applied for protection of the court by way of judicial review?
Why has the media refused to publish any stories that might show Udecott in a different light, or, at least, publish those stories that show that Udecott’s prime accusers are not exactly coming up with clean hands?

And I have a lot of examples on this as you well know. If I had more space I would give you chapter and verse but space in this interview is limited. Invite me on to your radio program and I’ll give all the examples……that is, of course, if you really want me to expose the bias of the media on issues ranging from Transparency International to the findings of the Scarborough Hospital Commission of Enquiry and the refusal by the police to investigate same.

Why, then, didn’t Udecott’s high-priced attorneys protest officially during the hearings?
Good question! I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them?

Is all of this a slur against Professor John Uff, a highly-respected international professional?
It is irrelevant to the case I am making as to whether or not Uff has a good reputation. I am dealing with how he conducted this enquiry. And, having reviewed a fair amount of the evidence, I am satisfied that he has some serious questions to answer. I have seen too much to be sanguine about the fairness of this enquiry.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Isn’t this relevant to this matter?
Absolutely! But—and it is a big but—it is also a cornerstone of our judicial system that every person (even the men who murdered my cousin!) is entitled to a fair trial or hearing. One of the bedrock principles of our justice system is that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be hanged.

Surely, you are not saying there was no wrongdoing at Udecott.
I am not in a position to make a determination of guilt or innocence. What I am complaining about is the unfairness of how this enquiry has not only been conducted, but the emotional, speculative and sometimes demagogic way in which it has been conducted in the public discourse.

Critics say Udecott is a rogue elephant. What are your views?
There are very serious questions that need to be answered that have not, to date, been answered satisfactorily. But if the hearings are not fair, then unfortunately, everything gets muddied.

Should Udecott be given State contracts while it is under probe?
I could answer that question either way. Yes, because nobody has been found guilty of anything and the hearings have not been fair. No, because even though the hearings have not been fair, there are very serious questions to answer on the part of Udecott. And here again a fair-minded person would understand why it is important for an enquiry such as this to be conducted absolutely fairly from the beginning.

Should Commissioners Israel Khan and Kenneth Sirju have resigned?
One of the matters the Commission was supposed to probe was the collapse of the scaffolding a few years ago at the Customs building, where a number of workers were injured. Shortly after the incident, Mr Sirju was commissioned by the contractor, NH International, to write an expert report for the benefit of NH. Would you like for me to be sitting in judgement of your actions where I was engaged to give an opinion on a matter in which you are now in dispute with the person who paid me? Do I really have to explain this? As for Israel Khan, his so-called robust questioning was totally inappropriate for a person sitting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.

What are your views on the non-gazetting of the Commission?
Total incompetence on somebody’s part! Whose? I don’t know. But here again, we are seeing the consequences of a biased or incompetent media. If this was, say, the United States, don’t you think the media would have found out and reported who was to blame? So why has this not been done here? And don’t come to with me with the Lucky probe. The media abroad does not wait for the” media” authorities to spoon-feed them with information.

Should the Udecott Board of Directors be removed?
A loaded question! Yes, if they are guilty, and, no, if they are not. But if the Commission has not been fair to Udecott, should we still hang them? Would that be fair?

How do you feel about Michael Annisette serving both as a Udecott Director and an Independent Senator?
From day one, I have been critical of his appointment as an Independent Senator. I simply do not accept that he embodies the principles of what an Independent Senator should be. Further, I do not accept that a person can be an Independent Senator and a member of State Board. From my perspective, it is wrong. I blame President Max Richards for this.

Do you have confidence that the Commission’s report would be made public without being sanitised?
The publication of a defective report can have serious legal consequences.
For example, assuming (although at this stage whether we like it or not, we cannot publicly accept) that the report highlights wrongdoing on the part of some person or persons and the court holds that person or persons has not been treated fairly by the Commission, do you realise the person could escape Scot free? For example, look at the Rowley matter with the Integrity Commission. Do you realise that Dr Rowley’s case was that the Integrity Commission was wrong to refer the criminal accusations that were being made against him to the DPP, without him first being allowed to be heard? The court agreed that Rowley was right. The question of whether he was guilty of anything has never been determined. At least, if it has, it has not been widely reported. In other words, the guilt or innocence of Dr Rowley has never been determined. Is this a good thing?