Port-of-Spain - Desmond Allum, the President of the Criminal Bar Association, has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Geoffrey A Henderson, calling on him to conduct an investigation into whether former Attorney General John Jeremie attempted to pervert the course of public justice or misbehaved in public office arising out of his reported involvement in the re-purchase of land at Millennium Park owned by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls.
The land transaction was one of the key issues which surrounded complaints against former Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and attempts to impeach him over allegations that he tried to interfere in criminal proceedings against Prof Vijay Naranysingh and former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday.
Allum’s letter, dated July 18 was released to the press last Friday, the same day it was delivered to the DPP.
Also handed to the media was a copy of a similar letter also calling for an investigation from the Association’s Vice-President, Nizam Mohammed, dated April 5, 2007 and addressed to Mr Henderson. Mr Allum claimed that more than one year later there has been no reply to Mohammed’s letter.
Allum wrote to Henderson: “There is already in existence enough material in the form of witness statements taken in relation to the investigations into the criminal as well as the disciplinary proceedings for us to establish that the Chief Magistrate approached the then Attorney General with two allegations, one about the conduct of Chief Justice Sat Sharma and the other in relation to a suspicious land transaction, at the same time the Attorney General was a key witness against Mr Sharma in the Naraynsingh 137 proceedings.”
Mohammed, in his earlier letter to the DPP, noted that there were enough reports concerning the interaction and communication between Jeremie, Andre Monteil, a senior CLICO executive and the PNM Treasurer, Anthony Fifi, a director of Home Construction Limited and the Chief Magistrate, to warrant a full investigation.
Jeremie’s role in the whole affair, involving attempts to impeach the Chief Justice and the attempt by the Chief Magistrate to re-sell the land he had purchased from Home Construction Ltd at Millennium Park, was heightened by information disclosed in the Mustill Tribunal which was held here in September 2007, Allum stated.
Following the last General Elections, Jeremie was not re-appointed Attorney General. Instead, he received a prized posting as this country’s High Commissioner to London and has already taken up his position there with his family. Monteil has since retired from CLICO and did not seek renomination as PNM Treasurer at last weekend’s annual PNM convention.
Allum’s letter details the chain of events that ended with McNicolls signing a complaint against Sharma on May 5, 2006 reportedly the same day he received a cheque for (TT) $390,000 as a deposit towards the purchase of land that McNicolls was trying to sell.
With respect to the alleged actions of the Attorney General, Allum’s letter stated: ... that the Chief Magistrate approached Jeremie with two allegations: one about the conduct of the Chief Justice and the other in relation to a suspicious land transaction. At the time the Attorney General was a key witness against the Chief Justice in the Naraynsingh Section 137 proceedings.
“... that despite being a witness against the Chief Justice, the Attorney General began to conduct a private investigation into these allegations in a manner that was not transparent. Thus, he became an active participant in a process calculated to impeach the Chief Justice;
“... that the Attorney General told the Prime Minister about the Chief Justice’s allegations and advised the DPP and Michael Quamina, the Prime Minister’s attorney, about the allegations. He was advised to take a written statement from the Chief Magistrate but did not at the time do so;
“... that despite being a witness in the Naraynsingh case against the Chief Justice, the Attorney General apparently did not refer the matter to the Police or the DPP;
“... that no attempt was made to meaningfully investigate or act on the Chief Magistrate’s allegations on the Attorney General’s part, even as he assumed control of these serious allegations — including that senior persons at CLICO had tried to influence the 2006 Panday Integrity trial;
“... that on April 28, 2006 the Attorney General called on a friend Mr Andre Monteil of CLICO, telling him, ‘clean up your mess’;
“... that the Attorney General encouraged an HCL official, Mr Fifi, to re-purchase a piece of land at Millennium Park from the Chief Magistrate;
“... that the Attorney General forwarded to the Prime Minister a statement signed by the Chief Magistrate, a complaint implicating the Chief Justice, on May 5, 2006, the exact date that the Chief Magistrate received money for the land he sold to HCL;
“... that on the same day, the Attorney General put pressure on the Chief Justice to resign in order to avoid criminal charges arising out of the Chief Magistrate’s allegations.”
Allum’s letter quoted excerpts from evidence given at the Mustill Tribunal hearings including Lord Mustill’s expression of disappointment that Mr Jeremie chose not to give evidence before the Mustill Tribunal.
Allum concluded his letter by stating that at no other time in our history was there more need for open transparency in the activities of all public servants and public officials
“The matters raised in our correspondence,” Allum told the DPP, “are of serious public importance. The public has a right to know what action, if any, you will take in the matter.”
