The In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion says there is no mer­it in the Op­po­si­tion’s 2021 al­le­ga­tion against Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley.

The com­mis­sion made the state­ment in re­la­tion to UNC MP Sad­dam Ho­sein’s claim that Row­ley failed to de­clare his own­er­ship of a To­ba­go town­house in his 2019 In­tegri­ty de­c­la­ra­tion.

The com­mis­sion, not­ing state­ments made by Op­po­si­tion Leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar about the ter­mi­na­tion of its in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to Ho­sein’s com­plaint against Row­ley, said: “In Feb­ru­ary 2022, the Com­mis­sion de­lib­er­at­ed up­on (Ho­sein’s) com­plaint and was then sat­is­fied that there was no mer­it in an al­le­ga­tion, con­tained in the said com­plaint, to the ef­fect that the Ho­n­ourable Prime Min­is­ter had failed to de­clare, in his De­c­la­ra­tion of In­come, As­sets and Li­a­bil­i­ties for the year 2019, con­trary to the re­quire­ments of sec­tion 11 of the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act (“the IPLA”), his own­er­ship in a town­house in the In­ez Gate De­vel­op­ment in To­ba­go.

“The Com­mis­sion al­so con­clud­ed that while the Ho­n­ourable Prime Min­is­ter had failed to in­clude par­tic­u­lars of the town­house in his State­ment of Reg­is­tra­ble In­ter­ests for the said year, which con­sti­tut­ed a breach of the IPLA, it was not a breach or an of­fence which could be re­ferred to the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions in pur­suance of sec­tion 31 of the IPLA (‘breach of the Code of Con­duct’) and 34 (7) of the IPLA (‘of­fences’).”

The Com­mis­sion said it was, how­ev­er, sat­is­fied Ho­sein’s com­plaint about an al­leged pos­si­ble “gift” re­ceived by Row­ley re­quired in­ves­ti­ga­tion and did so over the en­su­ing year. It said the In­ves­ti­ga­tions Unit sub­se­quent­ly rec­om­mend­ed that in­ves­ti­ga­tion be ter­mi­nat­ed, which it ac­cept­ed.

"The rea­sons for ter­mi­nat­ing the said in­ves­ti­ga­tion and bases for dis­pos­ing of all of the com­plaints were then com­mu­ni­cat­ed to the Com­plainant and to the Ho­n­ourable Prime Min­is­ter."

The Com­mis­sion said its five com­mis­sion­ers do not per­son­al­ly con­duct in­ves­ti­ga­tions.

“The Com­mis­sion has the fullest con­fi­dence in its in­ves­ti­ga­tors, who have dili­gent­ly pur­sued this in­ves­ti­ga­tion, as they’ve done in re­la­tion to all in­ves­ti­ga­tions as­signed to them,” the com­mis­sion stat­ed.

On Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s oth­er claims, the com­mis­sion stat­ed cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly that no mem­ber has ever re­ceived any in­duce­ments, or any of­fer of an in­duce­ment, in re­la­tion to the dis­po­si­tion of any com­plaint.

It said its chair­man, Pro­fes­sor Ra­jen­dra Ram­lo­gan, has al­so nev­er di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly sought an ap­point­ment to the rank of se­nior coun­sel.

“He is ful­ly em­ployed at the Uni­ver­si­ty of the West In­dies and is ap­point­ed as a part-time chair­man,” it added.

The state­ment al­so con­firmed eputy chair­man Fred­er­ick Gilkes, an at­tor­ney in pri­vate prac­tice, sub­mit­ted an ap­pli­ca­tion to the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al in April seek­ing con­sid­er­a­tion for ap­point­ment to the rank of “silk” fol­low­ing the in­vi­ta­tion pub­lished in the T&T Gazette.

The Com­mis­sion added: “Mr Gilkes par­tic­i­pat­ed in all meet­ings of the Com­mis­sion at which re­ports re­lat­ing to (Ho­sein’s) com­plaint were con­sid­ered. All such meet­ings, bar the fi­nal meet­ing in re­la­tion to the said com­plaint in June 2023, took place be­fore the pub­li­ca­tion of an in­vi­ta­tion in the Gazette invit­ing le­gal prac­ti­tion­ers to ap­ply for ap­point­ment to the rank of ‘silk’. “

Pri­or to the June meet­ing, it said Gilkes dis­closed to the com­mis­sion that he had sub­mit­ted an ap­pli­ca­tion to the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al for “silk”.

“At the June 2023 meet­ing, the ques­tion of Mr Gilkes’ re­cusal from con­sid­er­ing the fi­nal re­port of the in­ves­ti­ga­tors did not arise. The Com­mis­sion does not con­sid­er that Mr Gilkes’ ap­pli­ca­tion to the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al for con­sid­er­a­tion of his ap­point­ment to the rank of ‘silk’ dis­qual­i­fied him from par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Com­mis­sion’s de­lib­er­a­tions on the fi­nal re­port of the in­ves­ti­ga­tors.