New complaint on $M townhouse - Probe 'gift' to PM

UNC activist Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj has renewed his call for the Integrity Commission to reopen its investigation into the Prime Minister’s declaration of the purchase of a townhouse in Tobago.

He made the latest demand on August 17, in response to the commission’s revelations on the valuation of the townhouse.

Balgobin-Maharaj is now taking issue with the value Dr Rowley ascribed to the townhouse in his declaration of income and assets under the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA).

Balgobin-Maharaj’s opinion is set out in a letter by attorney Vishaal Siewsaran, of Freedom Law Chambers, headed by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC. He argues that the commission’s original 18-month investigation was done in a “piecemeal manner,” and was “skewed, biased, and incomplete.”

In calling for a response by August 31, Siewsaran said if the matter goes to court, the attorneys intended to apply for an order to compel the commission to give details of its investigation.

“We believe this is fair and just and in the public interest in light of the irrational and unreasonable conclusion in this investigation.”

How much was townhouse worth?

In his latest salvo, Balgobin-Maharaj, through Siewsaran, accused the commission of “disingenuously” having the Prime Minister in a “proverbial safe house” with sly and clever footwork over the valuation of the townhouse unit.

He said the commission accepted an independent valuation from the Valuations Division of the Board of Inland Revenue.

When Dr Rowley and his wife signed the deed for the purchase price of $1.2 million, he said, they would have been expected to pay stamp duty on that figure, and the attorney who acted for them would have had to present a valuation report to pay the stamp duty.

“It is clear that the BIR became suspicious of this transaction and hence commissioned an independent valuation from the Valuations Division,” which, he said, valued the townhouse at $1.68 million, not $1.2 million.

Siewsaran said the stamp duty would therefore have tripled, from $10,000 for the $1.2 million valuation to $33,500 for the $1.68 million valuation, and the attorney involved would have had to advise his client of this sudden development, as it meant the Rowleys would now have to “fork out an extra $23,000 more for stamp duty.”

He said Dr Rowley, in turn, would have had to give instructions for the registration of the deed and the higher stamp duty.

“It would be foolish, and an insult to the collective intelligence of the commission, for it to bury its head in the sand,” and say the deed was registered without the client’s advice, Siewsaran said. He said it was “elementary” that the attorney who does a conveyance or lease is the agent of the purchaser, not the vendor.

“The commission was duty bound to consider the nature of the legal relationship between an attorney and his client…The attorney has no power in law to act without the client’s instructions because he has to be guided by and act upon those instructions.”

Siewsaran concluded it would have been impossible for the sale to be completed without Dr Rowley’s instructions. He said the attorney would have given him an invoice, so Dr Rowley would have had “actual knowledge” of the independent valuation.

“The alternative reality set up by the commission is incomprehensible and ridiculous to the extreme. The commission is asking the public to believe that the cost of the transaction significantly increased, and someone paid it on Dr Rowley’s behalf but did not tell him.

“Does the commission really expect the public to think that some good Samaritan paid Dr Rowley’s stamp duty for him without his knowledge and consent?

“And if so, who would do that and why? Or is the commission being driven to such ridiculous extremes because its political bias prevents it from confronting the raw and harsh reality that plainly Dr Rowley would have known that the value of his townhouse had been reassessed by the Valuations Division to be $1.68 million, in consequence of which he would have had to pay three times more stamp duty in the sum of $33,500?”

That would mean, he said, that Dr Rowley knew the true value of his property “but knowingly failed to disclose the same in his Form A and hence a strong prima facie case was made out that a criminal offence had been committed under the IPLA, and the matter must be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for immediate action.”

Siewsaran asked if the commission investigated the declaration of the value of the townhouse for the years 2020-2023, and if Dr Rowley consistently declared its worth at $1.2 million.

“The commission must explain how it arrived at the conclusion that four years could have passed without him knowing that the townhouse was worth $1.68 million.

“Surely, he would have received and paid the invoice from his attorney at some time or seen the certified deed with the relevant stamp duty on it.

“We, therefore, demand a fresh investigation into this issue to determine whether Dr Rowley knowingly declared a false value in the subsequent years as well.”

Siewsaran also asked whether the commission interviewed and obtained evidence from the attorney.

‘PM’s impunity absurd if law was breached’

On the Form B non-disclosure, Siewsaran said the opinion of the commission that the breach did not justify sending it to the DPP was “illogical, unreasonable, and arbitrary.”

According to the Integrity in Public Life Act, persons in public life are to furnish declarations of their income, assets and liabilities on Form A while Form B, a public document, is a statement of registrable interests.

In Rowley’s case, the commission admitted that the failure to include a building or townhouse in a Form B submission of a statement of registrable interest was a breach of Section 14(3) of the ILPA.

However, it said it had no power to ask for a tribunal to investigate issues arising out of a Form B statement.

In his defence, Rowley explained that there were two declaration forms – Form A, on which the declarant was required to list property including townhouses and condominiums; and Form B, on which the declarant was required to list “lands” in which he had ownership and not buildings.

The prime minister said he had always declared the property with buildings on Form A and the land he owns on Form B.

He said there was no provision on Form B for him to make such a declaration and over the years, when he filed his declarations, he has never put similar information on Form B.

