Prof Uff thanks media for generating public interest

A scanned copy of Professor Uff’s 512-page report, bearing his signature and the signatures of commissioner Desmond Thornhill and commission secretary Judith Gonzalez, was obtained by Newsday and published exclusively on April 4.

The report was laid in Senate yesterday.

Acknowledgments

The Commissioners would like to express their appreciation of the support and assistance they have received from the following persons during the course of the Inquiry. First, Ms Judith Gonzalez took over as Secretary before the first working sessions of the Inquiry and has remained the focal point for receipt and dissemination of the many submissions and documents provided to us. She ensured that all parties to the Inquiry, as well as the Commissioners, were provided with the appropriate documents at all times and, in doing so, managed a large team at the Winsure Building engaged in copying and binding documents throughout the nine weeks of hearing. We are grateful for her good humour and efficiency and for her steadfast confidence in times of crisis. She was assisted by the list of persons set out at Annex 2 to whom we also extend our thanks and appreciation.

We have been ably and efficiently served by our appointed Counsel, led by Seenath Jairam SC who provided timely advice and legal services throughout the Inquiry, ably assisted by Junior Counsel, Garvin Simonette, Ian Roach and Kerwyn Garcia, instructed by Mrs Marvo Harper and Mrs Doril Ann Lamont of M K Harper & Co, Attorneys. For the smooth administration of the Inquiry we express our thanks to Mr Hamid O’Brien; and for preparing accurate and timely transcription of the proceedings we are grateful to Ms Kathleen Mohammed and her team.

We thank all the parties who participated in the Inquiry, many of whom instructed attorneys at their own expense. They have allowed us to gain a wide appreciation of the matters upon which we were to enquire. Lastly, we thank the press and media who provided wide coverage to the Inquiry and thereby helped to generate the level of interest which has motivated people to come forward with their contributions.

We trust that our Report fairly and properly reflects the material which has been presented to us and that the conclusions and recommendations of the Report will be of assistance to the Public Construction Sector of the Construction Industry in Trinidad and Tobago in years to come.

INQUIRY INTO THE

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

PART 1:

THE PUBLIC

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

1. The Inquiry

1.1. By Commission dated September 9, 2008, His Excellency Professor George Maxwell Richards, President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, acting on the advice of the Cabinet pursuant to Section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Chap 19:01, appointed Commissioners to enquire into the construction sector in Trinidad and Tobago.

The four Commissioners so appointed are Kenneth Sirju Esq, a Civil and Structural Engineer; Desmond H Thornhill Esq, former Permanent Secretary Ministry of National Security; Israel B Khan, Esq, Senior Counsel and Professor John Uff CBE QC as Chairman. The Commission directed that a quorum should consist of two Commissioners.

1.2. The Terms of Reference of the Commission are to enquire into:

(i) The procurement practices in the public construction sector;

(ii) The effect of the use of provisional sums, prime cost sums, nominated suppliers and nominated contractors in construction contracts in the public sector;

(iii) The effect of incomplete designs, design changes, variations, poor supervision and poor management on the cost and delivery of construction projects in the public sector;

(iv) The performance of local and foreign contractors and consultants on public sector projects;

(v) The effectiveness of the turnkey approach, also called the design and build approach, for the delivery of public sector construction projects as compared to the traditional design and tender approach;

(vi) The reasons for and the effect of cost overruns, delays and defective workmanship in public sector construction projects.

(vii) The existence of price gouging and profiteering in the public construction sector; and

(viii) The procurement practices and methods of operation of Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (Udecott).

1.3. The Commission is required to make recommendations and observations to ensure that:

(i) With respect to public sector construction projects and the procurement practices and methods of operation of Udecott, tax payers get value for money;

(ii) The delivery of projects and the highest standards of workmanship are achieved and maintained;

(iii) There is free and fair competition, full participation and access for all citizens in the public procurement process; and

(iv) Integrity and transparency in the public procurement practice are assured.

1.4. By Commission dated December 10, 2008, the Terms of Reference were altered to include issues concerning Cleaver Heights Development Project as follows:

(i) The procedures, practices and procurement processes employed by the Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation in the award of the contract to NH International (Caribbean) Ltd to develop the land and infrastructure and to build 408 houses at Cleaver Heights Development Project (“the Cleaver Heights Development Project”);

(ii) Whether the procedures, practices and procurement processes employed in the award of the Cleaver Heights Development Project were in compliance with the tender rules and/or other rules, regulations, procedures, practices and processes of the Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation and consistent with the procedures, practices and procurement processes employed in the award of similar types of contract;

(iii) The nature and consequence of the contractual arrangements;

(iv) Whether the Cleaver Heights Development Project was a fixed price contract price and if so, the reasons for/or the circumstances which caused and/or contributed to such variance; and

(v) The circumstances which resulted in a variance in the costs incurred in the execution of the Cleaver Heights Development Project as evidenced in Valuation Report No 38 for the period ending August 2008.

