General > General Discussion
Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Bakes:
The headline is a bit sensationalist... nothing states that the cases are to be dropped. The Act makes it possible, maybe even likely, but not definitive. If anyone has matter pending more than ten years and it hasn't been brought to trial then the accused can petition the court to dismiss it. If the delay has been caused by the accused though, that stays the clock. Pretty routine actually... in the US the statutory period is ONE year. Ten years is slackness.
1-868:
Fair and square
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Fair_and_square-169260366.html
Housing Minister, HDC boss defend $5m contract to Ish's daughter
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Neisha Galbaransingh, director of Riverside Enterprises Ltd, was awarded a $5 million contract for the rehabilitation of a car park at Maloney Gardens through a fair and square competitive bidding process, Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal and Jearlean John, Housing Development Corporation (HDC) managing director, both said yesterday.
Galbaransingh, daughter of former United National Congress (UNC) financier Ishwar Galbaransingh, is listed as one of the directors of Riverside Enterprises Ltd according to documents obtained under the Companies Act.
On Sunday, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley raised concerns over the contract as he read to the audience of the People's National Movement (PNM) San Fernando West constituency conference, the letter of award from HDC to Riverside Enterprises Ltd.
"It wasn't something that went out for tender. Somebody sent a proposal to the HDC and it accepted the proposal for a car park at Maloney Gardens for $5 million," Rowley had said.
However, both John and Moonilal told the Express yesterday in separate telephone interviews that there was in fact a tender process and the lowest bidder was issued a letter of award.
John said proposals ranging from $5 million to $14 million were received and according to HDC rules—the contract must be awarded to the lowest tenderer—which was Riverside Enterprises Ltd.
"We follow the tender rules scrupulously, there is nothing wrong with the competitive process...if someone sent us an unsolicited proposal we would send it back because we do not respond like that, we follow the rules," said John.
John said the HDC's tenders committee had oversight of the process.
Moonilal said that he does not get involved in the day-to-day operations of HDC but he does know that there was a competitive tender process.
"These matters are within the purview of the HDC, it was done by competitive tender, the contractor was the lowest bidder and it was properly authorised by the board," said Moonilal.
Asked about the company's director Neisha Galbaransingh and concerns over her family ties, Moonilal responded "I am not sure of that, I don't know the name of the company...but even if it is, the person is not debarred from work...it is morally and legally wrong that someone be denied work in Trinidad and Tobago because of any relation,".
The Express obtained a copy of the letter of award from the HDC to Riverside Enterprises Ltd.
The letter, dated August 24, stated HDC has accepted the company's proposal for the rehabilitation of a car park at Maloney Gardens.
"You are now required to enter into formal contract with the HDC for the execution of these works. You are to produce evidence that you have properly effected Contractors' All Risk and Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policies together with any other insurances in accordance with your contractual obligations," stated the letter.
The letter stated that all works must be executed in accordance with the proposal as well as the specifications and general terms and conditions outlined in the contract documents.
"You are expected to perform the services with due diligence and excellence," stated the letter, adding that on provision of the requested instrument, no later than ten working days from the date of the award letter, a meeting would be held with HDC's divisional manager estate management who will give further instructions in respect of the award.
According to documents under the Companies Act, Riverside Enterprises Ltd with the address 15 Andrew Lane, Mausica Lands, was incorporated in March this year with two listed directors- Barbara Alexander whose occupation was listed as front office manager and Fidjy Chang who was named as executive assistant.
Another document, from the Registrar General's department, dated July 20, 2012 stated that Neisha Galbaransingh was appointed director of Riverside Enterprises Ltd. Her occupation was listed as university student.
That document states further that Alexander ceased to hold the position of director thereby leaving Chang and Neisha Galbaransingh as the two directors of the company. Calls to Neisha Galbaransingh's phone yesterday were not answered.
zuluwarrior:
Notting this government say or do you can believe or trust them with the new politics .
Welcome to lagoon, mangrove politics.
Flex:
WHAT A MESS
Back to Parliament: Govt to repeal law 'favouring' Ish and Steve
By Ria Taitt Political Editor
Twelve days after the proclamation of a contentious provision of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act which allows UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to escape prosecution, Government is in retreat.
The proclamation on August 30, which came like a thief in the night, was done while the country was celebrating the golden anniversary of Independence.
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar held an emergency Cabinet meeting to discuss the issue yesterday. And even before the meeting was over, Government had convened a special meeting of Parliament for today to repeal the measure.
This sharp about-turn comes in the wake of a terse statement from the US reminding the Government that Galbaransingh and Ferguson were still under indictment in the United States and that their extradition was still being sought.
It also follows a statement from Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard that he was "gravely concerned" and was considering his options.
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley also issued an equally forceful statement, threatening demonstration outside the Prime Minister's office as a prelude to a petition to the President "seeking protection from the vulgar and corrupt actions of the Government".
