TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
rfari wrote:Meanwhile, UNC bloggers be racist and UNC financiers get control of the usd market and washing money thru it. No wonder cbtt hadda be keep releasing USD.
zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:Meanwhile, UNC bloggers be racist and UNC financiers get control of the usd market and washing money thru it. No wonder cbtt hadda be keep releasing USD.
So notting for creole?
Central Bank introduces new system of forex allocation
Published:
Sunday, April 6, 2014
The Central Bank on Tuesday implemented radical changes in the way that foreign currency is sold to the local financial system...but the news was announced in RBC Caribbean’s regional economic report. In what may be the most significant change in the allocation of foreign exchange since the “dirty” flotation of the TT dollar in April 1993, some 90 per cent of the injection of US dollars from the Central Bank will now be auctioned among 12 licensed foreign exchange dealers. Under the previous system, according to RBC Caribbean, roughly half would have been auctioned among commercial banks. The Central Bank introduced the system of competitive auctioning among authorised foreign exchange dealers in May 2012, which allowed commercial banks and other official dealers of foreign exchange to make bids for US dollars and other foreign currencies for the first time.
For close to two years, the auction system operated alongside the established system of foreign exchange allocation, which has been in place largely since the flotation of the TT dollar.
According to the RBC economic report, there will now be no limit on the amount that can be allocated to any one bidder for those auctioned funds, while previously, those funds would have been allocated among commercial banks according to their market share. As before, the maximum price that one can bid, would be the current sell price. The remaining 10 per cent of the injection will be allocated equally among the 12 dealers at a price determined by the Central Bank, as opposed to the former allocation among commercial banks based on their market share. The Tier 1 system, where the US dollar supply from three large energy companies was previously allocated to commercial banks according to market share, will now function differently. The “originating” institution (the one to which the US dollars are sold by the energy company) will keep 25 per cent of these funds and the remaining 75 per cent will now be shared equally among the remaining 11 dealers.
The Central Bank has also announced that it will not support the Tier 2 arrangement going forward, where US dollars from several other energy companies and exporters would have been allocated among commercial banks, according to market share. In an interview with the Business Guardian in November 2012, Alister Noel, the Central Bank’s senior manager of operations, said under the previous system, the Central Bank intervened in the foreign exchange market by making a pre-determined allocation among the authorised dealers, which include commercial banks and cambios. The pre-determined allocation was based on, among other things, the market capitalisation of the institution and its share of the foreign exchange market. Between May 2012 and Tuesday, the Central Bank operated a two-pronged system: pre-determined allocation and competitive auction. Asked whether the auction system would contribute to a depreciation in the US/TT exchange rate, Noel said: “Not at this time. It would not be because of the auction system because we would have kept certain things constant. What the auction system has done is compress the spreads on the banking side. “The changes in the selling price would not be because of the auction.”
UML wrote:
Where are the US dollars going?
Natalie Briggs
Published:
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Since the flotation of the Trinidad and Tobago dollar in 1993, the story of the country’s currency and its relationship with its American counterpart has been the stuff of headlines, much public frustration and comment on the occasions when it has been difficult to obtain and, at times, subject to some cross talk between key players such as the Central Bank, the business community, financial experts and academics.
The Central Bank’s April 1 move to make the 90 per cent of the auctionable amount of US currency available to all 12 authorised dealers has drawn pleas from Central Bank Governor Jwala Rambarran to give the system a chance to work and that it will bring greater equity to the distribution of US currency.
The system was subsquently amended to allow the large banks 50 per cent of auctionable US funds, with these being able to access the majority at 40 per cent versus their non-financial competitors.
Prior to both these changes, only 50 per cent of US currency was allocated to commercial banks and then, the proportion was determined by a formula based on the size of their respective markets.
Allowing all the authorized dealers to have access to as much as 90 per cent of the auctionable amount of US currency injected into the banking system by the Central Bank had drawn public criticism from at least one former Central Bank deputy governor, Dr Terrence Farrell and an opposition senator, Dr. Lester Henry.
Both Farrell and Henry had argued that April 1 system would have cause additional difficulty for the public to get foreign exchange The issue has become so contentious that last Thursday Governor Rambarran, took a defamation case against Henry to the courts for comments made on a radio talk show.
Meanwhile, the public's reaction to the whole issue of foreign exchange has been confined largely to annoyance at not being able to access US dollars on demand at certain points during the year, usually at peak seasons, such as Christmas and the July/August holiday period when there is much travel to the US.
Following a pattern that has been established over decades, when US currency becomes hard to obtain, there is outcry that generally subsides when the situation is normalised, usually by the Central Bank making selling US dollars to the authorized dealers.
But beyond their need for the commodity, few members of general public understand how this mechanism has worked to bring them US dollars, why there are periodic shortages, why the shortages may be appearing to get worse and the economic rational behind the measures taken by the Central Bank.
How the foreign exchange system works
Foreign exchange, like commodities, is traded in an international market place. According to Investopedia, the foreign exchange market, or forex, is the world’s “largest and most liquid” accounting for over US$3 trillion in daily trades.
The market is made up of what are termed hard currencies and soft currencies. The US dollar, along with the pound sterling, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc are called hard currencies because their value versus others hardly ever changes. The Trinidad and Tobago dollar is a soft currency, one whose value is subject to the market forces.
It is important that a currency’s value remain relatively constant over time, as it has the potential to affect a country's internal interest rates and its ability to compete effectively in export markets for example. Often, governments of countries with soft currencies take steps to defend it against currency speculators interested in making quick profits. Speculation is a real problem as the global currency exchange is largely unregulated.
On the issue, Investopedia says: “Despite the 20 per cent increase in daily forex volumes between 2007 and 2010, commercial transactions by corporations and governments actually declined by 10 per cent over this period. Commercial transactions accounted for only 13 per cent of daily total forex volume in 2010, the lowest share since 2001.”
Commercial transactions of foreign exchange are those undertaken to import goods. Currency transactions, however, are those driven purely for profit motives and according to the investment site, they are on the increase. The site said that the growth in global currency trading has largely been fuelled by the increase of speculative transactions, which in 2010, according to Investopedia estimates, had to have made up 87 per cent of daily forex volume.
Speculators trade by going “long” or “short” on currencies. When they go long, they buy large amounts of a currency in the hopes that its value will appreciate in value, earning them profits relative to the price that they paid when they initially bought it. Going short meanwhile, entails selling a currency, if the speculator believes it is about to lose value.
One can see how the activity can destabilise economies if not properly regulated, as this kind of trade has the potential to cause wild fluctuations in the value of a currency, which in turn affects interest rates at which credit can be accessed for example. To illustrate, if interest rates were to go up, this would make the cost of running businesses increase, which in turn could have other negative spin-off effects, including unemployment as business owners attempt to cut costs.
One of the steps successive governments have taken to defend TT dollar, is not to subject it entirely to market forces. Although the dollar was floated in 1993, it was what is termed a “dirty” or managed float, in that the Central Bank intervenes on occasion to keep the TT dollar at a particular value.