He added: “You will recall that the Attorney General has stated publicly on several occasions that no one is above the law. This maxim applies to him,” Mohammed noted in his letter to the DPP.
The call for an investigation into Jeremie’s conduct in the Sharma affair comes seven months after the Mustill Tribunal cleared Sharma of allegations of misconduct levied against him by the Chief Magistrate.
During the course of hearings at the Mustill Tribunal in September 2007, Jeremie made one appearance on September 21 before Lord Mustill, Sir Vincent Floissac and Dennis Morrison QC. Despite serious allegations against him, he later failed to show up at the Winsure Building for cross-examination, with Mustill noting that this fact would be taken into consideration in the drawing up of the tribunal’s final report.
Of Jeremie’s role in the whole affair, the report would later conclude that, “there is evidence, the weight of which we are not in a position to assess, that on May 8, 2006, the Attorney General had attempted to use the Chief Magistrate’s first statement as a means of pressuring the Chief Justice to resign.
“The picture presented to this Tribunal almost defies belief... We have heard allegations against the Attorney General, who could have given oral evidence to rebut them, but did not.”
The report also noted that in the wake of McNicolls’ refusal to testify in the collapsed criminal case against Sharma on March 5, 2007, McNicolls’ flawed legal explanation for his actions “seems to have originated with the Attorney General.”
“The concept of the separation of powers seems to have been ignored...The picture is troubling indeed, both for the Tribunal and for the peoples of Trinidad and Tobago.”

By Sandra Chouthi
Special to Indo-Caribbean World
Port-of-Spain - Local government elections has been postponed for a third time. The government has not disclosed the cost of the Prime Minister’s residence and conference centre. It has also not revealed the worth of briefs given to senior counsel Douglas Mendes, citing the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution. The list of those who have benefited from (Can) $7 million worth of scholarships from the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs remains a secret.
These political non-disclosures are either undermining democracy or using the letter of the law to block scrutiny, critics say. It is also an issue of political mismanagement, others say.
On July 4, House Leader Colm Imbert, announcing debate on the Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Bill 2008, let it slip that local government elections will be postponed.
Local government councillors, elected for a three-year term, were voted into office in 2003.
Independent Senator Professor Ramesh Deosaran said the government’s bid for an extension for the local government election was just one example of political mismanagement.
Speaking in the Senate, Deosaran knocked the government for “tampering” with the life-blood of a democratic nation - the local government election - and fostering “incompetence and inefficiency.”
Calling for local government elections to be held “now” while the reform process was taking place, Deosaran said that Local Government Minister Hazel Manning, wife of Prime Minister Manning, was “new on the job.”
Deosaran noted that Hazel Manning’s predecessor - Labour Minister Rennie Dumas - might have “lapsed on the job” as Manning was now seeking to implement plans that should have been done before.
“The last minister should have done his job more diligently,” Deosaran said.
“Sometimes I feel the Cabinet ministers are out of control. Things are not synchronised, projects are not being delivered on time, and I am certain some ministers would remain embarrassed at having to come time after time to the population to make excuses on a number of very important matters,” he said.
This was the second time in Trinidad and Tobago’s history that councillors and aldermen have been given time beyond the statutory three-year term.
In 2002, Manning extended the life of local government for one year.
A Local Government Ministry spokesman said the government was working towards the October time line for the election.
Princes Town MP Subhas Panday, in charge of the UNC Alliance’s local government election campaign, has said the government was to control all the local government bodies.
“Right now, they have nine of the 14 regional corporations, and they’re extending the time of the election long enough to grab all,” he said.
Panday said the UNC-A was “ready and rearing” to go to the polls if the local government election was called.
“We have people on the ground working in all the regional corporations, and have already put machinery in place for the election.”
Regarding the release of how much money senior counsel Mendes has earned from 24 State briefs, Attorney General Brigid Annisette-George cited an individual’s constitutional right to privacy.
Speaking in the Senate on June 3, UNC Senator Wade Mark accused the government of perpetrating a “cover-up.”
Mark asked if the government was instituting a new practice of refusing to disclose public monies paid to attorneys acting for the State.
Annisette-George was asked to provide the Senate with a detailed list of matters which Mendes had been retained by the government and other agencies.
The question also required a detailed breakdown of the fees paid to Mendes for the same period.
Among the briefs Mendes was granted were: advice on the suspension of UNC MP Chandresh Sharma; the State vs Yasin Abu Bakr, leader of the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen who attempted a coup against the State in July 1990; Chief Justice versus Prime Minister; the request for extradition of Steve Ferguson.
