West: DPP should have used Park Street office

MINISTER of Public Administration Allyson West on Friday said Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard could very well have safely used the building at 13-17 Park Street, Port of Spain, which the Government had spent $30 million to outfit, as she questioned his concerns about security in that area.

She issued a statement in response to a statement on Thursday by Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, who supported Gaspard's decision not to move in, a decision which brought condemnation by the Prime Minister and Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, after $55 million was paid in upgrades and rental.

West said after $30 million was spent outfitting the building, efforts were made to salvage those costs by the actual occupation and use of the building for the intended purpose by the DPP's office, but on a determination this would not occur, the leasing arrangement was ended to avoid further losses.

"It should be noted that several very senior and at-risk office holders occupy and perform their functions out of offices that do not have the level of security on which the DPP was insisting for Park Court," West said.
Special Branch reports are periodically received on such issues which are assessed and appropriate action taken.

"The Government did what it considered to be reasonable in the circumstances," she said, "and maintains the position that the offices could have been occupied and used, and if the DPP felt particularly exposed in an office in the northeast corner, he had the option of occupying a space other than that glass enclosed corner office on the top floor of the building that was most visible to the areas of Port of Spain that he considered to be of greatest concern."

West also queried Maharaj's suggestion that Gaspard had not known the Government had entered into a rental agreement in 2019 for the property.

She said the process of identifying, assessing, negotiation and rental of the premises – Park Court – began in 2014 and spanned two administrations, being handled by the Property and Real Estate Services Division (PRESD), which now falls under her ministry.

West said the PRESD received a memo in September 25, 2014 from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs (AGLA), saying the DPP had indicated an interest in the property for the relocation of the North Office of the DPP.

"Attached to that memo was one of Sept 22, 2014, under the hand of the DPP, Mr Roger Gaspard, advising that 'after due consideration, I am of the view that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions could and should be accommodated at those premises.'

"On the basis of those representations, PRESD commenced its process of assessing and rental of the building. The first offer on record was made to the landlord, Park Court Ltd, by letter dated July 30, 2015 and a draft Cabinet Note of August 13, 2015 was prepared."

She said that process was particularly protracted largely because during negotiations the DPP's team and/or AGLA officials raised issues largely related to the state of the building, such as damaged ceiling tiles, evidence of leaks and air-conditioning vents.

"Certain security issues, predominantly related to secure access and isolation of the other occupier of the building, were raised in 2016 and by letter dated August 15, 2016."
West said the landlord undertook to address these issues by indicating that both elevators, the lobby and a separate entrance would be allocated for the DPP's exclusive use, with the RBC area on the ground floor to be separated from the lobby.

The landlord was prepared to accept the cost of these alterations, she added.

The requisite works were effected and the PRESD on October 3, 2018, sought AGLA's non-objection to the rental, which it gave on October, 29, 2018, without qualification. "In the normal course of things, the agency which is to occupy the building to be rented is generally engaged in the non-objection process."

West addressed Maharaj's concern that the Government entered into a rental without first getting the Special Branch assessment.

"Securing a Special Branch report in respect of the proposed rental of a building is not a normal part of the PRESD rental process. No such report was commissioned by PRESD, nor the need for such a report raised with PRESD."

West said when the Cabinet Note was submitted to and approved by Cabinet, no such report had been commissioned by anyone.

"The evidence before us indicates that said report had not been commissioned until July 2020 and the reports were not provided until August, 2020 and October, 2021."

West addressed the assertion that if the Government had the Special Branch report, it could have insisted in the rental contract that it be allowed to carry out all alterations to comply with Special Branch concerns.

"The said report was not commissioned until July 2020, following a site visit to the building by DPP Gaspard and members of the TTPS.

"As such, there was no report in existence nor, it would appear, contemplated on which the Government could have based its negotiations with the landlord in relation to the lease that was approved on November 29, 2018."

West commented on why the Government paid electricity bills and rent since 2019 and before the DPP had taken up occupancy.

She said before occupation, the building had to be outfitted to house the DPP's office and it was not usual for landlords to hand over their buildings before the start of the lease period and the payment of rent, although the PRESD has had recent success in securing moratoria on rental payments before outfitting.

"Notwithstanding that, one could not expect any landlord to agree to the more than three-year moratorium that would have been required to accommodate the delays in

occupation of this particular building."

West commented on Maharaj's concern that NIDCO proposed to shore up the building’s vulnerabilities yet “shockingly" had not seen the Special Branch Report.

She said NIDCO was engaged by MAGLA in 2019 to outfit the building for the DPP.

"It was constrained by, and acted in accordance with, the scope of works received from its client, which did not at the time include any requirements to address security issues.

"Subsequent to receipt of the Special Branch reports by the DPP in 2020 and 2021, NIDCO was asked to expand its scope to advise on available bullet-proofing options and to install one of those options, which it did. Neither NIDCO nor PRESD was privy to said report."