The move has its advantages as it makes buying US dollars relatively easy as the number of TT dollars exchanged to get them is within the reach of most persons locally. As of Friday October 31, the exchange rate was $6.34 TT to $1 US.
However, in the interview and research process for this story, views were expressed that the managed float itself was one of the factors that sometimes lead to shortages of US dollars in Trinidad and Tobago because its value is being artificially set by the Central Bank and not being cleared by the market. The result is that US dollars were being hoarded, thus, a 'shortage'.
However, given the difference in opinions, the question arises of whether there is in fact, a shortage of US dollars. For its part, the Central Bank maintains that there is not, as the country has enough foreign exchange to cover one year of imports (Economic Bulletin August 2014) and that the public's inability to get US dollars is due to normal operations of supply and demand.
Market characteristics
Supply for US currency in Trinidad and Tobago is often termed 'lumpy'. Historically, the majority of this country's US dollar earnings have come from the energy sector. In the CB's Monetary Policy Report August 2014, energy companies contribute over 70 per cent of the foreign exchange earnings of this country (see graph Purchases of Foreign Exchange).
Why the supply is termed lumpy is that it is inconsistent. Energy companies make their tax payments per quarter – at the end of March, June, September and December. Demand for foreign exchange in this country, on the other hand, is ongoing and most likely to peak at different times to when the energy company's payments are made, like the July/August vacation and Christmas seasons mentioned before.
To make up the shortfall, the Central Bank often intervenes, injecting hundreds of millions of US dollars into the banking system.
As of the end of October, injections by the Central Bank have amounted to some US $1.12129 billion and it projects that the final number might be around $1.39 billion, with a further infusion of US $100 million between now and the end of the year (see graph US injections). The Central bank supplied around 23 per cent of the demand for US dollars or US $630 million, while the other 77 per cent was provided by the energy sector, manufacuring and the services industry.
The new system of US currency allocation has been criticised by former deputy governor Farrell, who has said in an interview with the Business Guardian in June that the new system does not represent an improvement over the old one.
At the time of the interview, the Central Bank had placed US $200 million into the system and Farrell had said this was necessary to “satisfy outstanding demand [and] pull the selling price back to $6.41 [to] restore confidence.”
The currency had depreciated to $6.44 from $6.34 for a time after the introduction of the new system and Farrell had asked “why the Central Bank would seek to introduce a system which disrupts a market which has to be managed with tact and sound judgement, which if disrupted, could precipitate economic collapse.”
Farrell had also questioned the move to allow non-financial institutions so much access to US currency when they did not have the “strong 'know your customer' and anti-money laundering procedures” of the larger commercial banks. According to the former deputy governor, another question of where the foreign exchange is going arises.
We the public
The CB provided some answers in the Economic Bulletin of August 2014. Of the injections so far, purchases were made by the following:
• 30.9 per cent or US $1.038 billion was used by the retail and distribution sector;
• 22.4 per cent or US $752.9 million by credit card centres;
• 14.1 per cent or US $ 474 million by manufacturing and
• 8.1 per cent or US $275 million went to automotive dealers.
• Over-the-counter purchases by individual members of the general public amounted to purchases worth 2 per cent or US$67 million.
Despite the amounts, there are still problems. An informal check by Sunday BG with customers in lines at banks last week revealed that some customers were still not able to purchase as much US dollars as they would like. In its release of February 28, 2014 the Central Bank said that it would conduct a “special sale” of US $50 million and that these funds were being released to facilitate “trade related demand, especially for small and medium enterprises.”
In the week gone as well, at least one head of a business grouping has come out in a daily newspaper saying businesses are still having trouble accessing as much foreign exchange as is needed. This raises the issue of whether changes to the allocation system are as equitable as the governor Rambarran has said.
Are certain sectors privileged in their access to foreign exchange at the expense of others ? Is there really a “shortage” of US currency as the above examples would suggest, or are other factors causing leakages of US dollars before they reach these various publics ? Is capital flight a factor ? These are issues that the Sunday BG is hoping to explore in the coming weeks.
rfari wrote:Wha constituency she running for?
And dey say pnm doh like Indian and women in dey party. Dais national unity
rfari wrote:Wha constituency she running for?
And dey say pnm doh like Indian and women in dey party. Dais national unity
zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:Wha constituency she running for?
And dey say pnm doh like Indian and women in dey party. Dais national unity
Rfari I tell ollur be careful with smiling injuns in PNM.
UML wrote:hustla_ambition101 wrote:rfari wrote:Marcia braveboy throwing she career away for a laptop, cellphone and 6k yes. Waaayyss
Grenadians can be bought for cheap
the PNM will know this well...they have 50 years experience getting them to vote for the pnm
btw
the PNM will do anything to get in power.
HADEED ON THE ATTACK
Tourism Minister Gerald Hadeed
Tourism Minister Gerald Hadeed yesterday attacked the Express, stating its staff were bought for a few People’s National Movement (PNM) pennies. With no evidence to support his claim, Hadeed made the statement in a post yesterday morning on social networking site Facebook during a discussion which ridiculed Express journalists and Sunday Express columnist Sunity Maharaj. The thread, which was started by talk-show host Marcia Braveboy, sought to debunk an Express expose which involved Braveboy and other Facebook users attacking journalists. Supporters of the Government and their posts were also highlighted in the expose. Hadeed, in his post, wrote, “Keep the faith Marcia you have more credibility than all of them at the express they were all bought for a few pnm pennies.” The statement followed publication of a story headlined, “When bloggers attack”, in yesterday’s Express which exposed the attacks made by several Facebook users who are supporters of the Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar-led Government. Among the tactics used were racial slurs and intrusion into the personal lives of investigative journalists and Maharaj. Hadeed’s public support for Braveboy has come came days after the Government’s Rapid Response Unit director Andy Johnson and Caribbean New Media Group (CNMG) CEO Ken Ali distanced themselves from the views expressed by Braveboy in her relentless attacks against the Express. A former communications minister, Hadeed entered the conversation following previous posts, which lambasted the Express and its journalists. Braveboy then responded, “Thank you Gerald S Hadeed (insert smiley face) I do appreciate the support.” Braveboy has been attacking Sunday Express columnist Sunity Maharaj and investigative journalists in the last few months. Her attacks, which were made on her Facebook page, also questioned personal details of Maharaj’s relationship with her deceased husband, economist Lloyd Best. Johnson, who once headed Government Information Services Ltd (GISL), last week said he doesn’t think there’s a social media policy in place for either a contract or freelancer, and that the Government does not support any attacks on members of the media. “In the case of Braveboy, I think you should draw it to the attention of the CEO at CNMG. What I can say with certainty is that the attacks aren’t sanctioned by the Government,” Johnson said. Braveboy’s apparent obsession with attacking Maharaj had caused Wired 868 