New allegations against Moonilal in EMBD case

THE Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd (EMBD) has filed new allegations against former housing minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, several contractors, and former executives in the multi-million dollar cartel claim lawsuit brought against them by the state-owned company.

At a February 11 status hearing, Justice Frank Seepersad was informed that an amended statement of the case had been filed by the EMBD earlier that same morning, significantly expanding the claims against the defendants.

Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, who represents one of the defendants, was outraged by the latest development, describing it as “incredible.”

He argued that the State had taken ten years to reach a final position on the alleged defects in the roadworks contracts that were central to the case.

“That in itself is an incredible situation … The second issue, which I find equally incredible, is the fact that the focus of the dispute now seems to have shifted to Dr Roodal Moonilal in a very, very oppressive way, with new causes of action, new allegations under the Integrity in Public Life Act.”

Hosein also criticised the timing of the new allegations, suggesting that political motivations might be at play.

While Hosein made it clear he did not represent Moonilal, he said the new case affected his client.

“It seems like a real, crass, oppressive political attempt to get at persons. That is reinforced by the fact that there are large swathes of new allegations concerning Dr Moonilal, who I do not represent...

“This case was filed in 2017. It took them seven and a half years to determine the nature of the defects, and what they have now is radically new allegations in respect of the defects of these roads which my client participated in.”

Hosein requested full disclosure of the State’s engineering reports to allow his clients the opportunity to conduct their own assessments.

Hosein said at the appropriate time, he would ask the court to conclude on the State’s conduct of the case.”

Hosein added, “This is the state. This is the arm of the state. This is a state enterprise acting with great oppressiveness.

“In this case, I don’t know. I may have to get my engineers or seek engineers to commission them to do a study on this issue. It’s very expensive, very expensive to get engineering reports.

And if you think legal fees are high, engineering fees far surpass that.” Justice Seepersad appeared unimpressed with the delays in the case or the requests for a long adjournment.

“It is incredible to me that these claims were filed in 2017 and are still at the first case management conference in 2025. I’m resolute in my view that timelines must be set for the filing of the responses,” he said.

The judge gave all parties until May 6 to file their responses but noted that extensions could be granted if necessary owing to new evidence.

EMBD attorney Jason Mootoo, SC, dismissed Hosein’s claims of oppression, insisting that the amendments were not politically motivated and had been anticipated.

“Respectfully, a lot of what he says bears no relation to the document which was in fact filed. The amendments pertain to defects in Picton and Exchange, which have been part of the claim since its inception. The EMBD is a state enterprise, but it is not dancing to any political tune.”

He insisted there was “no question of oppression.”

The amended lawsuit now alleges that Moonilal acted as a “shadow director” of EMBD, with senior management accustomed to taking instructions from him regarding the award and administration of contracts.

It further alleges that Moonilal and former EMBD executives participated in cartel arrangements that unfairly favoured contractors.

Allegations under the Integrity in Public Life Act, include claims that Moonilal failed to disclose secret payments made to him or his political party.

There are also claims that a contractor facilitated bribes, including a house allocation by the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and allegations that EMBD contractors made substantial payments to individuals and entities linked to Moonilal and his political party.

“Such payments (or the benefits associated with them) constituted secret commissions received by the first defendant in breach of his fiduciary duties (and his duties to the Republic and under the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000).

The amended lawsuit also includes claims for dishonest assistance, bribery, and knowing receipt, as well as demands for the return of funds allegedly received through fraudulent means.

The trial date has not yet been finalised. The case has been stalled with several legal challenges.

The trial was given the green light after the Privy Council, in October 2024, refused permission for some of the accused contractors to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision that upheld the lawsuit against them. The Privy Council ruled that their application did not raise an arguable point of law or a matter of general public importance.

That decision meant that Moonilal and the other defendants had to file their defences if they had not already done so.

The contractors – TN Ramnauth & Company Ltd, Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Ltd, Fides Ltd, and Kall Company Ltd (Kallco) – had argued before the Court of Appeal that the lawsuit should be struck out or, at the very least, the EMBD should provide more specific allegations so they could properly defend themselves.

However, in January 2024, Justices of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton, Peter Rajkumar, and Vasheist Kokaram upheld a 2020 ruling by Justice James Aboud, allowing the case to proceed.
The lawsuit is centred around 12 road rehabilitation and infrastructure contracts awarded to five contractors in the months leading up to the September 2015 general election.

The contractors – including TN Ramnauth & Company Ltd, Kallco, and Mootilal Ramhit & Sons Contracting Lt – had originally taken legal action against EMBD to recover an estimated $200 million in outstanding contract payments. The EMBD countersued, alleging that the contractors conspired with Moonilal and former EMBD executives to corruptly obtain the contracts.

The lawsuit names Moonilal, former EMBD CEO Gary Parmassar, ex-divisional manager Madhoo Balroop, and engineer Andrew Walker, as well as Fides Ltd, and Namalco Construction Services Ltd, as defendants. The case against the others was also amended.

In its original case, the EMBD alleged Moonilal and the other defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct to manipulate the contracting process. The state enterprise claims that the contractors secured lucrative contracts through unlawful means, including conspiracy, knowing receipt, and dishonest assistance.

The defendants, however, have consistently denied any wrongdoing and have argued that the case against them lacks merit and should be dismissed.

The case has been used as a political football. At the hearing on February 11, Hosein referred to recent newspaper articles on the case to reinforce his argument of it being politically motivated.

In June 2023, the Court of Appeal scolded politicians for comments made on the political platform that year with the judges warning that while criticism of the judiciary was acceptable, imputation of improper motive was not acceptable.