1.5. By Commission dated May 21 2009, the Terms of Reference were further altered to include additional issues concerning the Cleaver Heights Development Project as follows:

(1) Whether the procurement process for, and commencement and/or execution of, the Cleaver Heights Development Project was in accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements and/or approvals applicable to the Cleaver Heights Development Project and/or projects of a similar nature;

(2) The consequences and/or implications of the findings at (1) above;

(3) Whether any specific agency, entity, body and/or contractor can be identified as responsible for the consequences and/or implications at (2) above;

(4) Whether the Cleaver Heights Development Project was implemented in accordance with Cabinet approved guidelines for joint venture projects;

(5) The consequences and/or implications of the result of the findings at (4).

Further that the terms of reference in paragraphs 1(i) through 1(vii) and paragraphs 2(ii) through to 2(iv) of the Terms of Reference dated September 9 2008, apply to the Cleaver Heights Development Project. Copies of the Commissions are contained in Annex 1.

1.6. The Inquiry was directed to be held in public, subject to the Commissioners being entitled to sit in private or to exclude particular persons for the preservation of order, for the due conduct of the Inquiry or for any other reason. Mrs Ida Eversley was appointed Secretary to the Commission. In November 2008 Mrs Eversley resigned through ill health and by Instrument of appointment dated November 28, 2008, Ms Judith Gonzalez who continued as Secretary to the conclusion of the Inquiry. The Attorney General acting on behalf of His Excellency The President appointed a team of counsel to the Inquiry, led by Mr S Jairam SC. A full list of persons appointed to assist the Commissioners is set out at Annex 2.

1.7. Meetings with the Secretariat took place on September 9 and 10, 2008, as a result of which letters were sent to potentially interested parties and advertisements were placed in local newspapers soliciting expressions of interest. Interested parties responded and provided written submissions and documents to the Secretariat. A full list of parties who took part in the Inquiry and their representatives appears at Annex 3. A further meeting with the Secretariat was held on December 8 and a procedural meeting with all interested parties on December 9, 2008. On December 10, 2008, a public meeting was held at which the Chairman of the Commissioners announced decisions on a number of matters which had been addressed by the parties, including the future timetable for the Inquiry and the order in which the Terms of Reference would be dealt with. Procedural Orders for the Inquiry were issued on January 9, 2009 and appears as Annex 4. Particular orders and directions were issued from time to time during the course of the Inquiry, including orders for disclosure of documents.

1.8. Numerous submissions, statements of evidence and documents were received by the Secretariat from December 2008 and continuing throughout and following the Inquiry hearings. A list of all the submissions and statements received by the Secretariat is set out in Annex 5.

1.9. Public hearings of the Inquiry took place between January 12 and May 22, 2009, spread over three sessions. A fourth public hearing was to take place between September 7 and 11, 2009, to deal primarily with the issues arising from the second extension to the Terms of Reference. For reasons set out below that hearing was cancelled shortly before September 7th and those issues were dealt with at a final hearing from December 7 to10, 2009.

1.10. The Commissioners announced before the start of the hearings that, in addition to hearing evidence and submissions, they would be examining specific projects in relation to which particular issues had been raised, and generally in relation to time and cost over-runs. The list of projects was modified after discussions with the parties the final list being:

(i) Belmont Police Station

(ii) Government Campus Plaza (GCP), Customs & Excise (C&E) Building

(iii) GCP, Ministry of Legal (MLA) Tower

(iv) GCP, Board of Inland Revenue (BIR) Tower, Ministry of Social Development Building and the Multi-Storey Car Park.

(v) National Academy for the Performing Arts (North and South)

(vi) Brian Lara Cricket Academy.

(vii) Prime Minister’s Residence.

(viii) International Waterfront Project.

(ix) Chancery Lane Complex Project.

(x) The Secondary Schools Programme.

(xi) Housing projects: Trinidad

(a) Beverly Hills Apartments.

(b) Real Spring Housing Development.