online journalist Lasana Liburd to issue a post in Maharaj’s defence, which led to Braveboy mounting a counter-attack on Liburd and Maharaj. The Express yesterday contacted Communications Minister Vasant Bharath, who denied the Persad-Bissessar-led administration pays social media users to attack journalists and citizens who are critical of the Government. “We are making a mountain out of a molehill and people get excited and emotional and say things they aren’t suppose to say... It’s really silly season,” he said. Asked whether he is privy to any information as stated by Hadeed that “all of them at the express they were all bought for a few pnm pennies”, Bharath said no. “You are going to have to speak with Mr Hadeed. I know nothing about that. Maybe Mr Hadeed has information on that to which I’m not privy,” he said. Countless efforts to contact Hadeed yesterday were unsuccessful. Grenada-born Braveboy is employed at State-owned CNMG. She is a talk-show host at 91.1 FM and has been in T&T for the past ten years, having been employed under the Caricom Single Market and Economy. During an interview with the Express last Saturday on allegations that she is being paid to attack Maharaj and Express investigative journalists, Braveboy declined to answer the question, saying instead, “I am a journalist and not a blogger. I have been writing about journalists six years now. The answer cannot be yes or no. I work for Talk City, I work for Caribbean News Now.” Asked about her libelous posts regarding journalists and Maharaj, Braveboy maintained she never posted anything regarding Maharaj and her deceased husband. Told the post is dated February 19 this year, Braveboy said, “Someone else posted that.” Hadeed: ‘Express’is PNM’s mouthpiece Speaking on CNMG last night, Gerald Hadeed, via telephone, said, “The Express has been against the Government of T&T since its inception. And as far as I know, they totally have been fabricating stories and is the PNM that’s paying bloggers to say what they have to say and do what they have to do. “The Express is a mouthpiece of the People’s National Movement. They (Express) are the mouthpiece of the PNM, what do you expect them (Express) to do? Criticise the PNM? Don’t you read the Express? Don’t you see the television? I mean for everybody to see they are so biased . Anything that is decent in journalism, nobody don’t pay attention to them anymore.” Following the interview, he posted on the UNC Facebook page: “It is time to put the brakes on the Express newspapers they must not try to muzzle free speech your comments to support the Government of your choice will never be published in their newspapers you have the Internet to do so without being fettered.” When he was not yet a minister, Hadeed had himself criticised the Government. On June 8, 2014, the Sunday Express published an article titled “Ishmael shocked Hadeed made a minister”. In the article, businessman and broadcaster Inshan Ishmael confirmed he had taped and released a recording with Hadeed making damning statements about United National Congress ministers. At the time the recording was made, Hadeed was chairman of the Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago. The recording had focused on claims made by Hadeed that the Government was not attempting to address corruption. Hadeed was also critical of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s inability to extricate herself from “ah setta rats she have around her”. In 2013, Hadeed was appointed communications minister and in early 2014 he was appointed Tourism Minister.
London paper trail leads ... Role of Karl Hudson-Phillips ..
by The Money Board
05/14/06 04:23:47
London paper trail leads ... Role of Karl Hudson-Phillips in payment for Bob Lindquist services
www.trinidadexpress.com - by Camini Marajh cmarajh@trinidadexpress.com - May 14, 2006
The April 14, 2002 exclusive Sunday Express report showing Oma Panday, the then Prime Minister's wife, leaving an upscale Campden Hill Court, London, apartment and entering a chauffeur-driven, silver Mercedes Benz.
It started in 2001 as a sensational story of a high public official on the take. No names were called in the Lower House that late September day but the series of still photographs of an elegantly coiffed, expensively dressed Oma Panday, the then Prime Minister's wife, leaving an upscale Campden Hill Court, London, apartment and entering a chauffeur-driven, silver Mercedes Benz told its own story.
The then Prime Minister, Basdeo Panday was livid. The Opposition gleeful. And Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, formerly the erstwhile Panday deputy, then Attorney General and the man said to be the architect of the London leaks, made the appropriate noises of public concern on the ownership issue of the London flat. "If a public official in this country owned such an apartment, it would be of concern to the Attorney General", he told reporters then.
Two weeks ago, the Sunday Express published an exclusive report, detailing Maharaj's role in initiating a covert probe into the Pandays' financial affairs in London. In between threatening to sue this newspaper for libel, Maharaj has denied any involvement in the Panday investigation which has landed his former leader a two year jail term and substantial fines.
But his public denials all carry the same footnote: if the Sunday Express report was true, there would be a paper trail at the Attorney General's office. Maharaj, who is adept at deflecting questions, has however, failed to respond to what is now a matter of public record. Complaints by his successor now Opposition Leader of the UNC, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, that the office she assumed command of in the aftermath of his October 1, 2001 ouster from government contained no corruption files.
Documents obtained by this newspaper, including the report of the secretly commissioned probe, however, show a May 2001 timeline, which places Maharaj firmly in the Attorney General's chair notwithstanding his protestations that it was the newly appointed PNM Attorney General Glenda Morean, who hired forensic investigators to go after Panday.
Reached in London last week, Morean, this country's High Commissioner to London, said she received a copy of the private investigator's report into the Panday's financial affairs when she was appointed Attorney General nearing the end of 2001. "I continued what had been started, " she said, declining further comment.
And while Maharaj is right that he is not overtly named in the damaging report submitted under cover of confidentiality by the London firm of probers, Active Investigation Services, the reference number and year is noted at the bottom of the report: 5648070.2001.
More proof that the report was commissioned when Maharaj sat in the Attorney General's chair is the date of the official stamp of a Companies House (London) record where private investigators conducted a search of the annual return of Campden Hill Management Co Ltd for the period up to November 2000. The search document which provides a detailed listing of the owners of the flats of the affluent Campden Hill Court, forms part of the exhibits of the covertly requisitioned report and carry a May 2001 date.
Perhaps more telling in the Maharaj anti-corruption saga is the role of Karl Hudson-Phillips, QC, as the point man for billing services for forensic investigators, private detectives and consultants hired to undertake covert investigations into Maharaj-targeted corruption probes. Hudson-Phillips was quietly put on the State payroll around September 2000 as Special Counsel to another Maharaj creation, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which then reported to Maharaj.
It is now public knowledge that Maharaj secretly commissioned several corruption probes without the knowledge and or consent of the then Prime Minister and the Cabinet of which he was a senior member. The former Attorney General initiated the Bob Lindquist corruption probe in October 2000, scant weeks before an increasingly fractured UNC contested the December 2000 poll.
Lindquist, a high-priced forensic investigator, was first used by the George Chambers administration in the Tesoro scandal and later by the ANR Robinson government in the infamous John O'Halloran affair. In the Maharaj sequel of Lindquist-sourced services, the initial government payments were made under the guise of legal fees.
