Geisha Kow­lessar

Her­shael Rame­sar, the ad­vis­er to Food Pro­duc­tion Min­is­ter De­vant Ma­haraj, has writ­ten to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion ask­ing for an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to Op­po­si­tion Sen­a­tor Faris Al-Rawi.He claims the probe is war­rant­ed be­cause Al-Rawi pro­vid­ed Par­lia­ment with false in­for­ma­tion and failed to dis­close that he is cur­rent­ly re­tained as the in­struct­ing at­tor­ney for Point Lisas-based en­er­gy con­glom­er­ate Arcelor Mit­tal.

In a let­ter sent yes­ter­day to Jus­tice Zain­ool Ho­sein, chair­man of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, Rame­sar claimed Al-Rawi act­ed in breach of Sec­tions 24 and 29 re­spec­tive­ly of the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act on March 10 while in the Sen­ate.Rame­sar al­leged that Al-Rawi pro­vid­ed false in­for­ma­tion to the Sen­ate re­gard­ing an in­crease in elec­tric­i­ty rates by th T&T Elec­tric­i­ty Com­mis­sion (T&TEC) and al­so failed to dis­close he was the in­struct­ing at­tor­ney for Arcelor Mit­tal, which is en­gaged in ne­go­ti­a­tions with T&TEC over the said en­er­gy rates.

"Sen­a­tor Al-Rawi in his con­tri­bu­tion to the Sen­ate de­bate on the 'T&T�Pana­ma Par­tial Scope Trade Agree­ment Bill 2014,' dat­ed March 10, 2015, claimed that T&TEC was sub­ject­ing in­dus­tri­al cus­tomers to an unan­nounced in­creased rate of $125.40, up from $41 to $43. "Mr Al-Rawi, in ad­di­tion to pro­vid­ing the Par­lia­ment with false in­for­ma­tion, al­so failed to dis­close that he is cur­rent­ly re­tained as the in­struct­ing at­tor­ney for Point Lisas-based en­er­gy con­glom­er­ate Arcelor Mit­tal.

"This com­pa­ny is the on­ly one cur­rent­ly en­gaged with T&TEC in ne­go­ti­a­tions over rates charged via their at­tor­ney, who is very same Sen­a­tor Al-Rawi," Rame­sar wrote.He said T&TEC had since set the record straight con­cern­ing the rates and claimed that Al-Rawi was even­tu­al­ly forced to ad­mit he was in fact the at­tor­ney for Arcelor Mit­tal.

"Sen­a­tor Al-Rawi at no time pri­or to the Gov­ern­ment ex­po­sure, saw it fit or prop­er to de­clare his ma­te­r­i­al in­ter­est in his con­tri­bu­tion. In­deed, this con­flict­ed po­si­tion can serve in my re­spect­ful view to un­der­mine pub­lic con­fi­dence in Par­lia­ment," he wrote. He said giv­en that the Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley con­tin­ued to pub­licly sup­port Al-Rawi, an in­ves­ti­ga­tion was ur­gent­ly need­ed."Sen­a­tor Al-Rawi is a pub­lic of­fi­cial that is vy­ing for elect­ed of­fice and even min­is­te­r­i­al port­fo­lio.

"As such I am deeply con­cerned that if Sen­a­tor Al-Rawi ever holds the reins of pow­er in of­fice, the prac­tice of ad­vanc­ing pri­vate in­ter­est us­ing pub­lic of­fice shown in the Sen­ate will be repli­cat­ed to the detri­ment of the tax­pay­ers and cit­i­zens," Rame­sar added.

No con­flict

Con­tact­ed by phone yes­ter­day, Rame­sar, 23, said it was no se­cret he was a Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress sup­port­er and a mem­ber of the par­ty's youth arm. He said, how­ev­er, that his let­ter was not about "par­ty" but prin­ci­ple.