(xii) Housing projects: Tobago

(a) Blenheim Land Development

(b) Roxborough Land Development.

(xiii) Other Tobago Projects:

(a) Scarborough Hospital.

(b) Scarborough Financial Complex.

(xiv) In addition, the Commission examined other projects referred to in the following submissions:

(a) NIPDEC submission dated January 5, 2009.

(b) Housing Development Corporation submissions dated January 6, 2009.

(c) Estate Management & Business Development Co submissions dated March 13, 2009.

(d) Ministry of Education, Secondary Schools Programme, submission dated February 16, 2009.

(e) Education Facilities Company, Early Childhood Care Facilities.

1.11. The Commissioners visited and inspected the following projects:

(i) National Academy for the Performing Arts (North) (January 14, 2009).

(ii) Brian Lara Stadium (January 20, 2009).

(iii) Olera Heights Housing Project (January 20, 2009).

(iv) National Academy for the Performing Arts (South) (January 20, 2009).

(v) International Waterfront Project (January 30, 2009).

(vi) Scarborough Hospital, Tobago (February 2, 2009).

(vii) Blenheim Land Development, Tobago (February 2, 2009).

(viii) Scarborough Financial Complex, Tobago (February 3, 2009).

(ix) Roxborough Land Development, Tobago (February 3, 2009).

(x) Government Campus Plaza, Customs & Excise Building, BIR Tower, Central Plaza and MLA Tower (March 25, 2009).

1.12. On or about September 4, 2009 it was made known to the Commissioners that none of the three Commissions dated September 9, 2008; December 10, 2008 and May 21, 2009 had been gazetted as required by section 16 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and that in consequence the Commission was not properly constituted. For this reason the hearing fixed to commence on September 7th was cancelled.

1.13. Subsequently a Bill was introduced into the Trinidad and Tobago Parliament to provide for the retrospective validation of proceedings and immunity from proceedings. The Commission of Inquiry (Validation and Immunity from Proceedings) Bill 2009 was passed by Parliament and assented on November 3 2009 as Act No 13 of 2009, thereby validating the proceedings which had taken place to that date.

1.14. On November 2009 the Secretary to the Commission gave notice to all parties that the Commissioners intended to hold further hearings of the Inquiry commencing on December 7. Those hearings took place from December 7 to 10, 2009 at the end of which the oral hearings of the Inquiry were formally closed. Further written submissions were received up to March 17, 2010.

2. The Inquiry Hearings

2.1. At the procedural meeting on December 9, 2008, the intended programme of hearings was confirmed. It was further announced that the first hearing of the Inquiry would commence with issues (i) Procurement practices in the public construction sector, and issue (viii). The procurement practices and methods of operation of Udecott. It was stated that the Commissioners would issue directions during the first hearing with a view to dealing with all or most of the issues within the Terms of Reference during the first hearing, but with matters not so dealt with being stood over to a second hearing.

2.2. The hearings of the Inquiry took place at the Winsure Building, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain. The first hearing commenced on January 12 and continued to February 6, 2009. The second hearing was conducted from March 23 to April 7 2009. The third and intended final hearing commenced on May 11th and (with an interruption of two days) continued to May 22 2009. At the conclusion of the third hearing, directions were given for service of further written submissions, to be provided on or before July 31 2009. On the penultimate day of the third hearing the Commissioners were informed of the further extension to their Terms of Reference and directions were given for a forth hearing commencing on September 7 2009. For reasons set out in paragraph 1.12 above the hearing on September 7 was cancelled and the final hearing of the Inquiry took place from December 7 to10 2009.

2.3. By letters to the Secretariat and in further oral submissions delivered on December 9 2008, Attorneys and Counsel for Udecott sought rulings that all evidence and contentions critical of Udecott should be served and that Udecott should have a reasonable opportunity to consider the same before they were required to respond in the Inquiry. The Commissioners were unable to accede to this application, primarily because the Inquiry was necessarily an ongoing process, so that the Commissioners could not anticipate what further material would be presented to the Inquiry. The Commissioners accepted, however, that those parties who had filed statements and submissions before the commencement of the hearings should present their evidence and submissions before Udecott was required to present its witnesses. Furthermore, the Commissioners accepted that Udecott should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to any further criticism arising during the course of the Inquiry.

