Tendered document contradicts chairman

Testimony of former Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) chairman Hubert Alleyne was contradicted by a legal document tendered into evidence yesterday, regarding a deposit of $4.5 million by National Poultry Company Ltd to the ADB as full and final payment on an outstanding $6 million loan, and a deed releasing the company’s mortgaged property in lieu of the payment. Alleyne had testified Thursday that when the company paid $4.5 million to the ADB, it was not full and final payment and that the bank did not release the property it held as security. However, after heated debate before Justice Amrika Tiwary-Reddy yesterday in the Port-of-Spain Third Civil Court, the document was admitted into evidence. The document was a deed of release of the property belonging to the poultry company which was held by the bank as security on the loan. The document, executed on September 26, 2002, was signed by the bank’s chairman, Hubert Alleyne, and corporate secretary, Sati Jagmohan.

In a bid to clear up the contradiction, Alleyne suggested some skullduggery and offered an  explanation — he alleged that at a Board meeting, the bank’s CEO, Seebalack Singh, had produced a letter addressed to the company, indicating that, notwithstanding the payment of $4.5 million, the loan would continue for the next two years. However, no mention of this letter was made in Alleyne’s affidavit. Alleyne earlier testified that during the two-year period the company would have to pay the interest on the loan. He said the idea was to invest the $4.5 million with Clico for two years, after which their investment would have increased to about $5.8 million. Alleyne was testifying on behalf of the ADB in a judicial review proceeding brought by Singh against a decision of the ADB Board to fire him on three allegations of misconduct — that he failed to carry out the Board’s instruction to invest the $4.5 million with Clico; that he misdirected the instructions of the Board; and that he distributed the bank’s private and confidential documents when he sought a legal opinion on the decision to invest with Clico.

Singh is claiming that the investment with Clico was illegal and ultra vires. Singh is being defended by Fenton Ramsahoye SC, Anand Ramlogan, Narendra Beharry and assisted by British attorney Jodie Blackstok. Ramsahoye is out of the country and Ramlogan has been conducting the case. The ADB is represented by Elton Prescott and Phillip Lamont. In response to a question by  Ramlogan, Alleyne admitted he had brushed aside concerns of Singh about the criticism made by the Auditor General and the Minister of Finance pertaining to a previous investment the bank had with Clico.

Among the Auditor General’s criticism was that the policy contract indicates that benefits would be paid to anyone who qualifies for such a benefit, and that beneficiaries of this policy would be persons employed by the bank. Singh and Feona Lue-Ping-Wa had expressed their concerns about the legality of this investment to Alleyne and the Board. Lue-Ping-Wa had bluntly refused to sign the document, and chairman Alleyne was asked to sign it as he had done previously, but he refused. Lue-Ping-Wa was also fired and she too has taken the ADB to court. Evidence in the matter came to an end yesterday after six days. Attorneys on both sides will have to make submissions in writing and later address the court on some of those issues raised.