SHAL­IZA HAS­SANALI

Se­nior In­ves­tiga­tive Re­porter

shal­iza.has­sanali@guardian.co.tt

A spe­cial re­port of the Pub­lic Ad­min­is­tra­tion and Ap­pro­pri­a­tions Com­mit­tee (PAAC) on Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment Sen­a­tor (PNM) Janelle John-Bates has rec­om­mend­ed that con­sid­er­a­tion be giv­en to her con­duct in both Hous­es.

The 42-page re­port dat­ed April 17, 2026, al­so strong­ly rec­om­mend­ed that a Spe­cial Re­port on John-Bates’ con­duct be pre­pared for pre­sen­ta­tion in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

The re­port fo­cused on John-Bates’ be­hav­iour as a mem­ber of the PAAC re­gard­ing an in­quiry in­to the State’s ac­qui­si­tion of phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals as it re­lates to the cur­rent process­es ap­plic­a­ble to its im­por­ta­tion and ap­proval.

Con­tained in the de­tailed re­port was a Mi­nor­i­ty Re­port by Camille Robin­son-Reg­is, a Mem­ber of the PAAC and a five-page let­ter from John-Bates.

“The com­mit­tee was of the view, by way of ma­jor­i­ty, that the con­duct of the said Mem­ber was of such an egre­gious na­ture that it ne­ces­si­tat­ed a Spe­cial Re­port to the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives,” the re­port stat­ed.

On Thurs­day, the PNM an­nounced the re­moval of John-Bates from the PAAC, amid al­le­ga­tions she im­prop­er­ly as­sist­ed for­mer health min­is­ter Ter­rence Deyals­ingh by edit­ing his wit­ness state­ment ahead of his ap­pear­ance be­fore the com­mit­tee.

The PNM will have to name an Op­po­si­tion Sen­a­tor to re­place John-Bates on the com­mit­tee.

John-Bates was one of eight Mem­bers of the PAAC, chaired by Jagdeo Singh.

The re­port stat­ed that the ne­ces­si­ty to re­port arose be­cause of a con­cern that a sit­ting com­mit­tee mem­ber “com­pro­mised the du­ty of im­par­tial­i­ty” and “par­tic­i­pat­ed in what can be fair­ly de­scribed as a con­spir­a­cy to com­mit con­tempt of the Par­lia­ment.”

It al­so stat­ed that John-Bates’ con­tin­ued in­volve­ment in the PAAC could make oth­er mem­bers un­com­fort­able to the point of neg­a­tive­ly af­fect­ing the work of Par­lia­ment.

In an April 15 let­ter to Singh, John-Bates ex­pressed se­ri­ous con­cern re­gard­ing the ap­par­ent dis­clo­sure of con­fi­den­tial in-cam­era pro­ceed­ings of the com­mit­tee to the pub­lic.

“This dis­clo­sure may prej­u­dice the in­tegri­ty of the com­mit­tee’s process­es and give rise to an ap­pear­ance of bias.”

Re­quest­ing that an in­quiry be ini­ti­at­ed to de­ter­mine whether there was any breach of Stand­ing Or­ders or com­mit­tee pro­to­cols, John-Bates al­so asked for “the spe­cif­ic par­tic­u­lars of any breach­es that it is al­leged that I have com­mit­ted and the sec­tions of the Stand­ing Or­ders, it is al­leged that I have breached, if any.”

Robin­son-Reg­is in the Mi­nor­i­ty Re­port stat­ed that “the pro­gres­sion from al­le­ga­tion to pub­lic cen­sure and the rapid pro­duc­tion of this re­port gives the clear ap­pear­ance of a pre­de­ter­mined out­come rather than a bal­anced and ev­i­dence-based process.”