2.4. For the first hearing it was therefore directed that parties who were critical of the operations of Udecott should present their cases first and that Udecott would then be invited to present its case in response. Accordingly, at the first hearing, short opening statements were received from all parties, concluding with Udecott and its executive chairman Mr Calder Hart (who was separately represented). Evidence was then presented in the following order:

(i) Winston Riley, President of the Joint Consultative Counsel for the Construction Industry (JCC).

(ii) Afra Raymond, of Raymond and Pierre Limited, President-elect of the Institute of Surveyors of TT and journalist.

(iii) Mikey Augustine Joseph, President TT Contractors’ Association.

(iv) Bernard Sylvester, Acting Permanent Secretary Ministry of Finance, for the Attorney General.

(v) Dr Keith Rowley, Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West.

2.5. Udecott was then invited to call its witnesses. Udecott called Ms Neelanda Rampaul, Chief Operating Officer, followed by Mr John Calder Hart, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

2.6. Other witnesses called by the parties or the Commission subsequent to the foregoing witnesses were the following:

(i) Hafeez Karamath, Chairman, Hafeez Karamath Limited (HKL).

(ii) Martin Daly SC, President, Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago, appearing in personal capacity.

(iii) Mrs Christine Sahadeo, former Senator and former Minister, Ministry of Finance.

(iv) John Mair, former Udecott Board Member.

(v) Derek Outridge, Quantity Surveyor, Managing Director of QES & Associates Limited (QES).

(vi) Winston Agard, former CEO of Udecott.

(vii) Jack Shenker Vice President Genivar Trinidad and Tobago.

(viii) Christopher Pilgrim, former Udecott senior engineer.

(ix) Ian Telfer, former chief construction engineer Udecott.

(x) Hayden Paul, chief construction engineer, Udecott.

(xi) Winston Chin Fong, senior manager, Udecott.

(xii) Emil Elias, Chairman, NH International (Caribbean) Limited.

(xiii) Ricardo O’Brien, former CEO Udecott.

(xiv) Safiya Noel, Chief Accountant, Udecott.

(xv) Colm Imbert, Minister of Works and Transport.

(xvi) Carl Khan, formerly married to Mrs Calder Hart.

A list of all persons giving sworn evidence to the Commissions appear at Annex 6.

2.7. Other persons who appeared at the Inquiry to address specific issues were invited to make their presentations in the form of “round table” exchanges. Such material was received by the Commissioners as expertise and was presented unsworn, either as a written statement or as oral testimony. A list of these persons who participated in these sessions appears at Annex 7.

2.8. In December 2008, on the recommendation of the Commission, the Office of the Prime Minister appointed the firm Acutus of Glasgow, Scotland, to prepare reports on time and cost over-runs on nominated projects, for the purpose of issue (vi) (reasons for and the effect of cost overruns, delays and defective workmanship).

Acutus, represented by Mr Gerry McCaffrey FICE, visited Trinidad between January 15 and 22, 2009 and conducted meetings with Udecott and with the Housing Development Corporation (HDC), each of which subsequently provided further documents and information to Mr McCaffrey. The projects examined by Acutus were:

(i) National Academy of the Performing Arts (North).

(ii) International Waterfront Project.

(iii) Brian Lara Cricket Academy.

(iv) Cleaver Heights Development Project.

Acutus provided draft reports which were circulated to the parties on about February 2 and an Interim report which was circulated on February 23, 2009. Acutus subsequently provided a final report dated April 29, 2009, limited to the issue of advanced payments and repayments on the Brian Lara Cricket Academy Project.

2.9. Other expert reports were produced by the parties in the Inquiry. Some experts made presentations to the Commissioners and other did not. The Commissioners have, in regard to each expert (including Acutus), attached such weight to the reports (and oral presentation, if any) as they deem to be appropriate, having regard also to the addresses of the parties.

2.10. The Inquiry hearings were conducted in public, with both public access being provided to the oral proceedings and live television coverage. Documents provided to the Commission, including the daily transcript, were made available for public access via the Commission’s web-site at www.constructionenquiry.gov.tt, which also carried a live viewing facility. The proceedings were also reported extensively in several newspapers.

2.11. On May 11, 2009, the first day of the intended final hearing, the Commissioners were informally notified by their counsel that Udecott and Mr Calder Hart intended that day to apply to the High Court in Port-of-Spain for leave to apply for Judicial Review, including substantive and interim relief, the latter including orders prohibiting the Commissioners from proceeding with any further hearings of the Commission of Inquiry.