The Attorney General's office, in a circuitous method of payments to Lindquist, routed funds under an archaic phrase "ufs" (under flying seal) to Hudson-Phillips, ostensibly through a series of invoices. Maharaj, however, would defend this roundabout method of payment of investigators fees in a February 2002 response to questions from this reporter.
"As Attorney General, I had a duty to act in the public interest. Mr Hudson-Phillips, QC, was instrumental in hiring Lindquist and in advising on his appointment. I considered that the expense of Mr Lindquist were properly incurred as part of the expenses of the Special Counsel, Mr Hudson-Phillips," he said, adding that it was not at all "unusual for solicitors and attorneys-at-law to bill for all expenses incurred in a particular matter...the hiring of advocate attorneys, special investigators and things of that nature."
Maharaj, who said his efforts to obtain money for the retention of forensic experts were blocked by the Panday administration admitted then to taking "a risk" by appropriating Ministry funds allocated for consultancy services to pay Lindquist.
He dismissed suggestions that the inclusion of fees to Lindquist in the payment of legal fees to Hudson-Phillips amounted to a misrepresentation. "The bills from Mr Lindquist were directed to be sent to the Attorney General ufs. Mr Hudson-Phillips. This means that the billing came through and was paid through Mr Hudson-Phillips," said Maharaj, noting that "Hudson-Phillips rendered an account to the Ministry for all receipts and disbursements by him."
He contended that: "All payments were made in accordance with the established government procedures and were properly accounted for by Mr Hudson-Phillips." His former Permanent Secretary, Christine Sookram, in an affidavit filed in the airport corruption case, reported Maharaj retaining the services of Hudson-Phillips "in or around September 2000" as legal adviser to the police Anti-Corruption unit.
Maharaj has given a clear impression that the Attorney General's office picked up all of the corruption probe bills. But Superintendent Maurice Piggott and former head of the Anti Corruption police unit, in an April 2002 affidavit filed in the airport trial, was equally firm that: "The Airport probe was funded by the Ministry of National Security."
It was not something known to the then Minister of National Security, Joseph Theodore, who knew little of the operations of the Anti-Corruption police unit or the Lindquist probes. Reached for comment, Theodore said he met "briefly" with Hudson-Phillips and Lindquist sometime around September 2000 when the two men were first retained by Maharaj.
He said he regarded the meeting as nothing more than a courtesy call. "I was very much on the periphery. My knowledge of these events came through the media," he said, adding that he knew of only one investigation, the airport. And that, according to the former National Security Minister and Defence Force Brigadier was "engineered solely by the Attorney General's office. That was his (Maharaj) baby."
Hudson-Phillips, a close ally of Maharaj, played a pivotal role in all of the covert investigations undertaken by the Office of the Attorney General. The then Attorney General, in his new-found role of public crusader against official corruption, had identified three lines of enquiry: the $1.4 billion Piarco Airport Development Project, the InnCogen deal and the Desalination plant.
According to him, Panday was never on his radar. But the confidential correspondence file on the Panday's suggest otherwise. Hudson-Phillips, in a piece of private correspondence to the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Mark Mohammed, referred to a fourth line of enquiry: "Premises situate at Campden Hill, London".
Panday is not identified by name in the Hudson-Phillips correspondence, but pointed reference is made to the "pattern of conduct" of certain public officials and their spouses in relation to the reporting requirements of the Integrity legislation. The secretly-commissioned report itself, in the introduction noted that: "We were instructed to investigate and determine ownership of 12A Campden Hill Court. If unable to find a direct link to the property's owner, we were asked to recommend what assistance the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago may seek from the British Government by way of its mutual legal assistance relationship".
Kim Jane Curtis-Wayne, the English banker, who gave testimony on the Panday's London bank accounts, under cross-examination by Panday's lead attorney Alan Newman, QC, spoke of a formal request being made for records of the Panday's private accounts from the bank's computer generated system.
Asked who made the request, the fraud liaison officer at Nat West Bank, London answered: "From System Team via the Trinidad authorities. They made the request." System Team is the UK's Home Office and the Trinidad authorities she referred to is the Central Authority in the Attorney General's office,
The Ministry of the Attorney General, in its 2004 report, is clear that "The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago is the Central Authority through which all requests for mutual legal assistance from Trinidad and Tobago to foreign countries must be transmitted."
As of January 2011, Mr. Ferguson was under criminal indictment in the United States in connection with the Piarco International Airport scandal. He is challenging his extradition from Trinidad and Tobago. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago also pursued a civil action against Mr. Ferguson and others in Florida state courts, and won judgments of restitution against Mr. Ferguson's co-defendants in the Florida criminal case. According to secondary sources, Trinidad and Tobago, in 2003, established a Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport case; the Commission was headed by former Chief Justice Clinton Bernard, but a final report of its findings was not published. Criminal charges were filed in Trinidad and Tobago against ten individuals. According to Trinidad and Tobago's civil complaint, the defendants [consisting of a long list of CVs, real properties, bank accounts, Jose Amezaga, Ronald Birk, Maria Dubois, Rene Diaz de Villegas, Steve Ferguson, Raul Guttierrez, Eduardo Hillman-Waller, Brian Kuei Tung, Leonardo Mora, Steven Birk, and Carlos Aguera] engaged in a series of "wrongful acts [] in Florida, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas, Liechtenstein [] as part of a complex, international scheme to unlawfully obtain the award of lucrative consulting and construction contacts for the Piarco International Airport (Piarco Airport) at hyper-inflated prices, through [] bid-rigging, bribes to corrupt officials, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The complaint alleged that "on several occasions in the early 1990s, some of the defendants in this case, including Ferguson, Birk, Hillman-Waller, BHC, Guttierrez, and Calmaquip, together with others, attempted unsuccessfully to obtain contracts for the construction of the Piarco Airport [In 1995, Kuei Tung and Ferguson were appointed to positions with the government]. In []1996, Ferguson, Gutierrez, Birk, and Hillman-Waller, now fully politically enabled, once again set out to mastermind a scheme whereby they could finally guarantee obtaining the Piarco Airport construction project contracts with the assistance of [] Kuei Tung [], and others. Ferguson, Gutierrez, Birk, and Hillman-Waller were the controlling minds of the criminal conspiracy. Key to the success of [the] plan was to recruit and to influence through bribes, kickbacks, and various other gifts, insiders, public servants, and government officials in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (RTT). The common and shared purpose of the [defendants] was to manipulate the ward of consulting, construction, and maintenance contracts by the RTT with respect to the construction of the Piarco Airport in order thereby to create inflated construction contract prices and excessive payments to themselves and others to cover up that fraud by various means, including creating false documents and destroying documents. The initial and perhaps most important act was when co-conspirators, who were government officials helped to rig the bidding process so that Birk, Hillman Consultants would be selected as project manager and agent of the project. From there on out, various contracts and subcontracts were awarded to a complex maze of corporate vehicles.
