Govt to forgive PM $million debt

Government is well on the road to forgiving Prime Minister Patrick Manning his million dollar debt to the State incurred as a result of his unsuccessful court challenge in 1997 to the crossing of the floor by former PNM MPs Vincent Lasse and Rupert Griffith.

In response to a question in the House of Representatives yesterday, acting Attorney General Camille Robinson-Regis, revealed that Manning paid on December 27, 2002, a sum of $555,000, which “ranks among the largest sums ever paid by any person to the State in respect of legal costs.” But Manning has asked for a waiver of the outstanding balance which as at December 1, 2003, totalled $1,072,018.82. The request which was made while the UNC was in office, is “under consideration by the Ministry of the Attorney-General,” Robinson-Regis stated.

Robinson-Regis said that the Chief State Solicitor had in 2000, “during the tenure of the previous UNC administration” formulated a draft policy treating with the collection of costs awarded to the State. The policy is currently being studied by the Attorney General and would be submitted to the Cabinet “in the very near future” for its consideration. “Himself to himself,” Siparia MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar remarked as it became clear that Manning satisfied three of the four critieria cited in this draft policy for waiving costs. Robinson-Regis stated that the time had come for Government of Trinidad and Tobago and by extension the State to adopt a clear and measured policy with regard to the pursuit of costs awarded to the State. 

Robinson-Regis stated that the State had as a general rule met with very little or no success in the recovery of costs in both private and public law matters. The average quantum of costs awarded to the State in any matter which has gone to trial, was $12,000 to $15,000, which meant that the Manning matter where joint costs amounted to just over $1 million were extremely rare and an aberration. Robinson-Regis said that while the position of the State has been to generally rely on the Chief State Solicitor to pursue costs, there had never been a stated official position to treat with what may be described as the varying circumstances of each case in which costs were awarded.