No prior notice of such intended application had been given to the Commissioners or to any other party to the Inquiry. The Inquiry proceeded on May 11 but during the afternoon session the Commissioners were informed that the Hon Mr Justice Stollmeyer had ordered a stay of proceedings in the Inquiry and that the application had been adjourned to May 12, 2009. The Inquiry proceedings were then adjourned until further order of the Court.

2.12. There were two such applications for Judicial Review. The first application concerned whether attorneys appearing before Commissions of Inquiry were entitled to absolute privilege. On May 13, 2009 the first application came before the Hon Madam Justice Pemberton at San Fernando, where an order was made by consent, which was unopposed by Counsel for the Commissioners. The order stated as follows:

That Attorneys-at-law appearing before Commissions of Inquiry duly appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act Chap 19.01 of the Laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago are entitled to all privileges and immunities to which Attorneys-at-Law appearing before the Supreme Court of Judicature of Trinidad and Tobago are entitled.

2.13. The second application for Judicial Review concerned whether the Salmon letter served on Udecott by the Commission on April 30, 2009 complied with the right to reasonable notice of allegations adverse to Udecott which the Commissioners were minded to consider. The second application was adjourned to May 18 on which date the claim for interim relief was settled by consent in the following terms:

(i) That Udecott is not expected to respond to the Salmon letter dated April 30, 2009 at all.

(ii) Udecott shall proceed to make its oral closing submissions without reference to the Salmon letter.

(iii) Upon completion of Udecott’s oral closing submissions, the Commissioners shall issue to Udecott a Salmon letter on or before June 8, 2009.

(iv) Udecott shall thereafter be at liberty to submit written submissions in relation to any issues raised in such letter, such written Submissions to be submitted to the Commissioners on or before July 31, 2009.

2.14. The hearings of the Inquiry duly resumed on May 14, 2009, after having lost two days of hearing. The Commissioners announced that they would seek to make up the lost time and accordingly extended the hearing hours and directed that the hearing continue for a full day on May 16, 2009.

2.15. The Inquiry having been brought to a halt at the suit of two of the parties being investigated, the grounds of the application need to be set out.

The first application concerned whether counsel appearing in the Inquiry were entitled to absolute or only qualified privilege. This issue had been raised during the second round of hearings on April 3, 2009, prior to an intended application by Mr Goddard QC on behalf of Udecott.

The Commissioners had been provided with a note of the application which included accusations of serious misconduct against another party to the Inquiry without particulars therefore being given.

The Commissioners were concerned that such an accusation should be made in public and accordingly, after taking advice from counsel to the Inquiry, the Chairman warned Mr Goddard that advice received was that he was not protected by privilege. It was made clear that the Commissioners themselves could not and would not give any decision on whether or not privilege existed.

2.16. Counsel for Udecott and Mr Calder Hart contended that the Inquiry could not be properly conducted unless they were confident of having the protection of privilege and for that reason the Inquiry could not be allowed to proceed until the matter was clarified. Given that the matter arose on April 3, on the last day of the second hearing, it was open to the Claimants (and any other party in the Inquiry) to apply to the Court to resolve the issue at any time prior to the advertised start of the third hearing, on May 11. The Applicants gave no explanation of why these chose to make their application to the Court, without prior knowledge to the Commissioners, on May 11, with the inevitable result that the Inquiry was brought to a halt. The matter was settled by agreement and without any legal contest. It could have been so disposed of at any earlier date.

2.17. The second application was by Udecott alone and concerned the adequacy of the Salmon letter, setting out possible grounds of criticism, served on April 30 2009. This had been the subject of correspondence between the Commission and lawyers for Udecott prior to the commencement of the third hearing. The Commissioners considered that the original Salmon letter was in a form appropriate to this particular Inquiry and complied with the undertaking given by the Chairman on the first day of the Inquiry hearings when it was stated:

What the Commissioners do undertake is that after the conclusion of the evidence and submissions, before any party is called on to make a final submission defending its position against accusations that have been made in the Inquiry, a concise statement of the accusations which the Commissioners intend to consider will be delivered to each affected party or their representative in accordance with the guidelines established by the distinguished English judge Lord Salmon and known to lawyers as “the Salmon Principles.