QC on appeal over Ish and Steve’s extradition: AG ignored legal advice
Published:
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan
Businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson would face a speedy trial in local courts if they were not extradited. Attorney General Anand Ramlogan gave this assurance to Queen’s Counsel James Lewis last year. Ramlogan retained Lewis to advise on what course of action, if any, should be taken after the November 11, 2011, ruling of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh against extraditing the two, who are also financiers of the current Government. Lewis' 19-page advice, which has been obtained by the T&T Guardian, was submitted to Ramlogan and dated December 17. In it, Lewis outlines the chronology of the men's legal woes. The document also listed the numerous errors Lewis considered Boodoosingh had made in deciding the two businessmen should remain in T&T. On page 18, Lewis listed the practical consequences of appealing Boodoosingh's decision, noting the judge’s reasoning contained errors on the issue of the appropriate forum for trying the businessmen and the chances of an appeal succeeding were high.
Notwithstanding this, Lewis said: "On the other hand, I am informed the claimants can be tried in Trinidad and Tobago almost immediately on the same conduct." Sources say one week before Ramlogan publicly announced his December 19, 2011, decision not to challenge Boodoosingh's ruling, the matter was discuseed with Lewis and Alan Newman, QC. Lewis was reportedly assured the businessmen would receive a speedy trial at the local courts and Lewis tailored his advice based on the instructions given to him. Lewis said in his opinion, Boodoosingh fell into error "and there are good chances of a successful appeal against his declarations." The Queen’s Counsel also noted the correct relief would have been ”to remit the matter back to the AG for re-decision, having allowed the claimants the opportunity to respond to the representations of the United States of America and the DPP," rather than simply quashing Ramlogan’s October 9, 2010, decision to have the businessmen extradited. Lewis added: “From a just point of view these claimants must be tried as soon as possible. Pragmatically that means they should be tried in Trinidad and Tobago and the further inevitable delays consequent or continuing the extradition proceedings make, in my view, an appeal untenable. “However, in the final analysis, it is a matter for the AG who has complete discretion whether to appeal or not in this matter.”
Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted in the US to face a series of fraud-related charges. Throughout their court appearances the men contended the alleged offences occurred in T&T and as such ought to face trial locally. They are before Magistrate Ejenny Espinet in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates Court, facing a plethora of charges arising from the Piarco Airport Development project. These charges are expected to be dismissed under the recently-proclaimed Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011. On numerous occasions, Ramlogan assured the country and US officials the men would face trial in T&T. Ramlogan, in responding to a release by the US Embassy on December 20, 2011, said in a statement: "Of paramount importance is the question of where... the defendants are likely to be brought to justice in the quickest and shortest possible time. "Not appealing means that the way is cleared for courts in Trinidad and Tobago to commence the trial of the defendants without further delay. “It does not mean that the defendants will walk free without facing trial—a possible prospect if the State appealed. “The Attorney General has every confidence in the ability of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to competently and fairly try these defendants and deliver justice according to law.” His statement added: "Like the United States of America, the state of Trinidad and Tobago has also incurred great expense in this matter in which close to $100,000,000 has been expended in time and money. “The defendants have exercised all their pre-trial legal options and the road is therefore now clear for the criminal justice system to get into high gear and commence their trial.” The US Embassy in its release had expressed disappointment over Ramlogan's decision not to appeal Boodoosingh’s ruling.
Extradition lawyer: Passing strange
ATTORNEY-at-law David West has said he finds it "passing strange" that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has decided not to appeal the decision of a High Court judge which blocked the extradition of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to the United States.
As former director of the Central Authority Unit, which handled extradition requests under the Office of the Attorney General, West was one of the attorneys retained under former attorney general John Jeremie to represent the State when Ferguson and Galbarasingh challenged the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Extradition Act.
West's services, along with those of other lawyers, were not retained when Ramlogan assumed office in May last year.
Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted in Florida where they were indicted on fraud charges relating to financial transactions during the construction of the Piarco International Airport.
Locally, they are charged with bid-rigging and conspiracy to defraud the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Those offences are said to have been committed between March 1, 1997 an December 21, 2000.
The US government made a formal extradition request in July 2006 while Jeremie was still attorney general. Jeremie signed the Authority to Proceed (ATP) on July 20, 2006, thereby starting the extradition proceedings.
Several legal challenges by Galbaransingh and Ferguson were dismissed and were followed by Ramlogan signing the extradition warrants on October 9 last year. The duo took the matter to the Court of Appeal which granted leave for judicial review, resulting in the decision of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh on November 7, who ruled that Trinidad and Tobago is the proper forum for them to be tried.
Ramlogan, on December 19, announced that he decided to leave Boodoosingh's ruling unchallenged after seeking the advice of British extradition expert James Lewis Q.C.
"It is passing strange that the State loses one application before a single High Court judge in a complex and highly politically charged case and deems it not fit to appeal," West said.
He said there is a clear divergence of views among the judiciary when it comes to the question of where an accused person should be tried when he has pending charges in different jurisdictions.
"This is why an appeal is necessary to clarify this 'grey' area in the law. It must be remembered that Leon Nurse, Ricardo De Four, etc. who were accused of killing (Balram) "Balo" Maharaj, have already been extradited and sentenced in the US whilst they had a murder charge existing (locally).
"Another co-conspirator, Doreen Alexander, is now awaiting extradition to the US. Two other accused persons, Hassan Atwell and Gary Govindass are also in this same predicament by having a local charge existing whilst extradition proceedings are ongoing."
West also criticised the reasoning of Ramlogan that the criminal conduct for which Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted occurred in Trinidad and therefore Trinidad had the greater interest in seeing the matter prosecuted in Trinidad.
"If the Attorney General is going to be consistent, then Doreen Alexander, Hassan Atwell and Gary Govindass cannot be extradited because, by parity of reasoning, the criminal conduct alleged in all three cases took place in Trinidad.
"The Attorney General must know that a precedent has already been set whereby the Court of Appeal has already allowed the extradition to the US of Leon Nurse, Ricardo De Four et al, and Ronald Rackal et al, for offences where the criminal conduct took place in Trinidad."
West said he also found it strange that Ramlogan only sought Lewis's advice after Boodoosingh had ruled on the matter.
Piarco airport cases to be dropped
Denyse Renne
Published:
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Piarco International Airport
The biggest fraud cases in this country’s history—which saw billions of dollars in taxpayers money allegedly being pumped into the pockets of the United National Congress (UNC) financiers—are expected to be dismissed later this week. The Piarco Airport Development Project scandal has been ongoing for more than ten years and involves several individuals affiliated with the present Government. Two weeks ago, The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 was proclaimed by President George Maxwell Richards in a move to end preliminary enquiries in the local courts.
Certain parts of the act will come into effect on January 1, 2013. The President’s proclamation was gazetted on August 30. With the act in effect, the Preliminary Enquiry Act has been replaced and nullifies the need for a preliminary enquiry to be held in relation to matters filed indictably.
However, the act bears a controversial clause—Section 34(2), which states: “On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted, except (a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced.”
