Airport Inquiry - Week in review

THE Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco airport project has entered its second phase. That is the phase where persons who were implicated by the evidence of witnesses are summoned to appear to challenge the evidence by cross examination, direct evidence or by calling supporting witnesses.
The Commission has sat for 102 days and will resume sitting on March 10, after the Carnival break.

Monday
Cateau overburdened ‘watchdog’ with no UNC help

MINISTRY of Works and Transport (MOWT) representative on the Piarco Airport Project, Peter Cateau, was an overburdened “watchdog” who received no help from the former United National Congress (UNC) Government to ensure that the project was properly completed. Cateau was also doubly stressed by the belief that former Transport Minister Jearlean John was out to get him. So said former Transition Manager Jude Alibey on Monday during his cross examination by Cateau’s attorney, Keith Scotland. Questioned by Scotland, Alibey said given the “tremendous magnitude” of the project, a team of competent and qualified persons was required to successfully undertake all aspects of it. He identified some of those persons as a qualified accountant with some experience in governmental affairs, architect, quantity surveyor, engineer and even an attorney-at law.  However, Alibey said Cateau was not provided with any support personnel, even on a part time basis, and had to juggle a multitude of responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities included liaising with the Airports Authority, NIPDEC, Birk Hillman Consultants (BHC), the Organised Crime and Narcotic Unit (OCNU) and payment of contractors employed on the project. Asked if a special unit should have been responsible for paying site contractors, Alibey said this should have been done.  He added that this was “an impossible task for one man to do” and Cateau was “overburdened”.

During earlier testimony, Alibey said he had not received much help from Cateau in getting things done.  Questioned about this, in the context of Cat-eau’s workload, Alibey conceded that Cateau “assisted when he could”.  Alibey said when his team was created in March 2001, Cateau was still carrying the entire load of the project on his shoulders and seemed under pressure to ensure its completion by May 25, 2001.  He claimed Cateau seemed to be fearful that “someone in authority” was out to get him. Alibey hinted that this perception could have been fuelled by John’s way of getting things done. Alibey denied the former minister ever gave direct instructions to Cateau during meetings she held with project stakeholders. He added that John simply expressed her opinion to Cateau during those meetings.

Tuesday
Alibey: Cateau is an obstructionist

At Tuesday’s sitting, Alibey’s cross examination by Scotland ended. NIPDEC’s attorney, Jonathon Walker, indicated that he had no questions for Alibey. Alibey was the former Transition Manager on the project with responsibility for ensuring the airport terminal opened in May 2001. Alibey, during his brief re-examination by the Commission’s attorney, Justin Phelps, confirmed that he labelled Cateau an “obstructionist” in an e-mail to John. He said although it was private correspondence, he still held that view. Questioned by Com-missioner Victor Hart, Alibey said there were at least 24 meetings held by the Transition Team. He said although he felt Cateau was overworked, he also believed that Cateau should have attended most of the meetings, if only because his work impinged on the team’s. Alibey said he felt Cateau should have attended the meetings as a “priority”. He further said he believed that when Cateau was non co-operative, it was out of unwillingness rather than overwork. He said at times he concluded that Cateau’s actions were deliberate because he felt Cateau had the information he requested but just refused to give him.

Wednesday
Marathon session marks  100th  sitting

THE 100th sitting of the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport project, was observed on Wednesday, with a marathon eight and a half hour session, all to accommodate attorney Russell Martineau, SC. Martineau was cross examining Canadian architect David Scott, principal of Scott Associates Inc (SAAI). He insisted he had to finish on Wednesday, since he would be unavailable until April. The sitting began at 9.30 am and ended at 6 pm with a half hour lunch break. Martineau, leading Deborah Peake, represents Ameer Edoo, former Chairman of the Airports Authority (AA) who chaired a task force for the project. Scott, under cross examination, admitted he did not know how it came about that government ministers, who were on the ministerial committee overseering the project, did not attend his presentation in October 17 1996. Told that Cabinet met the morning when he made his presentation, Scott said he had no knowledge of that and he couldn’t deny it but he had his suspicions.

Martineau, urging him to leave his suspicion out, suggested that he could not connect Edoo to the “hanky panky” with BHC, in that the ministers were present for their presentation. But Scott insisted that he would rely on his own opinion. Asked if he ever told the task force that his proposal for the new terminal building had received financing, Scott insisted he did at the presentation, although the minutes did not record it. Martineau labelled his statement a lie, but Scott hotly retorted that he took offence at the language. Asked if he was ever directed by Edoo to make a presentation of a Build Operate Transfer (BOT) arrangement, Scott said yes, although not in those words and there was no documentary proof. Asked when, Scott recalled it was prior to October 9, 1996 when he arranged to come to Trinidad to make the presentation. He said Edoo told him “present what you have done” and all along it was known that his proposal was based on a BOT method. Scott also maintained that under his team’s proposal he was ready to start construction immediately and denied following the 1995 election when the new UNC government came into power, that his proposal was not ready. Martineau also put into evidence three letters supporting BHC as competent airport designers based on work done in Puerto Rico, St Croix and Jamaica. Asked by Martineau if it was not fair to say that the decision of the task force to recommend BHC as the preferred consultant was pre-ordained, Scott said that would only be so if the minutes of the first task force were ignored. At that meeting it was unanimously agreed that BHC was preferred over SAAI.

Thursday
Brief sitting after Wednesday’s marathon

AFTER a marathon session of eight hours on Wednesday, the Commissioin of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport Project sat for just five minutes on Thursday. The sitting began at 9.50 am and ended at 9.55 am. The reason - Commission attorney Justin Phelps, after a perusal of the transcripts of evidence from Canadian architect, David Scott, decided he had no further questions for Scott. He had indicated on Wednesday evening that he would have re-examined Scott for at least 15 minutes. As a result of  Phelps’ position, the sitting was adjourned.

Friday
Ish no longer taking part in inquiry

THE APPEARANCE of Ish Galbaransingh at the Commission has proven to be anti-climatic as his attorneys told the Commission on Friday, he was no longer taking part because the proceedings were “fundamentally flawed”. Galbaransingh withdrew from the proceedings after his attorneys Reginald Armour and Devesh Maharaj, were not allowed to make a submission. Chairman Clinton Bernard categorically said “no” to the request several times, indicating that the Commission’s procedural rules did not allow it. Galbaransingh is the principal of Northern Construction Limited (NCL), which received a number of contracts on the project. Galbaransingh appeared before the Commission last week Thursday based on a summons issued to him. He was due to question witnesses who have implicated him in the project. He was due to reappear on Friday, but failed to show up. Instead, Armour told the Commission Galb-aransingh was not present because he was advised to await their call. Armour then sought to make a submission, but was denied by Bernard. Bernard told Armour the Inquiry’s procedural rules did not provide for such submissions to be made and advised him that he should question David Scott. Armour was asked by Bernard what the submission was about. He said it was based on his view that the “proceedings were fundamentally flawed”. But Bernard did not entertain Armour. He stated emphatically that on the last occasion Armour appeared, in September 2001, he attempted to adopt the same course and was told at that time that he could not make a statement. Armour said he couldn’t understand how he could be denied yesterday, when his submission wasn’t heard. Bernard interrupted to ask: “Are you prepared to ask questions of Mr Scott?” Armour replied: “Not until I give my submission and have a ruling.” Bernard ruled: “No!” Armour said in the circumstances Galb-aransingh would not participate in the proceedings.