Inquiry findings vindicate Rowley

i) I was involved in the "siphoning of materials," equipment etc from the Scarborough Hospital project

ii) NHIC was doing "free construction work" on my project, using Scarborough Hospital materials

iii) I had used my office as Minister "to make or influence awards of contracts" to NHIC and in return I was receiving free construction services on my private project in Mason Hall Tobago.

These scandalous allegations warranted an investigation and a Commission of inquiry was convened and has made the following finding:-

a) except for the patently false testimony of UNC activist, defeated UNC Candidate Barrington Thomas who claimed that he worked at the Scarborough Hospital, there was absolutely no testimony or evidence linking me with anything to do with Scarborough Hospital project or its materials. The Commission did not accept the testimony of Barrington Thomas.

b) The project in Mason Hall, to which reference was made, belongs to my wife who had contracted with Warner Construction in a totally commercial arrangement for which payments were being made as per contract. No freeness of any kind was attributed to the project.

c) Absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, was available to be presented by any witness to indicate that I had anything whatsoever with any contract awarded to either NHIC or Warner Construction.

Now that the findings of the Commission of Inquiry are available to you and they clearly show that the allegations were all unfounded, your Editorial of Tuesday October 18 had this to say "Dr Rowley, immediately on assuming the Housing portfolio if not before, would have issued a public statement... about his wife’s venture. Instead he remained silent when the issue was uncovered."

Since my wife’s land had absolutely nothing to do with the Ministry of Housing or any other Government business for that matter there was absolutely no need for me to make any announcement to anyone neither was there anything for me to "remain silent" about. There is nothing to hide when you are acting properly, within the law. My only obligation was to report her acquisition of this and any other asset to the Integrity Commission.

That I dutifully did, contrary to the expectations of my political opponents who have demanded and received an Inquiry here as well.

In a situation where I am not the owner of the land, where I am not the developer nor did I hire the contractor and where I have scrupulously complied with the Integrity in Public Life Act by reporting as required by law and where a Commission of Inquiry could identify no support for the scandalous allegations which have cost the state millions of dollars, your Editor still accuses me of not "adhering to the best standards of public policy."

There is provision in public policy to cover my wife’s assets and I have complied. What other public policy am I in breach of? The confusion in your Editor’s mind is borne out by the following statement contained in the Editorial. "The first is that knowing himself to be involved in no underhand or illegal business, he was worried about possible negative perceptions" Why should anyone who is acting properly be worried about negative perceptions" Negative perceptions of whom, Ganga Singh, Barrington Thomas, the UNC? I still subscribe to the maxim that he who alleges must prove. Secondly it goes on to talk about "such matter of perception" and that "politicians feel free to ignore the niceties required by their posts."

What I had to endure during the last year had nothing to do with "perception" or "niceties." I faced serious allegations of criminal conduct on my part. Allegations which were meant to destroy my reputation and possibly put me before the courts. Thankfully a Commission of Inquiry has found no substance to any of these allegations so please excuse me if I show no interest in any other findings about unidentified "indiscretion" or your editor’s jumbled thoughts.

I notice that your Editor has had nothing, whatsoever, to say about the conduct of members of Parliament who use Parliamentary cover to make the worse allegations and when a Commission calls them to come forward with their "evidence" which they grandstanded with in the Parliament, they show no interest.

I also notice that you had nothing to say about Barrington Thomas going before judicial proceedings in the form of a Commission of Inquiry stating that he was an employee of NHIC and as such was involved in wrongdoing which implicated a Minister of Government when all the testimony shows that he was never employed at Scarborough Hospital site.

I hope that this oversight is not caused by disappointment on the part of those who would rather if it all had turned out differently, preferably as Ganga Singh, the instigator had said.

KEITH ROWLEY PhD

Minister of Housing