It is this clause which will see the accused people in the Piarco Airport project having their matters dismissed. Contacted on the matter, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, said he preferred not to comment, since the matter is before the courts. Several people have been charged in relation to the matter. Among those charged with fraudulent activities arising out of the construction of the airport are two ex-ministers from the UNC administration.
The accused—former finance minister Brian Kuei-Tung; former Works minister Sadiq Baksh; former chairmen of the Airports Authority Tyrone Gopee and Ameer Edoo; former client representative in the Ministry of Works at the airport project Peter Cateau; financial director Amrith Maharaj; Steve Ferguson, former Maritime Financial Group executively; and Ishwar Galbaransingh, chairman of Northern Construction Ltd; are involved in the Piarco II case.
The men are accused of conspiring between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2001, to obtain contracts and payments totaling $1.6 billion during the construction of the new airport. Another case, labelled Piarco I, is also expected to be discontinued. Those involved in this matter are Kuei Tung; Russell Huggins; Maritime executives John Smith; Ferguson and Barbara Gomes; Galbaransingh and Maharaj; and businesswoman Renee Pierre.
They are accused of conspiring to convert more than $19 million under false pretences from the Airports Authority. Also facing charges are Panday and his wife Oma who were charged with corruptly receiving $250,000 from Galbaransingh and former Minister Carlos John on December 30, 1998, in exchange for allegedly giving Northern Construction, a contract for the Piarco Airport Development Project. Millions spent Millions of dollars have been spent on legal fees and also consultancy fees by the then PNM government to investigate and represent the State in these matters.
A Commission of Enquiry was established into the circumstances surrounding the construction of the Piarco project. Following which the Commissions findings were sent to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. In fact, financial investigative expert Bob Lindquist was retained to conduct a thorough investigation in the matter and several of his findings formed part of the evidence presented to the courts. The Linquist Report found the Airport project was a fraud on the public of T&T and an abuse of public funds.
According to the Lindquist report, the Piarco project began with six contractors and expanded to 13. Linquist investigations discovered instances of fraud—price fixing and bid-rigging, duplication of payment contracts, false invoices, conflict of interest and a host of other irregularities.
Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel were also retained by the State to prosecute the matters. Apart from which, numerous applications were filed in the High Court, when decisions made by presiding Magistrate Ejenny Espinet at the Port of Spain Magistrates' Court were not favourable to the accused. Extradition proceedings and the Piarco Inquiry Ironically though, two of the people involved in the Piarco cases— businessmen Galbaransingh and Ferguson based their extradition submissions as having cases pending in the local courts, and as a result ought not be extradited to the United States.
Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted in the US on a series of charges arising out of the construction of the Piarco project. Galbaransingh faced 13 charges, among them wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money and engaging in unlawful transactions. Ferguson faced a total of 82 charges, which included wire fraud and conspiracy to launder money. The offences are alleged to have occurred in the US, T&T, The Bahamas and elsewhere between September 1,1996 and December 31, 2005.
On November 6, last year, High Court judge Ronnie Boodoosingh ruled that the businessmen should not be extradited to the United States. Boodoosingh, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, delivered a 57-page ruling saying that any move to have Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradited would be “unjust, oppressive and unlawful.” In his ruling, Boodoosingh said the lengthy proceedings against the businessmen have generated much public interest and comment.
The High Court judge said T&T was the correct forum to try the businessmen and quashed the October 9, 2010, decision of Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to sign the order of extradition for both men. Submissions provided by the businessmen through their attorneys contended that this country is the appropriate forum to try them, since the investigation started here in 2000.
AG sues Rowley for defamation
By Jada Loutoo Saturday, July 21 2012
click on pic to zoom in
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley...
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley...
ATTORNEY GENERAL Anand Ramlogan has filed a defamation claim against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley for statements he made at a media conference relating to the court’s ruling on proceedings involving the extradition of former UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, last year.
In the claim, filed by attorneys Christlyn Moore and Gerald Ramdeen in the Port-of-Spain High Court, Ramlogan is contending that Rowley’s responses to questions posed to him on the court proceedings were defamatory.
According to the claim, the words spoken by the Opposition Leader on November 8, 2011, were directed at Ramlogan in his capacity as Attorney General (AG) and alleged that he had manipulated the judicial process as it related to the extradition proceedings of the two men.
It is also being contended that Rowley’s statements, read in their natural and ordinary meaning, further alleged that the AG intentionally helped to bring about a desired result in the extradition proceedings and that he had made improper promises to Ferguson and Galbaransingh, orchestrated the eventual outcome in the court and in some way “colluded and/or conspired” with the judge.
It is claimed in the defamation lawsuit against Rowley, that the words published “gravely injured” Ramlogan’s personal and professional reputation and his position as AG has been brought into disrepute.
“The public has exposed the claimant to public scandal, ridicule and contempt and has caused his name and office to be bought into odium and disrepute and has further caused him embarrassment and distress,” the statement of case reads.
Ramlogan, in support of his asking the court for aggravated and exemplary damages, contended that Rowley’s comments were in direct relation to the judge’s decision to quash the extradition orders for Galbaransingh and Ferguson and made no attempt to verify the facts before commenting on the court’s ruling.
“The defendant well knew that by reason of his position as Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and leader of the People’s National Movement, any words uttered by him at a press conference, and in particular any words of criticism of the Government or the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago would be widely reported in the national media and over the internet. The defendant well knew that by speaking and publishing the words complained of, and in particular in the context in which they were uttered, that the words were defamatory and damaging to the claimant.”
“The defendant falsely and maliciously uttered the defamatory words without a shred of evidence to substantiate his allegations,” the lawsuit contended, adding that the allegations made by Rowley were done with the intent of injuring and damaging Ramlogan’s character and reputation.
“He was reckless and ignored the facts as recorded and set out in the judgement of Justice (Ronnie) Boodoosingh which clearly demonstrated that the claimant had acted quite properly,” the claim noted.
According to Ramlogan’s lawsuit, the Opposition Leader’s criticisms implicated the judicial arm of the State in a political conspiracy and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and bring the judiciary into disrepute.
The defamation claim also contends that as a result of the negative impression created by Rowley’s defamatory statements, and in order to protect the integrity of his office, the AG was forced to write to the Chief Justice expressing his concern and any possible damaging effect it could have on the relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
Attempts to reach Rowley yesterday proved futile as calls to his mobile went unanswered.
In his ruling, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh quashed Ramlogan’s decision to order Galbaransingh and Ferguson’s extradition, saying that it was “unjust and oppressive.” “The decision of the Attorney General to order the extradition of the claimants (Galbaransingh and Ferguson) to the United States of America is quashed. It is declared that the appropriate forum to try the claimants in relation to the award of contracts for the construction of the Piarco Airport is Trinidad and Tobago. “It is declared that it would be unjust, oppressive and unlawful to order the extradition of the claimants and that (the) extradition is debarred by the operation of section 16(3) of the Extradition Act,” Boodoosingh said.