On the other aspect of the question, Annisette-George said: “In the past responses were given to questions posed of a similar nature. However, the government has decided to reverse in this issue and as a consequence the Attorney General has advised that this question raises two very important competing principles of constitutional law.”
Annisette-George added: “On the one hand there is the right of an individual with respect to be private life guaranteed under the constitution and on the other hand, the duty of a minister to account to the Parliament for the exercise of his/her power or duties. The rights of individuals to the respect for their private life will include the protection from disclosure to the public of their remuneration without consent.”
She said the Parliament has exhibited its recognition of that right with the Freedom of Information Act.
Although this permits access to information, Annisette-George noted, it has also obstructed disclosure of the private and business affairs of people.
The private affairs of persons include information related to the financial transactions in which that person is involved he said.
“The right to individuals to respect to their private life must be counterbalanced with the public interest duty to account to Parliament and that balance will shift in favour of one or the other depending on the circumstances under which the information is requested,” Annisette-George said.
“In circumstances where there is an allegation of wrongdoing or a suspicion of the omission of an offence, the public interest duty to account will assume greater significance over the individual’s right to respect for their private life and therefore justify an encroachment on that right.”
Annisette-George added: “In the circumstances and dealing with the question posed, there is no manifest justification for encroachment on the constitutional right of the individual to respect for his private life.”
Mark took issue with her reply. He asked if there was an attempt to “cover-up” monies given to attorneys for State work.
“Is the AG saying that there will be no future disclosure to the public of such monies paid?” Mark asked.
He said he was ashamed of Annisette-George. “You should resign,” Mark told Annisette-George four times during the session.
“You’re a failure. I’m embarrassed. We’ll have to report you to the Commonwealth,” Mark added.
In a similar vein, Marlene McDonald, the Culture Minister, also citing the Freedom of Information Act, as she blocked a Parliamentary question that had been deferred for 18 weeks over just who had received scholarships, how much they got, which institutions they went on to study at, or for what purpose was the award given.
In responding to Senator Wade Mark’s question, McDonald outlined how the scholarship programme in her ministry came about. She said “a spate” of requests had been made from non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations to have the youths of communities exposed to training and development in both “traditional and non-traditional” areas.
As a result, a technical team was established in the ministry which recommended the establishment of a scholarship programme “not tied to or restricted by the traditional criteria.” The programme, she said, would be a catalyst in the various communities for improving and developing our communities as viable and sustainable units for family and family life.
While acknowledging ministers had a duty to Parliament to account, the minister argued that disclosure of who was getting scholarship funds would be contrary to the public interest.
She cited Section 30 of the FOI Act, which provides that, “a (requested) document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve unreasonable disclosure of personal information of any individual...”
She further argued that “personal information” was defined by Section 4 of the Act as including, “information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal, or employment history of the individual or information relating to the financial transactions in which the individual has been involved.”
The minister further argued that the entire process of the awarding of assistance for financial studies was “a transaction of a financial nature” in which the individual is involved “by virtue of his receipt of ...financial assistance.”
On the subject of disclosure, government has yet to disclose the final cost of prime minister’s residence and diplomatic centre.
The government, through then acting Finance Minister Mariano Browne, last month requested a two week period from the Senate to provide answers to the Senate.
The question, from UNC senator Mark, also sought details on the payment of VAT, income and corporation taxes and all other taxes by the Shanghai Construction Group during the period of construction.
The question to the government had already been deferred for 13 weeks - since early March.
The cost of the State facility, done by the SCG, was put at (TT) $148 million when it was handed over last year.
Browne, unable to give the final total cost of the facility, said, “Additional information has come to light which requires reformulation.”
The Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago confirmed that while the original contract for the facility was completed on time and within the $148 million (VAT exclusive) budget, “subsequent to this, there have been additional facilities which have been added to the original contract.”
Udecott said these facilities were an administration building, a garage, “in addition to other elements, including security related features.”
Browne had declined to state to the Senate the costs incurred by the additional features.
Browne’s communication officer Dominic Hinds explained Browne said he could not answer because a question on the matter was on the Senate’s order paper.
And despite a promised statement, Udecott has not responded on the cost of the additional facilities, whether they were done by the SCG, which built the residence, or if the additions would increase the final cost of the facility to more than $148 million.
Government sources have confirmed that the additions will result in an increased bottom line, due to added costs such as VAT, customs duties, furniture and furnishings, as well as the additional facilities under construction. They said these costs were not part of the construction budget.