Integrity Commission Chairman issued statement on controversial meeting with Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley.

Ken Gordon, Chairman of Integrity Commision

Integrity Commission Chairman Ken Gordon said his meeting with the Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley on May 15th was done in accordance with the Integrity in Public Life Act.

Gordon's statement comes in the face of mounting calls from the Government for him to resign. Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar yesterday raised her Government's concerns about the Chairman's "secret" meeting with President Anthony Carmona.

In his statement, Gordon described as “absurd” the charge “that the meeting was part of a political conspiracy” adding “if only for the record, I categorically deny”.

The Chariman in his conclusion noted: "The inflammatory and highly irresponsible statements which have been made coupled with the distortions of fact are to be deeply regretted".

Below is the full statement issued by Ken Gordon today:

Statement

STATEMENT BY MR KENNETH GORDON, CHAIRMAN

   

Coupled with the Oath of Secrecy which Commissioners are required to take, Part II, Section 5(2)(a) and (c) of the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) states in part that in the exercise of its functions under the Act the Commission (and by extension, all Commissioners):

(a) shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.

(c) the Commission shall have the power to do all such things as it considers

necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out its functions.

When Dr. Keith Rowley, Leader of the Opposition, called my office at approximately 2.23 p.m. on Wednesday May 15th, 2013, I was not available. He left a message with his cell number requesting an URGENT meeting. We later attempted to return his call and in turn left a message on his machine. At around 6.00 p.m. it occurred to me that he may not have received the return call message. I was by that time at home and called him myself. He advised that he was on his way home. In response to my question, he confirmed that the “URGENCY” continued to exist.

I have known Dr. Rowley professionally for some time but until that afternoon he had never visited my home. My understanding was that he wished to communicate with me on an URGENT matter. Such a matter could have been about anything, given the extreme times in which we live. I could have said no, not today, see me at the office tomorrow. But then I could have been faulted for not making the time to even listen to what the Leader of the Opposition considered URGENT. Also mindful of the remit quoted above from the IPLA Section 5(2)(a) and (c) which clearly provides the authority to proceed in accordance with what was considered necessary I concluded that in all the circumstances I would see Dr. Rowley briefly and right away: a decision I would have taken in similar circumstances had it been the Prime Minister, the Attorney General or any other public official... and I add they would most certainly have expected me to do so.

I suggested to Dr. Rowley who does not live far from my house in Glencoe that he meet me at my home. He arrived a few minutes later. The contents of the conversation which we had are set out in the Aide Memoire which has been previously circulated. The brief meeting ended and he departed.

I immediately wrote by hand the Aide Memoire which was typed the following day. 

I personally handed the document to the Registrar later that day to await the appointment of the new Commissioners and the Commission’s first meeting.

It is with regret that I now turn to some unfortunate statements and distortions of fact which have been reported in the media. In the first instance when I confirmed the meeting had taken place and the Aide Memoire was made available to the public, the absurd charge was made that the meeting was part of a political conspiracy which, if only for the record, I categorically deny.

It has also been suggested that the same lawyer used by Dr. Rowley at the Privileges Committee may have been retained by the Commission to render an Opinion on jurisdiction in the e-mail matter. It was reported and I quote “when you connect the dots it reveals a frightening picture of an attempt by high office holders to topple the Government.” This amounts to an accusation of treason, one of the most serious crimes on the books. Like so many of the other accusations, there is not an iota of truth in that reckless charge.

In fact the Opinion on jurisdiction in the E-mail matter which has been the subject of the most incredible speculation was provided by Mrs. Deborah Peake, Senior Counsel who is not Dr. Rowley's representative at the Privileges Committee.

Let me make it clear that I accept that in a perfect world the meeting with Dr. Rowley ought to have taken place at the Office of the Integrity Commission with an officer present. But that world seldom exists. In the circumstances which existed on Wednesday May 15th, meeting briefly with the Leader of the Opposition and recording what had transpired for the Commission’s attention was the rational thing to do. If a Commissioner can be entrusted to honour the Oath of Secrecy he can be entrusted to faithfully report on what transpired at a brief meeting with a public official. The question really is integrity, and if he or she does not have it he or she should not be a Commissioner in the first place. The simple fact is that try as we might, we cannot legislate for integrity.

I end by emphasising:

That the decision to meet with Dr. Rowley was taken without regard to any form of partisan consideration. It was the fair and rational thing to do and it was not secret.

The meeting was held in full accordance with the Integrity in Public Life Act, one of the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago.

A report on what took place at the meeting was made and preserved for the New Commission when appointed, to ensure full transparency.

The inflammatory and highly irresponsible statements which have been made coupled with the distortions of fact are to be deeply regretted.

Source: TNTfinder

Ashworth Jack's 4 Million Dollar House Referred for Investigation by the Integrity Commission

Ashworth Jack's House 

The controversial issue of the house built by Ashworth Jack, political leader of the Tobago Organisation of the People (TOP), has for the second time been put in the lap of the Integrity Commission.

And this time around, the commission has taken notice and has asked its director of investigations, Richard Frederick, to discuss the issue and obtain all information and documents in the matter.

The first request to the commission to probe the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) Minority Leader's assets by Tobagonian Moses O Thomas was reported by the Express in November last year.

Thomas had in October 2011 made an official query to the commission about the land on which Jack had built his home and a vehicle purported to be owned by Jack.

Thomas, the field liaison officer for the Chief Secretary of the THA, had asked the Integrity Commission to review Jack's declaration of income, assets and liabilities for the years 2001-2008, saying what he saw were "very inconsistent declarations".