Israel Khan, SC, also appears on behalf of the AG in the defamation lawsuit.
AG DUCKS
Attorney General: Anand Ramlogan
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has refused to confirm or deny an allegation that six days before attorney David West was appointed director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), he asked him to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation lawsuit relating to the failed extradition involving Section 34 applicants Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected for the job. The defamation lawsuit stemmed from statements Ramlogan claimed Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley made during a news conference on November 8, 2011, relating to Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh’s ruling in which he quashed the Attorney General’s decision to order the extradition of Ferguson and Galbaransingh arising out of the Piarco International Airport enquiry. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has not responded to a text message sent to her by the Sunday Express on Friday for comment on the matter. A high-ranking Government official, however, told the Sunday Express that upon receiving the text message, Persad-Bissessar expressed “alarm” over the matter and demanded answers. West is the former head of the Central Authority Unit (CAU) that falls under the purview of the office of the Attorney General. Ramlogan has not directly answered if it is true he telephoned West and requested his witness statement be withdrawn. He has neither confirmed nor denied contacting West. And, in an e-mailed response to the Sunday Express at 7.49 p.m. on Friday, Ramlogan wrote: “As you have indicated, Mr West is a witness in a case I have brought against Dr Rowley which is pending before the High Court. “It would not be proper for me to comment in the circumstances. Suffice it to say, the director of the PCA is selected and appointed by the President in his wisdom and not the Attorney General.” The following question was sent to Ramlogan by the Sunday Express: Investigations revealed that on October 31, 2014, you telephoned attorney David West asking him to withdraw his witness statement in relation to extradition matter involving Steve Ferguson and Ish Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected as director of the PCA. Is this true? If so, why was this done? But while the questions remain unanswered, Sunday Express investigations have revealed that the AG telephoned West after midday on October 31, 2014. This call to West was the second call that was registered on his cellphone from Ramlogan on that same day (October 31). Ramlogan had telephoned West earlier on the morning of October 31, informing him he was tipped to head the PCA following the resignation of then director attorney Gillian Lucky, who accepted a judgeship in September last year. However, at the time the second telephone call was made, the Office of the President had already contacted West on the same day (October 31) scheduling a meeting with him on November 3 regarding his appointment as PCA head. Section 6 (1) of the PCA Act states the authority is to comprise a director and deputy director to be appointed by the President of T&T on the advice of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Sunday Express learned both Persad-Bissessar and Rowley had agreed West was the best candidate to head the PCA, and as a result his name was submitted to the President for him to be selected for the post. West seeks legal advice Immediately following the telephone conversation with Ramlogan, West sought legal advice about the request for the witness statement in the defamation matter to be withdrawn, the Sunday Express learned. West, who was appointed director of the PCA on November 7, however, filed his witness statement at the Hall of Justice on December 19, 2014, a copy of which has been obtained by the Sunday Express. West’s phone logs show the Attorney General attempted to contact him twice on December 16—three days before the witness statement was filed. The calls went unanswered. At the time, West was in Tobago and again sought legal advice. Contacted on January 22 for comment on the information obtained by the Sunday Express, West said: “The matter is before the court and I cannot comment.” The West witness statement In his witness statement, West details a June 2010 incident surrounding the arrest of Ferguson and Galbaransingh. An excerpt from West’s witness statement reads: “The application for special leave was dismissed by the Privy Council on June 7, 2010, on the ground that they (Ferguson and Galbaransingh) did not have a right of appeal. “As was customary, I advised Inspector Williams, who was the complainant in the extradition matter, to arrest Ferguson and Galbaransingh since their bail had now ceased. “The Government had by then changed, with the claimant being appointed Attorney General in May 2010. I advised the Attorney General of my instruction to Inspector Williams. The Attorney General asked me how I could issue that instruction without telling him; he advised me that only he could make the request to the police. “He then instructed me to rescind my instruction, which I did. As a result, Ferguson and Galbaransingh were not immediately arrested; this occurred on June 15, 2010, approximately one week after the said decision of the Privy Council.” West also recalled an instance where attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon who was retained to lead him (West) for the Attorney General in the extradition matter did not object to bail being granted to Ferguson and Galbaransingh. “To my surprise, at the hearing Ramkissoon again took the novel and different position of neutrality on the issue of bail; he informed the judge (Justice Malcolm Holdip) that we were there to assist the court with the principles of bail. “I informed Ramkissoon that it was standard practice of the CAU to object to bail; consequent to the discussion which occurred between Ramkissoon and myself, I understood that he was acting on instructions from the Attorney General. “The judge, however, refused bail. After the hearing the Attorney General had a conversation with me and instructed me not to get involved in the Piarco extradition matter again,” West wrote. West, however, said notwithstanding the instruction, he continued to pay attention and follow the progress of the Piarco extradition matter. His statement continued: “On or around October 8, 2010, some two and half months after the Privy Council refused special leave to appeal on the habeas corpus application, the Attorney General issued the warrant for the return of Ferguson and Galbaransingh to the United States. “I also observed, from my reading the daily newspapers around that time that the Attorney General also issued a press release. “I was surprised at the timing of the press release given that from my said experience with the CAU, the invariable practice has been to issue any such press release after the extradition was completed, not before, that is to say after the fugitive had been removed from the jurisdiction of T&T.” On Ramlogan’s decision not to appeal Justice Boodoosingh’s ruling, West wrote: “From my reading of the judge’s decision, I observed that at paragraph 135 of his judgment, the judge stated that the Attorney General had not advanced any evidence to suggest that there existed a settled practice of discontinuing local charges if the fugitive is extradited. “I am able to say from my said experience of working in the CAU that the DPP has in the past agreed in extradition matters to the discontinuation of local charges so that the extradition could proceed and that evidence of that practice exists among the records of the unit.” Why Ramlogan didn’t appeal Boodoosingh’s ruling Ramlogan had come under fire from several quarters for his decision not to appeal the ruling. But he gave reasons for his decision in his 55-page witness statement that has also been obtained by the Sunday Express. An excerpt from his statement reads: “When the judgment was delivered, I sought and obtained legal advice as to whether I should appeal the decision of the court. “Based on the advice which I received I did not do so. “However, my decision in not doing so was not only predicated or guided by the advice which I received. I took into consideration a number of matters and spoke to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on the issue of having Ferguson and Galbaransingh tried in T&T and how soon this could be done.” He further added: “In fact, I recall meeting with the DPP on two occasions relative to this matter. The first was when I received the representations made by Ferguson and Galbaransingh. “I also met with him on a second occasion before I decided whether or not to surrender Galbaransingh and Ferguson. I wanted to determine the exact status of the proceedings in the preliminary enquiry. “After discussions with the DPP, I formed the distinct impression that the outstanding preliminary enquiry was extremely near in completion.” Ramlogan said in deciding whether to appeal the ruling, he considered his (Boodoosingh’s) judicial declaration the forum for the trial of Ferguson and Galbaransingh was T&T. The Attorney General said judicial statements made by Court of Appeal Judges Wendell Kangaloo and Allan Mendonca were also given consideration. “I therefore considered that when the indictment of these people is laid by the DPP, there can be a special court (such as the type done for trial of Dole Chadee and others at Chaguaramas in 1996) and that where possible, the Attorney General would assist in facilitating resources for this purpose,” Ramlogan said. Rowley stands firm Meanwhile, Rowley is standing firm by his position that Ramlogan had not sought or advanced the public interest in the conduct of the legal proceedings involving Ferguson and Galbaransingh. In his witness statement, Rowley said his concerns were based on the Attorney General’s legal team representing the interest of the State and his handling and defence of the extradition order. “I therefore considered it my duty and responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to inform the public what the claimant was required to do as Attorney General in dealing with the extradition of Ferguson and Galbaransingh, and that, as Attorney General he was ultimately accountable for the loss which the State suffered in those legal proceedings because of the way that he had handled the extradition matter,” an excerpt from his witness statement read.