Parliament would have to meet quickly—with the House of Representatives debating and passing the repeal of the provision by tonight, followed by the Senate doing the same thing tomorrow. The President would also have to proclaim the measure, following Cabinet's decision to issue such advice to him.
All this would have to be done expeditiously in the hope of battling the clock as both Galbaransingh and Ferguson have already petitioned the High Court seeking to have the corruption charges against them discharged.
They are doing so under Section 34 of the new Administration of Justice Act which allows accused persons to apply a judge to throw out a case if more than ten years have passed since the commission of the alleged offence and if the trial has not started.
The court is on vacation until next week but sources said both men could get a judge to hear the matter in an emergency session.
But is Parliament too late? There is growing consensus among the country's Senior Counsels that the Parliament may not be able to undo the damage or to fix the "mess" that has been created. A prominent Senior Counsel told the Express yesterday the two men could challenge what the Parliament is attempting to do and to argue in a court that they had vested rights which cannot be taken away retrospectively. Even within the Opposition this view was being discussed.
Five clauses of the bill were proclaimed on August 30. Four of the clauses are of little consequence. The only significant clause is Section 34.
Galbaransingh and Ferguson are accused of bid-rigging and conspiracy to defraud the Government of Trinidad and Tobago during the period March 1, 1997 to December 21, 2000, under charges which arose out of the Piarco Airport Terminal construction.
They, along with several others, were initially charged when the PNM was in office.
Because of the public awareness that Galbaransingh and Ferguson were significant financiers of the ruling UNC party, there was inevitably high interest in their case.
The Opposition has suggested repeatedly that justice was not being blind in the matters involving the two financiers. And recently the Attorney General sued Rowley over statements made after the State chose not to appeal the decision of Justice Boodoosingh who ruled that the best place to try them was Trinidad and Tobago, preventing their extradition to the US.
Flex:
Breaking News - COP - A Contempt of Parliament
By Richard Charan (Express).
Hours before the emergency convening of Parliament this afternoon, Government coalition partner, the Congress of the People (COP), has issued a statement expressing alarm over the proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice Act (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011, which allows UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to walk free on all criminal charges.
The COP today issued a statement, calling for the termination of all who acted with intentional dishonesty in relation to the "contempt of Parliament" to "not be allowed any function on behalf of the government of Trinidad and Tobago".
The press statement, signed by party chairman Joseph Toney is titled "The Saga of s34 – Blunders or Manipulation of Parliament"
and gives a timeline of how President Max Richards came to proclaim the provision on the day of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the nation's Independence (August 30), which led to the subsequent application in the High Court by Galbaransingh and Ferguson to have their matters discharged and to be declared not guilty. The men are charged with multiple offences of fraud and money laundering in relation to the Piarco Airport Terminal project.
Yesterday, several other defendants charged in connection with the project, also filed similar petition in the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain.
The defendants are relying on the proclaimed section of the Act which compels a judge to discharge cases if more than ten years have elapsed since the commission of the alleged offence and if the trial has not started.
The COP stated that the revelations " have raised the grave questions about the bona fides of the government or parts of it in this entire affair. This situation is cause for the most serious concern and alarm".
The COP stated that having examined the developments in the passage of the Act, it is "forced to conclude that in the course of its passage, section 34 has been so changed by amendment first proposed in the Senate the whole intent of the original section 34 in the Bill was annihilated.
"The effect of that amendment was that it made a non-sense of the entire legal position on indictable offences (the most serious offences) because a time limitation for prosecution for such offences was now introduced. No longer could someone be prosecuted for such an offence no matter how long after its commission sufficient evidence was obtained.
"The very cleverly-worded amended sub-section 2 and added sub-section 3 also eliminated the original intention of section 34 which was to guarantee fairness to an accused person against unwarranted delay by the state. These in themselves made nonsense of the section" the COP stated.
"The amendment, in the manner in which it was introduced and in the form of its drafting closely resembling the original language in the Bill as it left the Lower House and entered Parliament took advantage of the trust of all legislators by those who introduced it, which allowed its passage".
The COP also stated that the proclamation of section 34 also meant a breach of an undertaking to Parliament on behalf of government, that no part of the Act would be made effective until the required rules and infrastructure for the operation of the new criminal process, were all in place.
The COP stated that the breach demonstrated "the most grievous contempt of the Parliament itself" and "compromises the entire purpose of the Act which was to ensure swift justice as part of measures to improve the justice system and contribute to the fight against the horrendous crime situation affecting our society".
The House of Representatives convenes at 1.30p.m for the purpose of repealing the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley is insisting that Cabinet members explain why they agreed to have Section 34 of the Act proclaimed.
N.B - Readers can return to this story throughout the day for updates. richard.charan@trinidadexpress.com