Thomas had also asked the commission to probe ownership of a vehicle (Toyota SUV PCR 5066) which he said was not owned by either Jack or his business AJ Rentals.

The commission at that time had dismissed Thomas's request for an investigation, and the commission's chairman, Ken Gordon, had told the Express that Jack would not be investigated unless and until a request came to the commission as an official query.

Dissatisfied with the commission's failure to probe Jack, Moses subsequently called on Gordon to step down. Gordon did not.

Unlike this first outcome, however, fellow Tobagonian Goslyn Loraine has over the past month raised the issue of the acquisition of the land and construction of Jack's house with the registrar of the Integrity Commission, Martin Farrell.

In a letter dated December 18, 2012, Loraine, a political activist and co-ordinator of the Unemployment Relief Programme (URP) in Tobago, raised four concerns to determine whether Jack had acquired his property by "fraudulent or corrupt means".

He also raised allegations of "inducements" being used for political favours. Jack had dismissed speculation in an exclusive Sunday Express story last year that his multimillion-dollar house in Hillsborough, Mt St George, was a political "gift" from Trinidad.

The commission, in its response to Loraine, dated January 3, 2013, invited Lorraine to tell all in a meeting with its director of investigations, Frederick.

The letter, signed by Farrell, stated, "In an effort to adequately respond to your requests, the commission invites you to meet with its director, Investigations, Mr Richard Frederick, at 10 a.m on Thursday, January 10, 2013, at the Office of the Integrity Commission."

According to Farrell, "This meeting is intended to obtain from you all information/documents in your possession which may establish the allegations made."

It also pointed to the Integrity in Public Life Act, Chapter 22:01 and to Section 34 A, which "stipulates that the commission may, on receipt of a complaint, reject same if it is not supported by evidence of a probative value".

While it did not outrightly reject Loraine's complaint, the commission sought to give an explanation of what constituted "evidence" and explained that "broadly defined (evidence) is the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the existence of a fact".

The commission said it was "anxious to investigate all allegations of corrupt or fraudulent conduct, however, it can only do so when supplied with information upon which a reasonable inference of such conduct can be founded".

The Express contacted Loraine in Tobago, but he indicated he had not yet met with the commission on the issue.

He explained that he needed more time to provide the information and the request for the meeting came at short notice.

"I have received correspondence from the commission and I am to get back to them on the next possible date for a meeting," he said.

Loraine said he was a bit surprised by the commission's request for him to provide documented evidence since the issue of Jack's house was in the public domain.

He said, too, that the meeting was unlikely to take place before next Monday, January 21, when Tobagonians go to the polls to elect a new executive to lead the THA for the next four years.

Jack is seeking to unseat incumbent People's National Movement (PNM) Chief Secretary Orville London.

The third party in the race is the Tobago Platform of Truth (TPT), whose leader is Hochoy Charles.

Reproduced from Trinidadexpress

JACK FAILS TO DECLARE

National Security Minister Jack Warner has not made a declaration about his assets in the Teachers' Credit Union to the Integrity Commission within recent years.

According to a document obtained by the Sunday Express, Warner has shares in his name which were valued at $611,126.23 as at January 1, 2011.

The document, which appears to be a computer generated "member statement", gives the account number, states that Warner—a former teacher—joined the credit union in 1983, some 29 years ago, suggesting that the funds have accumulated over a considerable period of time.

The document also gives Warner's birth date and address.

However, an examination of the Register of Interests, specifically with respect to Warner's last three declarations to the Integrity Commission, did not reflect this asset.

According to his 2009, 2010 and 2011 declarations of assets, income and liabilities, Warner revealed that he received income from a government pension; distributions from Unit Trust Corporation, a salary as an MP and bank interest from Scotiabank, First Citizens' and Republic Bank.

The 2009 declaration was received by the Commission on May 28, 2010; the 2010 declaration on November 28, 2011 and the 2011 declaration on September 19, 2012.

The declarations listed Warner's directorships, the properties he owned (with his wife) and his investments.

The shares in the Teachers' Credit Union are not listed as investments either.

The list of investments includes Joe Public, Eastern Agricultural Resorts Ltd, H &Z Ltd, Jamad Maintenance Service Ltd, Reenalen Ltd, JAW Ltd, Renraw Ltd, Sportal, JAW,  Holdings Ltd, (additionally for 2011) J & D International and CCAM Ltd. 

Attempts to contact Warner were unsuccessful yesterday.

However, he had been previously briefed—two weeks ago—and declined comment on the issue.

Speaking at that time through his adviser Francis Joseph, the Minister, who had been the subject of  a FIFA investigation and who is currently the subject of a complaint filed by Fixin' TnT's Kirk Waithe with the Integrity Commission, had only this retort: "Steups. You can do what you want."

Two weeks ago Warner told the Sunday Express he had been contacted by the Commission because it had said that his Form A was incomplete and there were other issues with his Form B.

Form A is the confidential document which instructs a public officer to declare his income, assets and liabilities. It calls for complete details of the income of the public officer, his spouse (and dependent children) and requests specifically all income from jobs, dividends, properties and from other sources.

Form B also relates to sources of funds, directorships and investments. Under the Integrity in Public Life Act, public officials are required to make a full and complete declaration about this assets, income and liabilities.

However, the law makes allowances for human error and a person would only be charged if the person cannot reasonably explain why there was no declaration of the particular funds, if the person cannot reasonably explain the source of the funds, and if all the evidence appears to suggests that a false/incomplete declaration was knowingly and deliberately made to the Commission by the public official.

Two previous government officials so charged were former prime minister Basdeo Panday and former energy minister Finbar Ganga