David West has reported the AG to the cops
DIRECTOR of the Police Complaints Authority David West on Thursday issued a statement related to the rapidly unfolding events involving the allegations that he was asked by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation lawsuit related to the failed extradition involving Section 34 applicants Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh, in exchange for him getting the job at the PCA. West has disclosed that as a result of claims made in the media and responses given by Ramlogan, he (West) had reported the matter to the police. The following is the full text of West's statement - On Wednesday the 21st of January 2015 I was contacted by Ms Anika Gumbs who indicated to me that a source had confided in her as follows: (i) That prior to my appointment as the Director of the Police Complaints Authority (“the Authority”) on the 7th of November 2014 the Hon. Attorney General had asked me to withdraw a witness statement which I had made on behalf of Dr Keith Rowley in Claim No. CV2012-02948 Anand Ramlogan v. Dr Keith Rowley in return for the Government’s support for my appointment as Director of the Authority; and Ms Gumbs asked me to comment on the allegation. I advised Ms Gumbs that the matter was before the High Court and therefore could not comment. The proceedings referred to above, which are in fact pending before the High Court, are a claim by the Hon. Attorney General against Dr Rowley for damages for defamation. The subject matter of the Hon. Attorney General’s claim relates to statements allegedly made by Dr Rowley in 2011 concerning the case for the extradition of Mr Ishwar Galbaransingh and Mr Steve Ferguson with which I was involved up to 2010 as the former head of the Central Authority of Trinidad and Tobago. I was appointed as Director of the Authority on the 7th of November 2014. In the Sunday Express Newspaper for the 25th of January 2015 an article by Ms Anika Gumbs entitled “AG DUCKS” was published. The article contained the allegations against the Hon. Attorney General on which I was asked by Ms Gumbs to provide comment. As I sought to make clear in a radio interview on the 26th of January 2015, it is matter of public record that my witness statement was first filed in the High Court on the 27th of June 2014 on an application by Dr Rowley for an extension of time for the statement to be filed. Upon the Court of Appeal ultimately granting Dr Rowley the extension on the 19th of December 2014 my witness statement was formally filed on the 19th of December 2014. I hope this makes it patent that I did not withdraw my witness statement or provide any other inducement whatsoever to earn anyone’s support for my appointment as Director of the Authority. The allegations published in the Sunday Express article “AG DUCKS” suggest that the Hon. Attorney General committed serious criminal conduct in relation to his office and the administration of justice in Trinidad and Tobago. Due process demands that any such allegations should be investigated by the proper authorities and not in the media. I can disclose that I was taking steps in that regard prior to the publication of the article to ensure that I provided the appropriate authorities with the best available corroborative evidence for their investigation. Although the Hon. Attorney General initially refused to make any comment on the matter, he is now on the public record denying categorically that he ever requested me to withdraw my witness statement in his claim against Dr Rowley. I am compelled to say publicly, without more, that my recollection of what transpired is diametrically opposed to the Hon. Attorney General’s denial that he ever approached me. Accordingly, I have this morning made a report to the Ag. Commissioner of Police on the matter of the allegations against the Hon. Attorney General reported upon in Ms Gumbs’ article. I trust that the Ag Commissioner will take swift action on my report as he considers appropriate or as he may be advised and that due process will be ensured and the integrity of any investigation will be preserved. David West January 29, 2015
rfari wrote:ZR, I don't think pee-on-emm or the express is the source of ur party's problems unno. Its ish and steve.
Imagine if kamala didn't have that burden? The opposition would have been almost obsolete. UNC would have quite possibly be as popular as 2010. Think about it
zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:ZR, I don't think pee-on-emm or the express is the source of ur party's problems unno. Its ish and steve.
Imagine if kamala didn't have that burden? The opposition would have been almost obsolete. UNC would have quite possibly be as popular as 2010. Think about it
Yeah, but the laws of this land are still intact. Ish and steve weather guilty or not guilty still the have to right to defend themselves as any means lawful.
Ppl complain about this matter bitter hoping for unlawful mob rule and a quick fix.
rfari wrote:zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:ZR, I don't think pee-on-emm or the express is the source of ur party's problems unno. Its ish and steve.
Imagine if kamala didn't have that burden? The opposition would have been almost obsolete. UNC would have quite possibly be as popular as 2010. Think about it
Yeah, but the laws of this land are still intact. Ish and steve weather guilty or not guilty still the have to right to defend themselves as any means lawful.
Ppl complain about this matter bitter hoping for unlawful mob rule and a quick fix.
I think we all understand the timeline and the events. What ppl feel, think or expect is irrelevant. Till the morning...
rfari wrote:ZR, I don't think pee-on-emm or the express is the source of ur party's problems unno. Its ish and steve.
Imagine if kamala didn't have that burden? The opposition would have been almost obsolete. UNC would have quite possibly be as popular as in 2010. Think about it
RASC wrote:rfari wrote:ZR, I don't think pee-on-emm or the express is the source of ur party's problems unno. Its ish and steve.
Imagine if kamala didn't have that burden? The opposition would have been almost obsolete. UNC would have quite possibly be as popular as in 2010. Think about it
Ish and Steve/Section 34 is the forever dark cloud that looms over this set.
They will never be able to shake that. All the opposition needs to do, is continually remind the populace of this blatant stomp on the countries' integrity.
zoom rader wrote:RASC wrote:rfari wrote:ZR, I don't think pee-on-emm or the express is the source of ur party's problems unno. Its ish and steve.
Imagine if kamala didn't have that burden? The opposition would have been almost obsolete. UNC would have quite possibly be as popular as in 2010. Think about it
Ish and Steve/Section 34 is the forever dark cloud that looms over this set.
They will never be able to shake that. All the opposition needs to do, is continually remind the populace of this blatant stomp on the countries' integrity.
Section 34 was PNM inspired where they agreed to it
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 110 guests
