Pre-action letter sent to Integrity Commission – WHY NO ACTION AGAINST PM?

AN ALLEGED admission by the Integrity Commission that the Prime Minister “omitted” to disclose his purchase of a townhouse in Tobago in 2019 is now the subject of a legal challenge by the Opposition.

On August 3, UNC activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj served a pre-action protocol letter on the commission over its decision not to take action against Dr Rowley.

Maharaj contends the commission acted unlawfully by ending its investigation into a complaint brought to it against the PM.

On Friday, the commission’s acting registrar acknowledged receipt of Balgobin Maharaj's pre-action letter and said this was engaging its attention. “A response will be provided in due course.”

Maharaj’s pre-action letter included correspondence sent to San Juan/Barataria MP Saddam Hosein, who in December 2021 lodged a complaint to the commission over the Prime Minister’s purchase of a townhouse in the Inez Gate development, Shirvan Road, Tobago.

On June 29, the commission wrote to Hosein. It admitted that “(after) an examination of the complaint and the commission’s assessment of the matter, it was determined that there may have been breaches of the Integrity in Public Life Act."

However, the commission said having investigated these potential breaches, and while the Prime Minister did “omit” to disclose the purchase, “there was no criminal offence and accompanying sanction within the statutory boundaries of the act, regarding such an omission and therefore, no action can be taken by the commission pursuant to section 34(7) of the IPLA in this regard.”

That section directs the commission to make a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions if it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence was committed.

The commission said the act required that a false declaration is “knowingly” made and based on the evidence, it was of the view that Rowley did not “knowingly provide false information” in his declaration.

The commission also said its investigation did not reveal that a “discount” on the townhouse was connected, directly or indirectly, with the performance of the prime minister. It also said that discount was not contrary to the act.

“Accordingly, the commission has decided to terminate the investigation into the complaint,” the commission said, adding it had the power to do so when satisfied there are insufficient grounds for continuing an investigation.

ANSWERS DEMANDED

Maharaj, however, wants answers from the commission.

Attorney Vishaal Siewsarran of Freedom House chambers, led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, said Maharaj has instructed that he wants to see a statement of reasons “explaining why the commission decided not to take any further action in this matter against Dr Rowley in light of its findings."

Siewsarran also said Maharaj has instructed to challenge the commission's decision to terminate the investigation and “ascertain whether there was any corruption in the purchase of two townhouses at a substantial undervalue from a friend and financier of the PNM, who received substantial multi-million-dollar contracts...in both central government and via the Tobago House of Assembly.”

The letter named other purported buyers of townhouses in the Inez Gate development.

Siewsarran said the commission having “categorically ruled” that “Dr Rowley did omit to disclose the purchase,” it was a “serious finding of a breach of the act.”

“Given the importance of the Statement as the only document that is available for public inspection, the breach is particularly egregious and alarming.

“It is therefore incomprehensible and mind-boggling that the commission indicated that it is prepared to let Dr Rowley off the hook by conveniently concluding ‘there is no criminal offence and accompanying sanction within the statutory boundaries of the IPLA regarding such an omission and therefore, no action can be taken by the commission.”

He said given the policy, scheme and structure of the act, there was a clear violation of section 21.

He continued, “The upshot of the commission’s position in this matter is that the Honourable Prime Minister can breach his obligation to make full and frank disclosure in his Statement, and there is no...penalty or sanction for this...action.

“Given the curious position adopted by the commission in this matter, it begs the question, ‘What is the deterrent that would militate against public officials hiding assets from the public by simply leaving it out from their annual Statement?’

“Why should any public official bother to make full and frank disclosure if there is no consequential criminal penalty or sanction?”

Siewsarran contended it was clear the commission had misinterpreted the law.

He also said it was the duty of the commission to examine and record information efficiently, as an unregulated system would be a recipe for chaos.

Siewsarran accused the commission of abdicating its statutory duty, incompetence and dereliction of duty. He further said this was “troubling and alarming.”

Contending that the decision was unreasonable and irrational, the attorney said the commission should have investigated thoroughly.

“We seek clarification and confirmation that this issue was in fact investigated by the commission. If it did not do so, we hereby demand that an immediate investigation be launched.”

Maharaj also wants to know why the matter was not referred to the DPP.

The pre-action letter pointed to instances in which the commission took action in the past for similar breaches against UNC-affiliated people, including former prime minister Basdeo Panday and former energy minister Finbar Gangar.

The commission has until August 17 to respond or failing this, Balgobin Maharaj said he will file an application for judicial review in the High Court.

In this application, and among other things, Maharaj will seek a declaration that the commission’s decision to terminate the investigation is unreasonable and irrational, and that the matter should be remitted for its reconsideration.

Newsday sent a WhatsApp message to Dr Rowley on Sunday asking for his comment on the matter and the pre-action protocol letter, but up to press time, he had not responded.

WHAT THE PM SAID

In 2021, Dr Rowley said that contrary to what was being alleged by the UNC, he did declare the purchase of the $1.2 million townhouse to the Integrity Commission.

At a UNC Monday Night Forum, MP Saddam Hosein – who lodged an official complaint with the Integrity Commission over the purchase – said checks showed Rowley did not declare the townhouse.

However, the PM subsequently presented to the media his 2019 declaration to the commission, which showed that the property was disclosed on February 22, 2019.

He further questioned how Hosein could claim to have access to his declaration forms at the Commission when Form A — which includes assets, income and all other details — is supposed to be a confidential document.

At a PNM meeting in Tunapuna on July 13, the prime minister said the commission no longer had any interest in his purchase of the townhouse. He said he and his wife bought it using their personal savings.

He also told that meeting, “Well, I’m pleased to tell you, after all the wasting of time by the Integrity Commission, Saddam, and the UNC, the Integrity Commission has finally come to their senses and have written to me telling me that they no longer have any interest in the matter.”