Siewsaran said the commission had interpreted the law literally, leading to “a manifestly absurd result whereby the Prime Minister could breach the law with impunity by failing to disclose his beneficial interest in properties in his Form B.”

He said this could not have been what the Parliament intended to be the effect of the IPLA, since the public only has access to Form B, which “is therefore of far greater public importance in the fight against corruption than Form A,” which is confidential to the commission.

“The commission’s conclusion that it was possible for Dr Rowley to breach this law by refusing to disclose that he is the owner of a townhouse in Inez Gate to the public via his Form B declaration and that there are no legal consequences for this fundamental breach, is untenable and unacceptable.

“We, therefore, maintain our client’s right to seek judicial review of this decision.”

On the $480,000 discount, Dr Rowley received on the purchase price of the townhouse, Siewsaran said the commission found a way to “exculpate” the Prime Minister when he declared its value at $1.2 million.

Siewsaran questioned the commission's finding of the reduced price the PM got which was not connected directly or indirectly with the performance of the duties of his office.

“This is a troubling and astonishing view of the law that is ridiculous and unsustainable.”

He said the developer of the Inez Gate development was a favoured government contractor who received several million-dollar contracts from the Government and the PNM-controlled THA and who was a well-known financier and supporter of the ruling party.

The commission had not explained, he said, why Dr Rowley would have received “a $480,000 gift or benefit” from such a person.

He insisted the commission should have asked whether the developer would have given Dr Rowley a “fat discount” if he had not been the prime minister.

Commission’s defence

In response to Balgobin-Maharaj’s threat of legal action over the townhouse purchase issue, the commission on August 14 recapped Opposition MP Saddam Hosein’s 2021 complaint and its assessment of it.

It rejected the contention that its actions reeked of political bias and compromised its integrity.

The commission said in its investigation, it noted the $480,000 disparity between the declared value of the townhouse and the valuation by the Valuations Division. The commission said it found there was a need for an investigation, and considered as an additional issue, not raised in Hosein’s complaint, whether Dr Rowley knowingly made a false declaration on the townhouse’s value.

The commission said evidence of the true valuation of the property at $1,680,000 was apparent from the value ascribed to it for assessing stamp duty.

But it said there was no evidence that Dr Rowley either saw the stamp duty assessment and the valuation used, or was made aware of it. It said such valuations would be known to the attorneys responsible for registering the deed.

“In the absence of such evidence, the commission could not find that Dr Rowley in making his Form A declaration had not treated the price which he paid for the townhouse unit as the value of the said unit.”

It said it could not find that Dr Rowley knowingly made a false statement in his declaration, so it could not rescind its decision to terminate its investigations and reopen the complaint.

The commission said it considered whether the apparent discount qualified as a “gift” and should be regarded as one, and/or personal benefit received by Dr Rowley. However, the IPLA did not impose a blanket prohibition on those in public life receiving gifts or personal benefits.

It said the evidence collected did not support the conclusion that the discount had anything to do with Dr Rowley’s performance of his duties as prime minister and it “accordingly had no basis for concluding that there had been any breach.”

As it reiterated that it did not consider the “gift” related to Dr Rowley’s duties as prime minister, the commission said it also did not consider the discount an incident of protocol or social obligations normally accompanying the responsibilities of the Office of the Prime Minister which he would have had to declare.

It maintained its investigation was full and thorough.

Tale of the townhouse

The issue of the Rowleys’ buying the townhouse at Shirvan Road for $1.2 million was first raised in a complaint by Hosein back in 2021, when Dr Rowley said he had already declared that asset to the commission.

In response to Hosein, the commission admitted it had determined the Prime Minister was in breach of the IPLA by not declaring the Shirvan property on Form B, but had terminated its investigation because there was no criminal offence and accompanying sanction within the statutory boundaries of the IPLA regarding his omission.

The commission also said the IPLA requires a false declaration to be “knowingly made.”

It said from the evidence obtained, it believed Dr Rowley “did not knowingly provide false information in his declaration.”

The commission also acknowledged that the Prime Minister received a “gift” in the form of a discount on the price of the townhouse, which was valued at $1,680,000 but that the discount was not connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his duties as PM.

On August 8, the commission doubled down on its decision in two public statements. It also said it has proposed an amendment to the act that failure to disclose information in a statement of registrable interest (Form B) should be an offence under the act.

PM fires back

At a media conference days later, Dr Rowley blamed the commission for the “melee,” insisting he obeyed the integrity laws.

"An Integrity Commission is supposed to have integrity.

"All of this could have been avoided if the Integrity Commission had told the population that I did disclose (the townhouse) in my declaration (Form A) and that Form B does not require a disclosure, and they have made proposals to Cabinet to have buildings disclosed in Form B."

He also blamed the commission for allowing the UNC to make allegations against him and promised to take legal action to the “ends of the earth” against the UNC MPs who have raised the issue, as well as anyone else who accused him of not disclosing his townhouse.

The Prime Minister also made public both Forms A and B.

WhatsApp questions were sent to Dr Rowley relating to the valuation of the townhouse property and the amount he paid on stamp duties. The same questions were also sent to attorney Colvin Blaize who registered the deed for the property.

There was no response from either up to press time.