"This par­tic­u­lar com­plaint is not a UNC, PNM or ILP mat­ter but it has do with my per­son­al con­vic­tion with per­sons hold­ing pub­lic of­fice and hav­ing re­spect for pub­lic of­fice. "This is some­thing I did on my own be­cause when some­one speaks about moral­i­ty they have to be very care­ful. Al-Rawi had the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to dis­close he was the in­struct­ing at­tor­ney," Rame­sar said.

He said while he had the "ut­most re­spect" for Al-Rawi, he found the com­ments made in the Sen­ate by the PNM PRO to be "reck­less." Al­so con­tact­ed yes­ter­day on his em­ploy­ee's ac­tion, Ma­haraj said there was no con­flict of in­ter­est as Rame­sar wrote to the com­mis­sion in his pri­vate ca­pac­i­ty.

"He has shown me the let­ter and I share his con­cerns be­cause the leader of the Op­po­si­tion has failed to re­move Mr Al-Rawi. I com­mend Mr Rame­sar for his bold step," Ma­haraj said.

Ma­li­cious at­tack

In an im­me­di­ate re­sponse yes­ter­day, Al-Rawi, who de­scribed Rame­sar as a "ra­bid" UNC sup­port­er, said the let­ter was clear­ly writ­ten by a lawyer "too ashamed to come pub­lic." He said Rame­sar, like any­one else, was en­ti­tled to make a com­plaint to the com­mis­sion in re­spect of mat­ters pre­scribed by the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act.

How­ev­er, Al-Rawi warned that any per­son who know­ing­ly and mis­chie­vous­ly made a false re­port to or mis­led the com­mis­sion by giv­ing false in­for­ma­tion, or by mak­ing false state­ments, or ac­cu­sa­tions, was li­able on con­vic­tion to a fine of $500,000 and to im­pris­on­ment for 10 years. "The Gov­ern­ment not be­ing able to come to the Par­lia­ment against me now us­es its hacks to con­tin­ue its po­lit­i­cal machi­na­tions.

"This is the UNC ver­sion of screen­ing for San Fer­nan­do West. No one is will­ing to run against me for the UNC and the elec­tion is im­mi­nent. The UNC should not use the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, a body that it has starved of funds, for its po­lit­i­cal at­tacks," he added.

Not­ing that the com­mis­sion has been "del­uged" with com­plaints from the pub­lic about the "mas­sive cor­rup­tion met­ed out to the peo­ple of T&T by the UNC ad­min­is­tra­tion," Al-Rawi said Rame­sar's claim was a non-starter.

"It is ma­li­cious and is mere­ly a con­tin­u­a­tion of an at­tempt to find a UNC can­di­date for San Fer­nan­do West by at­tack­ing me. Pity the fool," he said. The Gov­ern­ment al­so plans to file a com­plaint against Al-Rawi on the same mat­ter to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. Ad­dress­ing this yes­ter­day as well, Al-Rawi said the most im­por­tant and em­bar­rass­ing fac­tor for the UNC is that they are ig­no­rant of the law.

Com­plaint his­to­ry

Gov­ern­ment is con­tend­ing that dur­ing last week's sit­ting of the Sen­ate, Al-Rawi used par­lia­men­tary priv­i­lege to speak on be­half of his client dur­ing de­bate on the Pana­ma Par­tial-Scope Trade Agree­ment.He raised the is­sue of a $125.40 per kilo­volts-amps (kVA) elec­tric­i­ty rate for in­dus­tri­al con­sumers but dis­missed the idea that was in con­flict with his role as a lawyer act­ing on be­half of the firm Arcelor Mit­tal, which is en­gaged in a $33 mil­lion dis­pute with T&TEC.

T&TEC has since de­nied those claims, say­ing the said "in­crease" re­lates on­ly to Arcelor Mit­tal.Gov­ern­ment had said Al-Rawi abused his priv­i­lege, as he did not dis­close his in­volve­ment in the mat­ter at the start of his con­tri­bu­tion.