2.18. In accordance with the consent Order of the Court, the Commission provided a further Salmon letter dated June 8, 2009. However, Udecott persisted in challenging the adequacy of the letter and stated that the application for Judicial Review would be pursued. A hearing was to take place in October 2009, but the date was vacated by consent on October 20, 2009. In a further attempt to compromise the application, the Commission offered, by letter dated October 30, 2009, to provide a copy of the accusations potentially adverse to Udecott by way of enhancement of the Salmon letter of June 8. Such enhanced letter was delivered to Udecott’s attorneys on January 13, 2010. Annex 8 contains copies of the three Salmon letters served on Udecott dated April 30, 2009; June 8, 2009 and January 13 2010 together with a note of the principles governing the law and practice of Salmon Letters and accompanying letter to Udecott’s attorneys dated September 25, 2009.

2.19. Despite continuing to assert that the Commission should provide further particulars of the potential allegations against it, Udecott, on March 1, 2009, voluntarily served a final submission addressing the issues set forth in the letter of January 13, 2010.

It was contended that, in respect of certain issues, Udecott was unable to appreciate the matters being alleged and therefore being unable to deliver a full response. On March 2, 2010 the Secretariat of the Commission stated that the Commissioners would review the final submission and notify Udecott of any matters of criticism which, in their view, had not been dealt with fully as a result of Udecott’s inability to appreciate the matters being alleged, and would provide further information to allow Udecott to deal fully with any such accusation. On March 8, 2010 the Commission wrote to Udecott listing three matters which it was considered had not been fully dealt with and providing further information in respect of those matters. The Commission requested Udecott to provide its final observations in respect of these matters, which Udecott did by further submissions served on March 16, 2010.

2.20. On July 24, 2009, attorneys acting for Udecott wrote to the Commission making accusations of bias against Mr Khan, Mr Sirju and Professor Uff and requesting that all the Commissioners should recuse themselves. The matter relied on by Udecott as having precipitated such action was a televison interview given by Mr Israel Khan on June 24, 2009, of which none of the other Commissioners had any knowledge. No specific accusations were made concerning Mr Thornhill. Mr Khan, Mr Sirju and Professor Uff each responded to the accusations by letter. Subsequently, on August 11, 2009, Mr Khan announced that he had decided to recuse himself and thereafter took no further part in the Inquiry.

2.21. With regard to the Chairman Professor Uff, it was alleged that his conducting of the Inquiry, in a number of specific instances, created the impression of bias against Udecott. These allegations were all denied by Prof Uff. With regard to Mr Sirju, Udecott alleged that his company, KS&P Ltd had provided services to other companies and organisations in the Public Construction Sector and in particular had an “on-going” relationship with Mr Emile Elias, the proprietor of NHIC. These allegations were likewise denied by Mr Sirju.

2.22. Subsequently it emerged that KS&P Ltd, had provided design services for the Cleaver Heights Development Project, which fell within the Terms of Reference as altered on December 10, 2008, and again on May 21, 2009. KS&P Ltd had no involvement in contractual matters concerning Cleaver Heights and Mr Sirju accordingly had no reason to withdraw from the hearing into issues contained in the commission dated December 2009, which took place in May 2009.

However, after seeking the advice of Counsel to the Commission, it was decided that Mr Sirju should take no further part in any hearing or deliberation of the Commission on issues concerning Cleaver Heights, and the parties were so informed on September 1, 2009.

2.23. On September 18, 2009 Udecott issued further proceedings? for Judicial Review against the remaining Commissioners, Prof Uff, Mr Sirju and Mr Thornhill, alleging inter alia, apparent bias, including the allegations contained in the letter of July 24, 2009. On October 2, 2009 Udecott obtained Orders for interim relief which the Commissioners were injuncted from continuing with the Inquiry or from carrying out any further work in preparing the Report. On October 9, 2009 the Court made further Orders by which the Commissioners were no longer injuncted from proceedings with the Inquiry or the Report but undertook to give Udecott 28 days notice should they decide to proceed with any further hearing of the Inquiry or to publish any part of their Report. As noted in Section 1 above, such notice was given on November 4, 2009 and the Inquiry hearings were concluded at a hearing from December 7 to 10, 2009.

2.24. In the light of Udecott’s continuing allegations against Mr Sirju, which involved alleged conflicts of interest in relation to a number of the issues in the Inquiry, it was decided that Mr Sirju could not take part in the preparation of the Report or the deliberations of the Commission, which took place from September 2009. Accordingly this Report has been drawn up by Prof Uff and Mr Thornhill only. Prof Uff and Mr Thornhill wish to record their appreciation of the work done by Mr Sirju for the Inquiry, their complete confidence in his impartiality and integrity and their regret that his reputation has been unjustly impugned.

REPORT continues on Page 20A